Alan Keyes
February 12, 2002

ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Hi, I am Alan Keyes. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.

We are going to talk about campaign finance reform. And in fact, I'll be taking on one of the proponents of the legislation that's on the table in our debate sequence, when we get to the bottom line. But all day long, I have had in the back of my mind, though, a problem. As like a lot of you, I have been trying to figure out just what it was I was supposed to do with the terror alert that we got yesterday and the information that an unknown Yemeni was going with 16 of his colleagues to go we don't know where, to do we don't know what. And we should all be increasingly vigilant. Now, I don't mean — it's a serious issue and one shouldn't be making fun of it, but it does pose a question that we are going to take it on seriously tomorrow night in dealing with the question: What is our role these days in civil defense? Is there something that as citizens we can do?

We are going to bring together some experts and deal with this problem that I bet has been tickling at your consciousness just the way it was bothering me all day. And maybe we'll find some answers. So join us tomorrow for a very special show on the special that I think has been on all our minds.

But tonight, we are going to a subject that ought to be on all our minds, and it's going to have an impact on our politics that will last a long time if it goes through, the campaign finance reform bills that are on the table. A vote is expected on the bill tomorrow evening, but the debate began on Capitol Hill today. In the wake of the Enron scandal, you've got a bunch of folks saying, well, that proves that is we need these new campaign finance reforms, and we've got to push this bill.

Take a listen to Congressman Meehan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARTIN MEEHAN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Mr. Speaker, more than any other recent scandal, the unfolding Enron tragedy has made it clear that under the present system money talks and public interest walks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: Now, of course, if you have been following the coverage of the Enron scandals, you will note that there are no facts that support the relevance of Enron to the issue of political corruption. Apparently they salted a lot of money around in different places, but they didn't get anything for it. That's part of the problem. But there are those who say that this whole effort at campaign finance reform is, in any case, no reform at all.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS REYNOLDS (R), NEW YORK: There are some mechanisms to limit free speech while turning over power and decisions to parts of the media and the wealthy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: We are going to be addressing some of the key questions that are raised in this area tonight. First of all, we are going to examine this claim that Enron proves the need for this bill. They say it, but where is the beef?

Next, we are going to look as well at, I think the critical question here, the one that ought to be our central concern. We have all kinds of things going on, people telling us political corruption is the aim and so forth and so on. And yet, when you look at the way the bill actually operates, is there a hidden agenda that's really aimed at deconstructing the activism of grassroots America, destroying the watchdog groups and undermining the ability of independent groups to communicate with the voters prior to critical elections? Does this bill, in fact, end corruption? Or is it aimed at consolidating a system of corruption that is supporting a lot of the key politicians today, who get their money from the mobilization of corporate networks of influence, but who don't want grassroots groups and others interfering with the voters' minds before Election Day?

This is exactly the sort of question that I have felt was critical throughout the examination of this whole issue, and yet, we have had folks building on very little fact who have been promoting a stampede in support of so-called campaign finance reform. You look at the facts. And what are the components of this bill? It's a bill that aims to get after the parties and make sure they don't get soft money. The parties, one of the last remaining true grassroots structures in American politics. It goes after independent groups, so that they won't be able to communicate with their friends and neighbors and supporters at times of critical elections.

We need to be able to understand the agenda that may really be behind all of this, and I asked to join me tonight, Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation. It's a constitutional public interest law firm. He has a strong interest in and background in the constitutional issues that are raised by this bill, but also its political implications, which I think are devastating.

Welcome to the show, Phil — glad you could join us tonight.

PHIL KENT, SOUTHESTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION: Thanks, Alan — great to be with you.

KEYES: What are some of the problems that have been raised in the area of constitutionality with this bill? I know that there are concerns that this will actually constitute an assault on the freedom of speech of key independent organizations in grassroots groups. Is there truth to this?

KENT: Well, absolutely. You are starting to strip the bark off of the tree, Alan. There is actually three areas of serious constitutional problems. It's all cloaked in very reasonable language, but this is one of the most insidious pieces of legislation to come down the pike. Freedom of speech, you have got gag rules. You have advocacy ads that are going to be censored 60 days out of a general election, 30 days out of a primary election. And this...

KEYES: Now, hold on a second, Phil, because this has to be clear to people.

KENT: OK.

KEYES: Sixty days before an election, the independent groups — right — now, we are not talking here about anybody who is associated with campaigns and so forth. Independent groups won't be able to have issue ads and advocacy ads?

KENT: That is absolutely correct. You know, advocacy groups are all Americans. I mean, it could be doctors, lawyers, plumbers. It can be the NAACP. It could be the AARP. It could be the NRA. All of these would be censored. It's a very double standard here, and of course....

KEYES: But what I don't understand, Phil — wait a second. What does this have to do with corruption? I don't understand why the ability of independent watchdog groups to tell voters what they have seen in terms of somebody's record and their speeches and their background. You know, people work every day. They don't have time to follow all of these things closely, so a lot of people rely on these groups to tell them what's going on. What is the corruption involved in their work?

KENT: Well, you are absolutely right to say that and ask that question. The Shays-Meehan proponents and McCain and Feingold proponents say, oh, wait a minute, these groups are merely extensions of the political parties, and therefore have to be throttled. And only we can have our speech.

KEYES: So I don't understand. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, groups that are started by grassroots people, the Sierra Club, all of the are considered by these folks to be somehow corrupt instruments of some political party or candidate? I think that would be deeply offensive.

KENT: Yes.

KEYES: Don't we have laws, anyway?

KENT: You know, it is offensive...

KEYES: Don't we have laws to prevent that?

KENT: Well, it really is offensive. Well, we don't — we have got the U.S. Constitution that's about to be trampled, and that's why the Southeastern Legal Foundation stands ready to sue, if God forbid, this Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold bill ever becomes law. But yes, we have got the U.S. Constitution, and that's why I am so glad you're focusing on this critical area.

You know, we can talk about hard money. We can talk about soft money. It is true the courts have allowed some regulation of these monies over the years. But let's talk about the serious constitutional issue involved, especially free speech.

KEYES: Well, one of the things that disturb me is, is I have looked at the pattern of giving and so forth. It seems that a lot of money flows into political coughers from what I call the corporate networks of influence. These are hard money contributions within the $1,000 limits and other limits that are imposed on individual contributions, but which are mobilized by, you know, people going through the rolodex of corporate power brokers, making sure that people are following the lead of their corporate leaders, showing up at dinners where if you don't show up, the boss is not going to be happy with you and et cetera. So they mobilize these kinds of contributions.

Is this bill, are these proposed reforms going to have any effect on that source of political financing? Or is that going to be pretty much left the way it is?

KENT: Basically hard money is going to be left alone. In fact, the whole Enron debacle that you hear so much about and that Shays and Meehan and probably your next guest, Congressman Ford — he will be talking about Enron — has absolutely nothing to do with this. That is hard money.

KEYES: Well, see, this is part of what I don't understand though, because the soft money they talk about goes to the political parties. And as I see them, the parties are one of the formal organizational structures through which people at the grassroots still participate in American politics. Why would you want to assault the parties' role? Doesn't that just, again, add to the possibility that this bill is really just about cutting the grassroots out of the political process?

KENT: Well, it is. It's cutting the grassroots out. It's cutting the political parties out. And I think political parties are a great thing. It helps foster the national debate and they recruit the candidates. And all it is, it's going to be special speech for the big corporate interests, the big TV stations and all of those editorial writers that can pontificate right up to the eve of an election. It's a blatant double standard. It's unconstitutional.

And, Alan, there are a couple of other areas of constitutional problems we ought to focus on. There is a terrible loophole here, when it comes to equal protection. Do you know that Indian tribes are exempt from Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold? It's an absolute outrage. Not all groups are treated equally under this bill. And so you've got the Indian tribes — incidentally, they were the biggest donors to the Democratic Party to the tune of $1.5 million in the 2000 cycle. And do you know who the biggest recipient of Indian donations was? Senator John McCain. So a hypocritical loophole there.

KEYES: Well, I think that one of the problems here is that this seems to be an effort that claims to be doing so much to clean up the corrupt influence of money. And yet, when you examine it closely, they are actually consolidating the influence of money, restricting it to those areas, which are the contributors that have supported some of these kinds of politicians and drying up the resources and the clout of the grassroots structures and organizations. Essentially, it will be the big media, the big corporations, the politicos, they will be alone in the political arena, and nobody will be able to operate except under their patronage. A kind of political futilism will take the place over.

Phil, thank you for being with me tonight — really appreciate your help...

KENT: Thank you, Alan.

KEYES: ... in elucidating this matter for the people who are watching MAKING SENSE and for the American people. Next...

KENT: Well, keep hammering away.

KEYES: I'll do my best — you too.

Next, we'll get to the heart of the matter. We are going to have some folks on, on both sides of this issue to sit down and set to a little bit about its implications. And later, on a personal note, I want to tell you about the man who taught me more about political principle than anyone else in my life.

But first, does this make sense? There have been two carriers for the press corps that flies behind the White House, the folk who aren't on the president's plane but fly with him. A charter — a Canadian charter company that carries the press corps to Quebec and to five European countries, this Air Trans (ph) included planes that ran out of fuel, that had problems in a flight over the Atlantic and had to make a forced landing. It later emerged learned that the captain had served time in prison two decades earlier for transporting drugs. There were reports that the wrong engine had been put on the plane. They then switched another airline that had fires and all kinds of problems.

Now, I know that a president might occasionally have some misgivings about the press corps, but you bring them along to give you coverage. If you kill them first, hmm, does this make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.

We are talking about campaign finance reform, so-called, and whether or not there may be an anti-grassroots hidden agenda behind all the rhetoric of reforming corruption and the bad influence of money in American politics.

Joining me now to get to the heart of the matter is election law attorney, Cleta Mitchell. Also with us is Scott Harshbarger, the president of Common Cause, and Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, president of the League of Women Voters — welcome all to MAKING SENSE.

Now, my first question, which I want everyone to take a crack at, is how is it that folks are saying that the Enron scandal is the reason why all of this campaign finance reform has to move forward urgently, when as far as we can tell from what's on the table, the facts in the Enron case don't support the notion that they got anything in the way of political influence for all these contributions?

Cleta Mitchell, what sense does this make?

CLETA MITCHELL, ELECTION LAW ATTORNEY: Well, it doesn't make any sense at all. I think the most important thing to know here is that “The Washington Post” ran an editorial two weeks ago saying that over 200 of the members of Congress who are on the committees investigating Enron actually received contributions from Enron. Well, guess what this bill does? This bill will, when it's finished, have doubled the amount of money that those executives could have given to these candidates and members of Congress.

So it's a false premise, but it's good rhetoric and it sells well with the media. And it's a simplification for a way to a justification to get something that the proponents have been trying to get done for a while. So it bears no resemblance to reality, but that doesn't always matter in politics.

KEYES: Scott, given the facts that are in front of us, what does Enron really tell us about this political corruption? I don't get it.

SCOTT HARSHBARGER, COMMON CAUSE PRESIDENT: Well, Enron shows what the culture of influence is in Washington. Enron bought, by investing millions of dollars, mostly soft money, unlimited contributions given to the parties, what they bought was an exemption from legitimate government oversight that cost thousands of people their jobs, lost their pensions and $60 billion in shareholder value lost. In addition they bought...

KEYES: Well, wait a minute, Scott...

HARSHBARGER: ... they bought all — they have bought exemption from tax laws. They got special treatment in terms of various contracts. They invested a huge amount of money to get billions of dollars in return, and that's why this is such a classic example of why you need to get rid of the most corrupting money, which is the soft money, the unlimited amounts of money from corporations, wealthy individuals and unions.

KEYES: But...

HARSHBARGER: That's what soft money ban is all about.

KEYES: Scott, we will have to get back to this question of what was bought and what was deliberate in one minute. But I want to hear first from Caroline Jefferson Jenkins on this subject. I mean, why does Enron prove the point when, from all we can see, they made a lot of phone calls, but didn't get any help?

CAROLYN JEFFERSON-JENKINS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: Well, your point is that Enron does prove the point. The bigger discussion is whether or not the soft money loopholes allow big corporate interests to outweigh the voice of the citizens. And that's exactly what happened here. If you look at the energy legislation, if you look at things that have been garnered by the corporate special interest, they have drowned out the voice of the citizens. So Enron is just a lightning rod right now for the broader issue, and that's the need for the passage of campaign finance reform.

KEYES: Well, see, this is what I have a problem with, because you all have painted a broad brush. You have mentioned all kinds of different areas which essentially some people took a different view than you of certain kinds of political legislation. And then, you have suggested that some politicians were bought and sold, and it seems to me to be kind of an insinuation, where there are no facts to back it up.

Where are the facts that actually suggest in the Enron case that money was spent and favors were given? Where, in fact, is the proof of this, Scott? I don't see it.

HARSHBARGER: Well, there's — if there was an exact quid pro quo, there would be a basis for a criminal indictment. This is about the use of money to get influence and access to essentially keep the government from acting. That's what happened here with Enron and Andersen. The Securities Exchange Commission wanted to take action to separate the auditing functions from consulting functions. They wanted to take action to prevent some of these things, and the reality was that because of the contributions and because of the influence Enron had, it essentially got Congress to intervene to prevent the oversight. It is essentially getting them to do nothing (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Hold on a second. Cleta Mitchell, I am having a problem here that I want you to help me address, because I am listening to what's being said on either side here. And I guess the difficulty I have is we can make general statements like this, but where's the beef? I need to know what exactly specifically are we talking about. The business practices here raise difficulties, but did somebody in Congress stop the regulatory agencies...

(CROSSTALK)

HARSHBARGER: Oh, absolutely.

MITCHELL: Let me say this.

HARSHBARGER: Absolutely they did.

KEYES: Cleta?

HARSHABARGER: Absolutely they did.

MITCHELL: If they did, it was not because of contributions to the political parties. It was because of political contributions to the members of Congress, and there is nothing in this bill that outlaws any kind of contributions to members of Congress. In fact, the bill and the proponents of the bill are prepared to introduce an amendment to double the amount of money that can be given to members of Congress.

President Bush had said when he was running for president that one of the principles he supported was that members of Congress should not be able to solicit or receive contributions from lobbyists during the congressional session. Do you see that reform contained in this bill? No. Do you see anything in this bill that does anything except protect incumbent members of Congress from challengers, from wealthy opponents. It doubles the amount of money they can raise.

There is nothing that allows citizens to speak out 60 days before an election. Trust me on this. This is by the incumbents, for the incumbents, and the only other people who benefit are the media and wealthy individuals, not common people.

HARSHBARGER: Now, that's just not true.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: That's not true.

MITCHELL: It is absolutely true — absolutely true.

HARSHBARGER: The fact is the present system is exactly what Cleta just describes. That's the system. It protects incumbents. This is banning only one aspect, soft money that goes to the parties, which is funneled to candidates in violation of federal law. And that's what is going on here. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are money laundering devices...

MITCHELL: You cannot establish — now, Scott, if you have evidence...

HARSHBARGER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are money laundering devices...

MITCHELL: Scott, that is already illegal, and I have said for years if you guys can prove and demonstrate any evidence that money was funneled o members of Congress or candidates for Congress, soft money, that is already illegal and that could be prosecuted.

KEYES: Well, see, one of the problems...

MITCHELL: You can't prove it.

HARSHBARGER: In fact, it's not...

KEYES: Hold on. One of the problems...

HARBARGER: It's not illegal.

KEYES: Hold on everyone. Everyone hold on — hold on.

HARSHBARGER: It's perfectly legal.

KEYES: One of the problems here is I keep hearing these insinuations and these charges and so forth and so on, and yet the specifics to back them up, specific instances where the law has been broken and so forth and so on. If they were there, I am sure they would be trotted out. We haven't heard them.

And one other problem, which I want everyone to take a crack at, why is it corrupt and somehow something we need to eliminate and stop for the Sierra Club or the NRA or NOW or any other independent organization to step into the process and inform voters of what they know about what someone has done and said on issues of great concern to them, to their membership, to others in the country? How is this corruption, Carolyn Jefferson-Jones (sic)? How is it corruption? I don't understand it.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: And, Alan, that's a misrepresentation of what the legislation does.

MITCHELL: No, it isn't. It's exactly...

(CROSSTALK)

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: If you would let me — if you would let me finish my statement.

KEYES: Please, let her finish, please.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: Thank you. It is 60 days out the likeness of a candidate cannot be a part of the sham issue ads. And that's what they are, sham issue ads. Regular issue advocacy, legitimate issue advocacy no one is questioning. It's the sham issue ads, where 60 days out from an election, you would be saying “Vote for this person or don't vote for this person.”

MITCHELL: And the government gets to decide — the government decides what's a real issue ad and what's a sham issue ad.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: It's...

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: Congress gets to decide.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: No.

MITCHELL: Remember the First Amendment, the first five words of the First Amendment say? Congress shall make...

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: The legislation is clear...

MITCHELL: ... no law.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: The legislation is clear that we are talking about likeness and candidates...

MITCHELL: That the...

(CROSSTALK)

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: We are not — no.

KEYES: Wait, wait a minute.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: The government is not deciding.

KEYES: Scott, again, I am listening to the conversation. I am saying to myself, wait a minute. I can understand why politicians would want to make sure that nobody can report to the voters on their record, on their voting, on their speeches, on their stands within 60 days of election. You want to shut the watchdogs up, keep them from barking.

MITCHELL: You bet.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: No, that's not at all what it is.

KEYES: But I frankly — wait a minute. I frankly don't see, though, how that improves the environment and curtails corruption. Would you explain that to me?

HARSHBARGER: Alan, look, I have been in elected life. I have gone through this. All this says is that if you want to run those ads, during the election period, you must use legal money, and you must disclose your contributors.

MITCHELL: Money from individuals.

HARSHBARGER: It does not prohibit anybody from talking about legitimate issues, from raising legitimate issues. It absolutely does nothing, except balance the appearance of impropriety and the potential for corruption against the First Amendment.

MITCHELL: Now, here is...

HARSHBARGER: It is perfectly reasonable. But more importantly...

MITCHELL: Here is what it does.

HARSHBARGER: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Cleta has argued this all the time. All we are saying if this is such — this is a small first step, ban the soft money, the unregulated money that comes to the parties that goes to individuals. It does not build grassroots. The parties have stopped engaging in grassroots organizational activity. It's time for an act of conscience. It's time for people in Congress to stand up and change the rules of the game that got them elected. That's all this is about.

KEYES: Now, what I think is so fascinating here is that when we get into this discussion, and we have Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins acknowledging you can't refer to the candidates, can't have the likeness and so forth and so on. I am meaning to say that people coming forward to give a report to other voters about what has been done by the politicians on issues what they care about...

MITCHELL: And at a time when they are interested.

KEYES: ... they can't do this. And you're telling me let's not look at that.

HARSHBARGER: Of course, they can. They can absolutely do it.

(CROSSTALK)

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: Alan, we are talking about public trust and confidence.

HARSHBARGER: They can absolutely do it. That's simply wrong, Alan.

MITCHELL: It is not wrong. It is not wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

HARSHBARGER: They can absolutely do it. They just can't use money from corporate treasuries...

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: That means — now wait.

HARSHBARGER: That's all.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: And no one is...

MITCHELL: This is a very important point. This is a very important point.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: No one is contradicting the...

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: This has...

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: Well, wait a minute. No one is contradicting the right for fair campaigning.

HARSHBARGER: Right. Exactly.

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: We are trying to rebuild public trust and confidence.

MITCHELL: That's right.

(CROSSTALK)

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: So let's do it the right way. Let's do it the right way.

MITCHELL: Well, let's — so here is what this bill does. This says that if you are a wealthy person, and you have $1 million, you can spend that money out of your pocket and say whatever you want to. But if you are an organization, whether it's the NRA or handgun control, and you have a million members giving $1 a piece, they can't — those organizations cannot run an ad contradicting what the wealthy person can spend $1 million saying.

HARSHBARGER: That's not true.

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: Now, you tell me why that's right. That is absolutely inappropriate,and it's a violation.

HARSHBARGER: Well, first of all...

JEFFERSON-JENKINS: That's a good fairy tale.

HARSHBARGER: ... there is now answer that — first of all, it's simply not true.

MITCHELL: It is true?

HARSHBARGER: But the second part is...

MITCHELL: That's exactly what the bill says.

HARSHBARGER: ... if this was such an issue, then that is nothing to do with the banning the soft money that...

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: That's a separate section of the bill.

HARSHBARGER: ... comes from (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It has nothing to do with that issue.

MITCHELL: This is section two. This is section two.

KEYES: Hold on — hold on...

HARSHBARGER: And if you can't win that one, you got to the other one.

KEYES: You're allotted time — wait a minute. Scott, Scott, Scott...

HARSHBARGER: This is trying to stop that kind of influence.

KEYES: Scott, Scott, that is what I find amusing about what you all are doing, because when it gets right down to it and we start looking at the harsh effects that this will have on the ability of people at the grassroots to participate in our politics without the patronage, in fact, of the big corporations and so forth and so on, you then shift back to saying, well, it's all about soft money.

HARSHBARGER: No, it's not.

KEYES: But of course — if I could finish — even the soft money aspects of this bill are directed at the one remaining organizational structure...

MITCHELL: That's right.

KEYES: ... formally existing in our politics in which the grassroots people can still have access. That it's not all about getting money and putting on media, and that's the parties. When you put the two things together, the spirit of this legislation is the most anti-grassroots spirit we have ever seen in a piece of legislation in American life, in my lifetime. The aim of it is basically to create a dessert in which you will have the corporate big wigs and the politicians and the media, and the people will just have to shut up and take what they give us.

MITCHELLS: And wealthy individuals...

KEYES: And I don't see why should this be — why should this be of interest to us? Why is this somehow favorable to the people?

HARSHBARGER: People already have been shut up in this. Right now, money talks and it's time to begin to change that. This is the only way that people will have an opportunity to have their voice and their vote counted.

KEYES: Well...

MITCHELL: When this bill passes...

KEYES: OK, hold on, hold on.

MITCHELL: When this bill passes, money doesn't just talk, money shouts, money screams.

KEYES: And the one thing I think that's quite clear here is that money is still going to scream here.

MITCHELL: That's right.

KEYES: It's just going to be certain money going to certain people. But the money that supports the independent organizations, that money is going to be useless, because they will be under a muzzle, so that they can't tell people what they've seen. And how this fosters an end to corruption, I think is anybody's guess.

Thanks, everyone, for joining me today.

HARSHBARGER: Thank you.

KEYES: Cleta, Scott, Carolyn — really appreciate the lively

discussion.

Well, it's not over yet. Don't y'all go away, because coming up, I will be taking on one of the congressional proponents of this bill, and as you can see, it's not exactly what I think is a great idea. So we're going mix it up a little bit.

Later, we'll get to what's on your mind. You can call me at 1-888-keyes-usa. 1-888-keyes-usa.

First of all, though, does this make sense? Ted Turner has been criticized for remarks he made at Brown University in which he said that these terrorists who hit the World Trade Centers were brave, but probably a little nuts. Let's see, Ted Turner speaking at Brown University. Does this make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.

Now, we are in the context of the big Enron scandal. There has been a big push for campaign finance reform. Tonight, we have been talking about the contents of that reform, its implications, and my own sense that we are really dealing here with something that is aimed at undercutting grassroots activism and participation.

We had hoped to have this evening, and we had agreement from Congressman Shays, one of the key co-sponsors of the bill, to be on with us in this segment, but we heard a little before 9:00 that he was planning to be in a meeting at this time.

So joining us now to take his place, the very capable Howard Ford Jr., Democrat from Tennessee, also very committed to the bill that is on the table. And I'd like to address this question first and then, of course...

REP. HAROLD FORD, JR. (D), TENNESSEE: Sorry I am on the second team here, Mr. Keyes. I am glad I made the cut.

(LAUGHTER)

KEYES: That doesn't mean that you have second-string talent from what I have seen though. So I am glad that you were able to be with us tonight.

FORD: Thanks, Alan.

KEYES: First question I have, which I have been putting to the folks on the panel and elsewhere, I don't really understand what issue ads by independent grassroots organizations have to do with corruption. I don't see it. Can you help me out here? Because it seems to me like these are people who are actually helping to stop corruption, watchdog groups, others who are keeping tabs on what the politicians are doing. Why go after their participation?

FORD: You remember as a federal candidate, we were limited, you and I both as a federal candidate, I am limited to how much money I can take from PACs and individuals. I am limited so much that I have to set a budget for my media advertising, for my GOTV, get out the vote efforts, and all other campaign activities.

One of the things that soft money allows you to do and the parties to do is to really direct it towards candidates in political race, and to use that money in a variety of ways. In addition, it allows for ads to be run right near and around election time that quite frankly I believe violates federal law even today. What we are hoping to do with this limit on sham issue ads is to get back to the original intent of the law, which is to allow issue ads, organizations like the League of Women Voters and the National Rifle Association. Even ones I agree or disagree with have every right to run as they choose to run. The problem we see is that near the end of the campaign, these organizations sometimes walk right up to the law, not violating the law.

The Shays-Meehan bill, which I believe will pass in the next 24 to 36 hours, will limit those sham ads, ban soft money at the federal level and increase disclosure, which in many ways will do the opposite of what you suggested, Mr. Keyes, which is to actually activate grassroots politics and allow students...

KEYES: Well, Congressman...

FORD: ... allow seniors and allow neighborhood activists to be more involved, and more importantly allow for their voices to be heard in more meaningful and considerable and substantive ways.

KEYES: Congressman, the problem I have, though, is we use this language, and we say sham issue ads. Under the law right now, coordination between independent groups in ways that consciously support these campaigns, that's against the law.

FORD: It's illegal.

KEYES: People don't take that risk, because if they did, it would destroy their organizations, and everybody knows this. And I am always amused, people say these are sham ads and so forth and so on, isn't that dangerously close to slander against these organizations? If you think...

FORD: But...

KEYES: Wait, wait, wait.

FORD: Yes, sir.

KEYES: If you have proof that they have violated the law in this regards, why don't you bring it forward and let the law take its course, rather than just operate on insinuations in order to destroy their ability to influence and communicate with their fellow citizens in a way that actually activates their freedom of speech? Where is the proof...

FORD: Mr. Keyes, you are a good man.

KEYES: ... that these organizations are sham ads? Where is the proof? I am asking why isn't it on the table?

FORD: You are good man. I have never known you to defend people like union chiefs and union bosses and Enron executives. These issue ads are sponsored and financed by union bosses, by large corporation chiefs and by very wealthy individuals. It has been shown that more than 70 percent of the soft money raised in this last election cycle was given by less than a few hundred entities, persons and as well as companies. Why we are defending that, I have no idea.

If indeed we are concerned and committed to giving this process back to the people, restoring confidence and integrity in the process, then allow the voters to have unvarnished, to borrow Vice President Cheney's favorite word, an unvarnished look at its candidates and those seeking political office. I believe that those of us seeking office, like you did when you ran for president, should have to go into the neighborhood, should have to go into the community, should have to go into the caucus meetings. With this soft money and these huge sums of money spent by corporations and unions, you are sometimes not allowed to do that, or quite frankly, not encouraged to do that. The real issue here is we have a system...

KEYES: Well, the...

FORD: ... in which allows the soft money...

KEYES: The interesting thing — Congressman.

FORD: ... to find their way it the system.

KEYES: Congressman, the interesting thing...

FORD: And we have an opportunity to correct it. Forgive me.

KEYES: The interesting thing about what you are saying is first of all, the major resources of hard money mobilization, the mobilization of corporate networks, CEOs and others who get their executives to contribute the hard money that supports a lot of these candidates, that's not going to be affected. The money mobilized through various kinds of political action committees, through corporate, which corporate people can contribute to and so forth. It's not going to be affected.

The kinds of things we are talking about, and I notice everybody slides away from this in various ways, is that 60 days out from an election, I am somebody who has followed the record of the congressman from Tennessee or the congressman from Michigan and so forth and so on. And I am not going to be able to look voters in the eye and say this is what he did. This is what he said on the issues that you and I care about affecting the environment, affecting the second amendment, affecting the abortion issue, affecting the pro-life cause.

I don't understand how the communication between grassroots, activist organizations and the people in a district, in a state, in the country, constitutes a form of corruption. Why are we interfering with this?

FORD: Understand what we do here, Mr. Keyes, and perhaps there's a misunderstanding. What we ban is soft money. You are still allowed to raise hard money. So if Alan Keyes formed an organization, and you raised denominations of less than $5,000 from all your supporters, you can run any ad you choose.

KEYES: No, no, I don't understand...

FORD: All...

KEYES: ... no wait a minute.

FORD: No, no (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

KEYES: We are not talking about candidates. I am not talking about candidates here.

FORD: But you...

KEYES: Specifically address...

(CROSSTALK)

FORD: If Alan Keyes wanted to advocate for the second amendment...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Well, that is to say wealthy individuals address the specific question...

FORD: No.

KEYES: ... of whether or not an organization out there that cares about the environment and that wants to talk about a congressman...

FORD: They can, as long as they don't use soft money, Mr. Keyes.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: .... can, in fact, address this question.

FORD: I don't think you like my answer. But the law or the bill in which we supporting in the Congress allows any organization to do that. An organization that may support something that I find obnoxious or you find obnoxious, as long as they raise it in smaller denominations. All we suggest is that — and Alan Keyes Harold Ford, if we were to form an organization, and you with all your wealth, Mr. Keyes, decided to fund that organization single handedly, you couldn't do it. We would have to go out and raise monies less than...

KEYES: Well, congressman...

(CROSSTALK)

FORD: ... denominations of less than $5,000 a piece.

KEYES: Congressman...

FORD: And with every ad, you choose what you choose.

KEYES: ... with all of my wealth, I certainly couldn't do it, because that's a nonexistent Entity.

FORD: All it takes for environmental groups, a pro-choice, a pro-life or pro-gun or anti-gun, whatever the group may be, as long as that group — and I think this point was trying to be made in the last segment. As long as the group raises money in denominations of less than $5,000 apiece from any and all individuals...

KEYES: Yes, indeed.

FORD: ... they can run whatever ad they choose...

KEYES: Now...

FORD: ... whenever they choose....

KEYES: ... this is the sad — Congressman.

FORD: ... even up to 60 days before an election.

KEYES: Congressman Ford, this is the sad truth.

FORD: Yes, sir.

KEYES: What you have just described is exactly what is wrong with the system. We have the corporate networks of influence, where you get the guys who can mobilize the big bucks through their networks within their corporations, who can get the contributions of $1,000 and $500 out there in great numbers. They are supporting these candidates and mobilizing by the tens of millions. And meanwhile, the grassroots organizations that are out there, who might have support from smaller donors but whom might have a smaller cadre of contributors who could give larger amounts of money to help equalize the playing field, with those corporate networks, and you are telling them, no, we won't let you do that. You'll only are going to able to nickel-and-dime it, so that you won't be able effectively to communicate with your constituents. You are not making the playing field equal. You are making it unequal and isolating power in the hands of those corporate networks of influence.

FORD: Well, one thing that we can't dispute are the facts; 97 percent of the people who run for reelection in the Congress and the Senate are re-elected. So what system are you defending? Are you suggesting that all incumbents are correct? One of your previous guests suggested that some how or another, this new system or the Shays-Meehan system or McCain-Feingold, whatever you choose to call it, would actually be an incumbent protection plan, asinine.

The plan we have in place now, the laws we have in place now do nothing but support incumbents. If there is an incumbency protection plan in place, it is the one today. We believe firmly, and the Congress will have an opportunity to decide this issue in the next, again, day-and-a-half, and I believe it will pass. It will pass with support from Republicans and overwhelming support from Democrats.

And I believe at the end of the day, Mr. Keyes, those folks like you and those powerful voices, even when I disagree with you, I salute and respect your voice, will have an opportunity to be heard more and more. And I hope your eloquent voice is not heard as much as others, because I think you can be convincing. But it will allow for many, many voices, voices that are not as well heeled and well resourced as others to be heard in this process. It will force us to go back, campaign in our districts and not hide behind the huge money from unions or corporations, particularly corporations like Enron and executives like Ken Lay.

KEYES: Congressman, the thing that I find most interesting about the result here, first of all, I am not a defender of the present system either, because I think that the whole idea that you have the right to step in and dictate how people use their wherewithal to mobilize for free speech and political association is, itself, in concept, a thing that is used by incumbents to defend against the freedom of the people. The whole system stinks, and every step we have taken of so-called reform has, in fact, consolidated the power...

FORD: What would you propose we do, Mr. Keyes?

KEYES: ... has, in fact, consolidated the power of the few. And this proposed reform is moving in the same direction as all the others and will make the situation even worse. My proposal?

FORD: What would you propose — yes, sir.

KEYES: My proposal is very simple. I have said it many times.

FORD: I am going to write it down.

KEYES: No dollar vote without a ballot vote. That is to say the only folks who can make these political contributions of any kind would be individuals, not corporations, not any entity that can't step into the voting booth and vote. No dollar vote without a ballot vote.

Second, I wouldn't have all of these phony limits and other sorts of things. Let people give what they believe in, but make sure that it's going to be something that is out there in the open, where the voters can scrutinize it and know who is giving what to whom. That is a system that would respect freedom, remove the influence of corporations and others and move us forward with real freedom for grassroots people. And that's a proposal I have made many times over the years.

So I am glad you are taking it down, because I hope you will move forward with it.

FORD: I did. I did. Well, I think this bill does a lot of what you want it to do. It's not a panacea, but it is a great start. We increased disclosure. That's the third tenet of it. We banned this unregulated, unlimited soft money from those who believe it is just corporations. It's not for those who believe it's just union, it's not. We say to trial lawyers, we say to union chiefs, we say to Enron executives, we say to other corporate leaders, that you will not dominate and control this political process. We will put it back in the hands of the people.

I think it's a good start, and I hope that...

KEYES: Congressman...

FORD: ... my colleagues will give it a chance to pass one day.

KEYES: Congressman, I really appreciate your willingness to step in for us tonight. And I'm...

FORD: I'm sorry you had the second team. Maybe you will get the first team the next time (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KEYES: Hey, wait. I've was about to tell you, Congressman, I've got to tell you, I think we got the first string tonight.

FORD: You are kind.

KEYES: And if we didn't get it today, we are looking at where it will be tomorrow. So I appreciate your coming on and thank you for taking this on.

FORD: My first time being on here, and I have great respect for you. Thank you for having me on, Mr. Keyes.

KEYES: Thank you — appreciate it very much.

FORD: Absolutely.

KEYES: Later on, a personal note, I am going to be talking to you about one of the greatest teachers in my life, somebody who has influenced me greatly.

But first, I want to hear what's on your mind, so give me a call. I made a mistake before, 1-866 — they have got all these different numbers now — 1-866-keyes-usa. 1-866-keyes-usa. So call us, and we'll be right back to see what's on your mind.

You are watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. We have been talking about whether there is a hidden agenda aimed at the grassroots in this whole talk of so-called campaign finance reform. Now, I am going to hear what's on your mind.

We'll go to John in North Carolina first up — welcome to MAKING SENSE.

CALLER: Thank you very much, Dr. Keyes. I think all this talk of campaign finance reform is a waste of time, sir. Only term limits is going to stop the politicians from buying their jobs and will give the government back to the people. And that's why we can't get them to discuss that issue, sir.

KEYES: Well, I have been, as you know, a supporter of the idea of term limits. I don't think it's a panacea, but given the incumbency protection system we have erected, it is a necessary step to make sure we get good competition and circulation in the system. But I think this campaign so-called reform effort is moving in just the opposite direction, consolidating the existing structure of incumbency protection, sad to say. Thanks for your call, John.

Let's go to Menoj in California. Menoj, are you making sense?

CALLER: Yes, I am. Alan, my problem with the argument that campaign finance reform will actually limit free speech, the problem is that such a proposal or campaign finance proposal will actually allow a greater number of voters to have influence over their elections and their lawmakers, because it will prevent big money and elite interest groups and the soft money from influencing and essentially growding out the voice of the voter. It will promote grassroots politics, and I am strongly supportive of it, and I hope it passes. It will really restore the public trust that's been lost in the whole Enron debacle.

KEYES: See, I don't quite understand how now, Menoj, how it is that organizations that are a lot of the membership, that are supported by grassroots people that keep a watch for them on issues that they really care about, and who will be prevented from mobilizing most effectively in the 60 days or so before an election takes place to tell people what folks have been up to. I don't quite understand how that helps our free speech. I mean, you can tell me if you like that this is going to make things broader, as the congressman said. But it seems to me you tell people they can't talk to their friends and neighbors in the most effective way with the support they need, and you are putting them in a position where you are muzzling them. And that's not free speech.

CALLER: I mean, effectively the problem is that if you don't have public television or options, I open it up truly to the grassroots voter. The only people, who are going to have that last-minute chance to influence the voter right before the election, are big-money groups and interest groups.

KEYES: No,. The interesting thing is here — wait a minute — is that the present system allows people in the corporate networks of influence to raise big bucks. And what they are proposing is a system in which individuals, who believe in causes and who want to support those causes with their funds, those individuals will not be allowed to mobilize their dollars in effective support of the things that they believe. The coalitions of belief will be deprived of big money resources, while the networks of corporate influence continue to mobilize the big bucks in support of their interests.

That's what this bill, in fact, is all about, and that's where we are going to end up in a sort of feudal system of politics, so that unless you have a corporate patron within those networks of influence, you are not going to be getting anywhere. That, to me, doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up to more liberty for the people. Thank you for your calls.

Next, I'm going to share with you a personal note about somebody who has had a great deal of influence on me, and whose day is today a very special day. I wonder if you know this, I wonder if you have thought of it today. Anyway, I want to share it with you after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: So, what day is today? Don't feel embarrassed if some of you don't know, but today is February 12, of course. And what day is that? It's Lincoln's birthday.

We celebrate President's Day now. We consolidate it. We act like we are honoring all the presidents. But it used to be the case that we celebrated an observance of Lincoln's birthday on February 12, and I have to say I thought that was a good thing. He is one of my great heroes. I have spent a lot of study upon Lincoln, because he was a man who understood and said, in fact, that everything important in his public life and career had been based upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence. He understood that what is special about this country is not just its rules and procedure, not even just the wonderful constitutional system that helps us to implement the ideas of rights and liberty and self-government.

No, what's at the heart of it is the great principles that were articulated at the beginning. That our rights come from the creator, God. That every power on earth, including the power of government, should be so constructed as to respect this basic truth, which is the colonel of human dignity. To me, that is the all-important truth at the heart of American life and principle, and I think we ought to remember it on this very special day.

That's my sense of it. Lester holt is up next live from the Olympics. Good night.