Friday, January 22, 2010
1999 Speech Indicates Move to the Right by Ford Early On.
Posted by Jackson Baker on Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM
- U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. — early on
Most of these have been generalized background queries. Some have been more targeted, and, in a coincidence that is almost starling, today brings questions from more than one New York source about a single speech delivered by Ford, then a second-term U.S. representative from the 9th District, in Apriil 1999.
The speech, before a Memphis Rotary Club luncheon, showed 29-year-old Democrat Ford — who had months before been described by the New York Times as a "black centrist" — in a very, very conservative light, tending so far right as to sound almost like a traditional Republican.
The queries we received from New York reflected interest in the then-congressman's statements advocating a lifting of the ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns — something that has just this week been accomplished by action of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, in the retrospect of more than a decade, we ourselves appreciate being reminded of just how early Ford's turn to the political right had begun.
Herewith is the column, as it appeared in our issue of April 15-21, 1999 — or those portions of it dealing with Ford.
(The column's second half concerns an equally eyebrow-raising move to the political left by then Governor Don Sundquist, a Republican, and interested readers can read the whole column here via this URL:
http://www.memphisflyer.com/backissues/issue530/poli530.htm)
Crossing the Lines
Ford Jr. poaches on the GOP’s turf, while Sundquist heads in the other direction.
by Jackson BakerIs this a pre-millennial phenomenon or what? Increasingly, influential public figures are departing their parties’ fixed ideological positions and grazing for new ideas over on the other side of the partisan battle lines.
Two recent examples, each happening in a different direction:
Left to Right: For the few hundred mainly moderate-to-conservative Memphians on hand last week at a Downtown Rotary Club luncheon, it was almost a throwback to the heady days of the Contract With America, circa 1995.
Up there was a fresh-pressed yuppie-looking congressman talking up the flat tax, charter schools, pay-as-you-go economics, and conditional tax cuts. He advocated a lifting of the ban on campaign donations from corporations, bragged on former congressman Bob Livingston, a Louisiana Republican who “would have been one heck of a Speaker” had he not resigned after allegations of sexual misconduct, and criticized the Clinton administration for the weakness of its foreign policy.
What spawn of Newt Gingrich might this have been?
Well, truth to tell, it wasn’t like that. This was Harold Ford Jr., the second-term 9th District Democratic congressman from Memphis, successor in the House of Representatives to his father and namesake, Harold Ford Sr., who could always be found among the ranks of liberal urban Democrats.
The son and heir — perhaps looking to a statewide race earlier than almost anyone expected, or maybe just taking pains to build his name throughout Tennessee — has been in East Tennessee of late and was in Nashville on Monday, preaching much the same gospel as he brought to the Memphis Rotarians on Tuesday, a message of moderation that, a few scant months ago, caused him to be written about in The New York Times Magazine and celebrated on its cover as a “black centrist.”
“I’m a ‘New Democrat.’ I like to spend money, but we ought to be able to pay the bills at the end of the day, and we ought to hold people accountable,” said Rep. Ford at Rotary.
And: “Some of us moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans are trying to find ways to heal and to bridge that chasm and to close that gap [between the parties].”
And (quoting John Maynard Keynes): “The difficulty lies not in developing new ideas but in escaping the old ones. We have a lot of old ideas to escape from.”
Some of those “old ideas” are those very dear to most Democrats — the sacrosanctness of the public schools, for example, and the clear distinction between them — as objects of governmental largesse — and private educational institutions. But quoth Ford Jr.:
“We need to look at alternative ways to teach kids. I’ve taken some hits even from friends of mine, locally. But the only loyalty I have, the only chips I have in the game are our children. If charter schools teach them, let’s go with charter schools. If public schools teach them, let’s go with public schools. If private schools can do it, go with private schools. We’ve got to move beyond the rhetoric that envelops this discussion and deal with the facts, deal with the reality.”
What about some of those basic alterations in the nation’s tax structure which Republicans insist upon? “I’m not opposed to the flat tax. I think that would be the way to simplify things considerably. I support tax cuts. I’m a New Democrat. I don’t want to pay any more than I have to pay.” The congressman adds a proviso, it should be said, that positions him against immediate tax cuts — namely, that obligations to Social Security and Medicare, as well as payments on the national debt (currently standing at $2.5 trillion), preclude any across-the-board reductions now.
Ford does, however, join in the Republican call for elimination of the so-called marriage tax, and he agrees that businesses are entitled to a 20 percent flat-rate tax credit for research and development. He also called for a presidentially appointed national commission to study revisions in the tax code.
Ford credits President Clinton with pragmatic policies that have resulted in the nation’s current sustained economic boom. But he does not shrink from criticism of the president, whether during last year’s Monicagate affair or with his current call for Clinton to make “a stronger, more forceful, more articulate case” for the actions in Kosovo.
Much of the congressman’s political sea change (if that is what it is) would seem attributable to his interest in making a statewide race — possibly as soon as 2000, against incumbent Republican Senator Bill Frist. Certainly, his recent travels seem designed to draw the attention of party activists and donors statewide.
Why else would a Memphis-area congressman make a point of touring the new Tennessee Titans’ stadium — now nearing completion in Nashville — as Ford did on Monday and then offer a defense of the team and its host city to an audience in his home city, still peevish about being so badly upstaged on the sports front?
“Let me remind you, Nashville went out and bought them a team. We shouldn’t be angry with them,” Ford told the Rotarians, arguably attempting to elevate himself above parochial jealousies and intra-state rivalries.
It may be that Ford — whose financial cupboard is bare just now and whose safe congressional seat is a fair launching pad in itself — means only to ensure that he keeps being talked about.
His new rhetoric won’t hurt in that regard....
(The column can be read in its entirely here.)
Comments (5)
Showing 1-5 of 5
As a long time staffer for Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., I can attest to the fact that he was in favor of banning corporate money in federal campaigns from the time he was sworn into office until he left the House of Representatives. He introduced his own legislation to ban soft money in 1997 (that I helped him put together) and worked with John McCain to enact the McCain-Feingold law that was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Mark Schuermann, Alexandria, VA
See below:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061207040317/…
Wednesday, March 20, 2002
FORD Statement on Campaign Finance Reform
WASHINGTON - Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) today released the following statement regarding campaign finance reform:
"Today's passage of campaign finance reform by the United States Senate puts us one step closer to banning soft money, increasing disclosure, and amplifying the voices of voters in the political process.
"With that, I make this humble request: Sign this bill Mr. President."
http://web.archive.org/web/20021028232612/…
Thursday, January 24, 2002
Ford Statement on Enron and Campaign Finance Reform
WASHINGTON - The recent dealings of Enron has refocused attention on how badly our current system of financing campaigns is in need of repair. Banning soft money once and for all is a sure way to restore the public's confidence in our democracy and assure them that we are not beholden to any special interest; Shays - Meehan does this.
I am confident that as Congress begins to hold hearings into the downfall of Enron, more of my colleagues will begin to see the need for a fair debate and vote on reforming our campaign finance laws. If anything positive can come of the Enron tragedy, it will be the passage of real campaign finance reform.
http://web.archive.org/web/19991006000710/…
For Immediate Release Contact: Mark Schuermann
June 25, 1997 202-225-3265
FORD INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO STRENGTHEN FEC, INCREASE DISCLOSURE AND REDUCE THE COST OF CAMPAIGNS
WASHINGTON -- On the eve of President Clinton's appointment of new members to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), U.S. Representative Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) introduced a campaign finance reform bill that strengthens enforcement of election laws, reconstitutes the FEC, increases disclosure, bans soft money and provides reduced broadcast time to political candidates.
"The Public Voice Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1997" changes the composition of the Federal Election Commission from six to seven members, with six commissioners recommending the seventh member who would serve as Chairman. It also imposes one six-year term on each Commissioner. Current law allows that the six member commission to be split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. The Ford bill also permits the FEC to impose a filing fee for heavily financed candidates, parties and PACs, requires random audits and allows the Commission to refer a case to the Justice Department if it believes criminal activity has taken place.
"For too long, the Federal Election Commission has been a paper tiger in the jungle of money- dominated campaigns. This legislation addresses some of the most glaring shortcomings of our electoral process: a weak and under funded FEC, the excessive influence of soft money and the high cost of television advertising," Ford declared.
The Ford bill also bans soft money in Federal elections and requires large broadcasters to sell television time to candidates at 50% of the lowest charge of the station. It promotes full disclosure by requiring mandatory electronic filing, and disclosure of bundling and independent expenditures.
-more-
"The pervasive influence of money in politics, especially soft money, has tainted our political process and threatens to eclipse the American principle that every person's vote counts the same.
I applaud the President's recent call to strengthen the FEC and ban soft money. Now, it is time for the Congress to act. This legislation will restore fairness our political process by banning soft money and by requiring broadcasters to fulfill their public interest obligations by offering reduced television time to political candidates," said Ford.
In the 1996 election cycle, according to the FEC, both political parties spent over $266 million in soft money. This constituted a 224% increase in soft money spending by the Republican party and a 257% increase by the Democratic party in the 1996 election cycle.
Ford, who is a member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, the panel investigating the 1996 campaign abuses called the need for campaign finance reform "one of the most important thing we can do to restore some degree of credibility and confidence in our political system."
###
Statement by the Honorable Harold E. Ford, Jr. (D-TN)
Introduction of the Public Voice Campaign Reform Act of 1997
in the House of Representatives
Wednesday, June 25, 1997
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the 105th Congress, the President challenged Congress to enact campaign finance reform legislation before the Fourth of July. As we approach this landmark date, Congress has yet to hold the first hearing on campaign finance reform legislation. At the same time, both political parties continue to aggressively solicit soft money from corporate donors, while the Federal Election Commission, the body charged by Congress with enforcing our election laws is starved for cash and is immobilized by partisan gridlock.
Today, I will introduce campaign finance reform legislation to strengthen enforcement of election laws, increase disclosure, ban soft money and provide reduced broadcast time to political candidates. For too long, the Federal Election Commission has been a paper tiger in a jungle of money dominated campaigns. President Clinton has stated that in order to clean up campaigns and strengthen the FEC, "we need a clean break from the past." This legislation gives us a chance to break from the past by requiring the President to appoint an independent seventh Commissioner recommended by the existing six members. The seventh Commissioner would serve as Chairman, and all of the Commissioners would be limited to one six year term. Under the current law, the Commission is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow the FEC to charge a filing fee for candidates, political committees and parties who meet minimum thresholds of financial activity. This provision will give the agency a degree of financial independence that the Congress refuses to give it in annual appropriations. It has been endorsed by the eminent scholars Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.
The bill also restores the FEC's ability to conduct random audits of candidates, PACs and parties, and allows the Commission to refer a case to the Justice Department as soon as the FEC believes there may have been criminal activity. These two provisions and others in the bill have been recommended by the authors of the respected University of Southern California campaign finance study entitled "New Realities, New Thinking."
The pervasive influence of money in politics, especially soft money, has tainted our political process and threatens to eclipse the fundamental principle that every person's vote counts the same. I applaud the President's recent call to strengthen the FEC and ban soft money, Mr. Speaker. Now it is time for the Congress to act. This legislation will restore fairness to our political process by banning soft money.
Further, it will require broadcasters, who stand to benefit from the use of digital airwaves - channels which belong to the public - to fulfill their public interest obligations by offering reduced television time to political candidates. In the past 25 years, spending by political candidates and political
-more-
committees has risen dramatically. In 1972, candidates spent $25 million on television advertising. In 1996, candidates spent $500 million on political advertising. The high cost of television advertising requires candidates and incumbents to spend a disproportionate amount of time raising money, has increased the influence of special interests, makes it difficult for challengers to compete with incumbents, and interferes with candidates' efforts to communicate with voters.
In the 1996 election cycle, over $2 billion was spent on Federal elections. Over $266 million of this was in unregulated soft money. This constituted a 224% increase in soft money spending by the Republicans and a 257% increase by Democrats. Soft money has become the legal loophole through which candidates and parties are driving a mack truck, and it is time to close this loophole once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, twenty-two years ago Congress created the Federal Election Commission because, in the words of the agency's charter, "our representative form of government needed protection from the corrosive influence of unlimited and undisclosed political contributions." As we approach the celebration of our nation's birth, let's give the American people a gift that will stem their distrust and cynicism of our political system. Let's fulfill the obligation we made to them in 1975 by enacting meaningful campaign finance reform legislation.
###
U.S. Representative Harold E. Ford, Jr.
Campaign Finance Reform Legislation
Bill Summary
I. Promotes Full Disclosure
-- Bundling: Any person who bundles contributions are required to report the contributions and their total bundling activities on behalf of each candidate.
-- Independent Expenditures: Any communication which identifies the name or likeness of a candidate within 90 days of the election must be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission.
-- Electronic Filing: Requires mandatory electronic filing for candidates and committees which meet a certain threshold of financial activity as determined by the commission.
II. Enhanced Enforcement
-- Changes the composition of the Federal Election Commission by requiring the six member Commission to recommend a seventh, independent non-partisan member to the President and confirmed by the Senate who would then serve as Chairman. Limits terms of Commissioners to one 6 year term.
-- Permits the FEC to impose a filing fee for each report filed with the Federal Election Commission. Fee is based on a minimum threshold of financial activity determined by the FEC. A provision is included to avoid any financial hardship on a candidate or political committee. Includes language to prevent FEC appropriation from being reduced as a result of revenues gained from filing fees.
-- Enhances enforcement power by allowing the FEC to make a criminal referral to the Department of Justice as soon as the FEC establishes a reasonable suspicion that a criminal violation may have taken place.
-- Requires the FEC to conduct random audits of candidates, political committees and political parties to encourage compliance with election laws. Audits must be conducted after an election and must be held to the strictest rules of confidentiality and will not publicly disclosed until after completion of the audit.
III. Reduced Broadcast Rates for Candidates
-- Requires broadcasters to sell time to candidates, political committees and political parties at 50% of the lowest charge of the station. Requires small broadcasters,to sell time to candidates, political committees and political parties at 70% of the lowest unit rate. The Federal Communications Commission shall determine which station gets the lower rate in accordance with ratings and market area analysis.
IV. Soft Money
-- Bans soft money by making any activities which significantly affect an election for Federal office or which promotes or identifies any candidate for election for Federal office subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act: .
###
like
dislike
Hence all the more reason why a free, vigilant, and indefatigable press is so important, to hold politicians' feet to the fire.
I welcome my friend Mark Schuermann'reponse and will have to locate the recording I made of then Congressman Ford's speech to find the exact text for which, back in 1999, I offered a paraphrase on the matter in question.
Much of the rest of then Congressman Ford's remarks is quoted directly and at length, a sure indicator that such a recording exists; indeed, I rarely if ever failed to record speeches by the congressman -- or even brief interviews in passing. After two house moves in the meantime, this may take a while. But it will surely take at least as much time for readers to digest and interpret the immense and somewhat crowded chronicle laid before us here by Mark.
Meanwhile, let me note that we should all be served by stout and able friends like Mark.
I would add in the meantime that the longish passage supplied by Schuerrmann documenting a bill by the congressman banning "soft money" (i.e., contributions to ad hoc or "midwifing" organizations rather than directly to candidates or their campaigns) is not inconsistent with a call for allowing direct campaign contributions by corporations. Indeed, the two concepts work nicely in tandem.
I should add, too, that Mark Schuermann has forwarded me privately an abundance of background material relating to various past positions taken on the issue of campaign finance reform by Congressman Ford during his tenure on Capitol Hill.
Though none of these bear directly on the substance of Rep. Ford's 1999 Rotary Club speech, or on the precise point in question, these materials do suggest a continuing commitment to various campaign finance reforms on the congressman's part.
Three cheers here for the digital age! Every recorded speech, interview, meeting, etc., that I've done in the last several years is backed up, computerized, and on file. Those recordings made previously (and that would include any from 1999) are on mini-casettes, and finding a particular one is, in view of the aforementioned two house moves, very much of the needle-in-haystack variety.
I, of course, stand by the 1999 article, much of which is directly quoted, in some depth. Pending the discovery of the needle in question, which would allow me to quote then Rep. Ford's words directly on the issue of corporate contributions, and being aware that opposition researchers and objective journalists, as well, up there in the Empire State, are looking to avail themselves of every scrap of background information on Harold Ford Jr., I have amended the headline of this article, from the original "Ford for Lifting Ban on Corporate Contributions Back in 1999" to the more general and inclusive one of "1999 Speech Indicates Move to the Right by Ford Early On."
I'm not taking anything back, mind you -- just exercising all due caution in the interests of fairness.
Top Commenters
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
