(6 of 7)
CONRAD: Talking about a parliamentary solution is falling into a distinctly American trap -- that there is a magic formula and if we just find it we can solve this problem. Canada has a parliamentary system, and Canada has a much higher debt-to-GNP than we do. We need leadership with vision. That could create a bipartisan response.
Q. If leadership is the problem, why don't the three of you stay and provide it?
CONRAD: In my case, I made a foolish promise ((that he would not seek a second term if the deficit wasn't reduced)). And in our part of the country, people keep their word.
Q. Let's talk a bit more about the role of money and how it provides an advantage to incumbents.
CONRAD: I don't know that it does. I ran against an incumbent who had three times as much money as I did, and I defeated him. Incumbents have a record, and challengers often have a significant advantage in being able to go after that record.
WEBER: The best reform you can have is to say nobody can contribute to a candidate except an individual or a political party.
CONRAD: I think if you limit ((campaign contributions)) to just individuals and political parties, you have played into the hands of the wealthy. Frankly, I'd rather get money from PACS than wealthy individuals. With PACS you know the agenda. It's the homebuilders, it's the wheat growers, it's the sugar-beet people. With individual donors, in many cases you have no idea what the agenda is.
WEBER: I can't imagine that an individual thinks, when he gives $1,000 to my half-million-dollar campaign, that he's going to buy any influence.
CONRAD: Here's an example. In my last campaign, I ran against the incumbent, % who had three times as much money as I had. I got $5,000 from the PAC of a specific group and got more than $20,000 in individual contributions from people who were family members and board members of that company. Now, to suggest that PACS are the problem stands everything on its head. The problem is the amount of money in campaigns.
WIRTH: The reason why these people get entrenched in the House is that the disparities of money are so huge. You have people in the House going into elections with $750,000 in the bank. And where is a nonincumbent going to raise any money, except through public financing?
Q. Do you see yourselves ever running for elective office again?
WEBER: Maybe. I turn 40 this summer. It's foolish to rule it out. I don't have any plan to run, but if I do, the only office that really intrigues me is Governor.
Q. You've had it with the legislative process. You want to be an executive?
WEBER: The legislative process is important. But it would be pretty hard to talk me into running for a Legislative Branch office again. I've become a born-again believer in term limitations, for the opposite reasons from ((those of)) most of the voters. I think term limitations are probably not good for the country, not good for the institution, but they are good for the individual members.
WIRTH: You never say never, but I can't imagine myself going through this process again. You get here with a certain enthusiasm, and then you don't want to do it anymore. But I could see being in some part of the Executive Branch at some point.