Mark Green knows how money impacts politics. In November of 2001, the ballot box of New York City testified to the crisis at the polls. Michael Bloomberg poured $74 million into a campaign to become the mayor of the city while Green, his opponent, could only raise $16 million. Bloomberg went on to win the election with almost $100 spent per vote, while Green, the Democrat, saw the political process break down in a city election where his own expenditures seemed paltry. Despite the close race, (49 percent to 47 percent) it was evident to Green that money voted more persuasively than citizens.
Mark Green stepped back from his campaign and penned \Selling Out,"" an accusation of the everyday corruption in American politics. The book dissects the current and sometimes shady practices of Political Action Committees and points out that incumbents often do not have to worry about being reelected because, as Green states, ""Power attracts money; money entrenches power."" The most powerful question it poses is if some blue-collar person could stand a chance at election, considering high offices are more and more becoming the domain of millionaires.
Green's voice is unwavering and his purpose is precise. He aims to bring the problem of money spoiling politics to the forefront of the nation's attention. With the ghosts of Enron giving way to the corpses of WorldCom, ""Selling Out"" could not come at a better time. Green's book is both an indictment of the American political system as well as a diagnosis of its health. The last third of the book offers cures to the many plagues of the system, suggesting spending limits and free broadcast time. These solutions appear with practicality and a sense of powerful immediacy. The Daily Cardinal recently spoke with Mark Green.
Do you think the current round of legislation [McCain-Feingold] will have significant impact if upheld?
Important, but not remotely sufficient. I liken it to throwing a 10-foot rope to a drowning swimmer 40 feet offshore. Any other reforms would be nearly worthless unless we made sure that major corporations, wealthy individuals and labor unions couldn't swamp worthy reforms with quarter-million dollar, soft money contributions. I laud McCain and Feingold for their persistence and success, but people who think that we have now had our once-in-a-generation reform are wrong.
Do you believe that it will be pushed further, that this is the start of something rather than the conclusion?
Some smart people in Washington think that Congress is now exhausted on this topic and nothing more can be done. Others, like McCain and Feingold being pathological optimists, believe that now reformers see what can be done, they want to keep going. I can give you the answer after the '04 presidential election.
Do you think there is any chance, considering the results of the recent elections, of real reform?
No. Republicans don't want real reform. Republicans who are opposed to real reform pretend to be First Amendment advocates when they are really advocating keeping big money from big companies coming into their coffers. The Senators Mitch McConell and Trent Lott reminded me of the segregationists of the 1950s who would defend the status quo of the South by saying they were merely for 'states' rights.' In fact, that was a principled fig leaf for segregation.
Do you think the red herring of war in Iraq and war on terrorism has seriously impacted the chances of election reform?
Yes. As President Bush, Prime Minister Sharon and Chancellor Shroeder have shown, when a leader says that the only issue that really matters is terrorism and war, the public doesn't hear much else. That was behind the small but decisive shift of power to the Republicans in November. It's what's behind Sharon's apparently easy reelection effort. It was, with a different result, behind Shroeder's reelection as chancellor.
Do you think there is proper handling of the white-collar crime, of the WorldCom and Enron disasters?
No. I worked with Ralph Nader for a decade, from 1970 to 1980 and I'm still close to him, though I supported Gore. I told Ralph the other day that his mistake in the '70s and the '80s was to underestimate, I repeat, underestimate the extent of corporate malfeasance and crime.
What did you think of Naders's 2000 election run?
I was against it. It was far more principled than critics have casually concluded. He believes that the two parties are too similar on campaign finance, economic and foreign policy issues and ardently believes that a third party is necessary. I was the highest elected Democrat in New York City for eight years, serving next in line to Mayor Guliani. I felt divided loyalties, and enthusiastically supported Al Gore for president in 2000 and opposed Nader's bid.
When the results were announced for the New York mayoralty, what went through your mind?
I have never publicly answered that question and it's too soon. When you seek high office, you have to be tough-minded enough to know that you could win or lose and live with the results. Previous to November of 2001, I had won and I had lost; I was battle-tested. But I could not anticipate the election chaos of '01, where two world-shattering events combined to elect the underdog Republican. One was of course, Sept. 11, which changed forever the city and country, coming as it did on primary day itself, obviously had an enormous political impact. Secondly, no one has ever spent $74 million or about $100 a vote in a city election before and it was a phenomenom to behold. Ninety-five times out of 100 someone in my place would lose. I just had to accept the results. He got more votes. He's the mayor.
What exactly are your future plans?
I might seek, not immediately though, elected office again. Elected office is not the only way to have a public impact, but it is a very important way. I so much enjoy public office and thought I am reasonably good at it that I have to think about it if the right position were available. But there's nothing currently open.
