As the U.S. Senate race in Utah winds down, Sen. Bob Bennett and Democratic challenger Scott Leckman are starting to look like an old married couple - they squabble, disagree, kid each other and point out all the other person's faults to get an emotional upper hand.
Bennett and Leckman had two spirited debates this week, Wednesday before the Salt Lake Rotary Club, Thursday before the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics.At the U., the pair landed the best jabs of the race, and Bennett was hard-pressed by questioners to explain some specific votes.
Leckman laid into Bennett again over campaign finance reform. Wednesday, Leckman unveiled his reform package. He'd give candidates a choice, they could pick the public financing road and taxpayers would provide campaign funds up to 75 percent of the average cost of the past two elections for that seat or the candidates could pick private financing and face a couple of new requirements over current law.
First, all limits on contributions would be removed - an individual or political action committee could give a candidate as much as it wanted. Second, there would be quick disclosure of all contributions, over the Internet if possible. Finally, a candidate's opponent would be able to pick the names of a few of that candidate's donors and have those names placed on paid advertisements - as in "this ad was paid for in part by" and list those donors.
"I think, over time, most candidates would pick the public financing avenue," Leckman said after the Hinckley debate, "because congressmen spend so much time fund raising now it would relieve them of that. In 1996, $2 billion was spent on all federal races, including the presidential race. Yet estimates are Congress gives $50 billion in corporate welfare - tax breaks to corporations - each year.
"If we had public financing, or mostly public financing, of campaigns, we could get rid of most of that corporate welfare. We would actually be saving taxpayers money by paying $2 billion in campaign spending," says Leckman.
Bennett said he voted against the main campaign reform bill because "it was and is clearly unconstitutional - and that's not me saying so, it's the U.S. Supreme Court." Bennett favors removing all limits on campaign financing and having "quick, immediate" disclosure of contributions "so everyone can know who is giving what" and collar politicians and demand what is asked for in return.
Bennett has raised and spent more than $1 million on his campaign this year, while Leckman has limped along with a little more than $200,000 raised and spent. Leckman hasn't even been able to afford TV ads, although he does have radio ads running.
Leckman and several students also criticized Bennett on his tobacco bill votes.
Becoming a bit indignant, Bennett said that was false and unfair. He didn't support the Hatch/Kennedy tobacco bill because the states' governors, including Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, asked him not to, saying it wouldn't work. He voted for what became the alternative - the CHIP program that Leavitt and the Utah Legislature have now adopted.
"Two times Bill Clinton had Republicans and Democrats over to the White House to praise them on their tobacco stands. What one Republican senator was invited twice? Robert Bennett. How can I be soft on tobacco" with that ringing endorsement, said Bennett.
When Leckman said a congressional watchdog group - Public Citizen - gave Bennett low rankings on his tobacco votes, Bennett snapped back that you couldn't trust Public Citizen's accounting of Congress. "They are wild radicals; being criticized by them is a badge of honor for me. . . . Take Public Citizen and do what you want with it."
Both Bennett and Leckman invited voters to visit their Web sites, with Bennett adding Leckman visitors should take what they read about him with a grain of salt. "You wasted the $20,000 you spent on your research" of his votes, the senator said, adding he now has Leckman-rebuttal information on his own site.
Bennett's address is (www.bennett98.com). Leckman's address is (www.leckman4senate.
com).