During a debate at Brigham Young University televised on KBYU on Tuesday night, the candidates acknowledged the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 has failed to curb the excesses and abuses of money in American elections. Utah's 2004 U.S. Senate race is a case in point.
Van Dam argued for public financing and free air time to even the political field. "If money is going to be what an office is about, why don't we just put it up to the highest bidder?" Van Dam asked. "If capability, training and qualifications are the issue, let's have no money."
But Bennett, who calls the campaign reform act the "Incumbent Protection Act," urged caution before such seemingly radical ideas are implemented. He argues public financing of campaigns would run afoul of the First Amendment by blocking the public's right to donate to political campaigns. The senator said his war chest is "about normal" for a statewide race in Utah. He insists he has to be prepared for last-minute attacks. And, he said, the richest candidate doesn't always win.
For example, in 1992 Bennett spent $2 million of his own money to defeat Republican Party Chairman Joe Cannon and Democrat Wayne Owens in the most expensive Utah campaign ever. Bennett notes Cannon spent $6 million of his Geneva Steel fortune.
"I'm a poster child for the fact that the richest candidate doesn't always win," Bennett said. "Trying to keep money out of politics is like trying to stop water from running downhill. We should recognize the reality and drive towards accountability and reporting so people know where the money is coming from."
The fund-raising gap is reflected in the lopsided race. Bennett led Van Dam by about 40 points in the polls last month.
Van Dam has tried to narrow the gap by confronting Bennett on the issues. He questions Bennett's fiscal responsibility when the senator boasts about Utah projects that he has gotten funded while the federal deficit has ballooned. Van Dam points out that the Social Security and Medicare funding crisis still looms - on Bennett's watch. He jabs the senator for accepting an automatic pay raise. And he questions Bennett for continuing to run for office after pledging in 1992 to limit himself to two six-year terms.
"Voters taking him at his word elected him into office," Van Dam said. "There's something pretty sacred about keeping your word."
Bennett counters that the federal deficit is $100 billion less than projected at the beginning of this fiscal year. He agrees Social Security and Medicare must be dealt with before 2010. And the senator says his seniority - which benefits Utahns when he is appointed to lead congressional committees - trumps his hasty promise 12 years ago.
"I intend to retire voluntarily," Bennett said. "I'm not going to stay for a lifetime."
Senate debate
On campaign war chests
* Sen. Bob Bennett: "What's the old line? You can never be too rich or too thin. In historical standards, my campaign chest is about normal for a race the size of Utah's. Yeah, I've got plenty and I don't need to raise money. But do I have assurances that the AFL-CIO or George Soros or someone else isn't going to look at this and say, 'Bennett only has $1 million. He may be vulnerable. Let's drop some money there?' If that happens, I have to be prepared. I've raised enough to prepare myself for just about any contingency that might come along."
* Paul Van Dam: "The chances of that happening in Utah are less than zero - possibly less - because of the dynamics of this state. People outside the state aren't interested in contributing to my campaign. Money has corrupted politics, period. Senator Bennett may be an honest man. But the fact is that money talks and everything else walks. Let's take the money out of this and let politicians focus on the people."
