Ending a campaign free from burdensome obligations to donors
Holshouser managed to finish his gubernatorial campaign free from obligations to donors, he remembers, in part because he received money from people who believed in his message and who trusted him, and in part because of a talented fundraiser on his team. Holshouser also shares his thoughts on public campaign financing, a practice he opposes because he feels that a politician will win the donations he or she deserves.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with James E. Holshouser Jr., January 31, 1998. Interview C-0328-1. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- JACK FLEER:
-
Let's explore one final thing about the campaign and then I
want to give us a chance to take a break. You talked a little bit about
the woman from South Carolina that she sent you $25.00 and the
fact that you had large numbers of very good ads that never saw the
light of the television. Talk a little bit about
financing and what you learned from that experience about campaign
financing. How you go about doing it and what you learned from it.
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
Well when we had the first meeting with this group that the Attorney
General put together several months before to talk about finance reform,
I hold them that I really didn't belong on that committee
because our experience had been so bad in raising money that the
problems that they were trying to address just weren't
problems that I had ever had to face.
- JACK FLEER:
-
This is the "Better Campaign Commission" that you and
the other governors worked on?
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
That is right. The fact is you know it again is just the fortunes of war
and the luck of the draw and the way things are. We finished that
campaign not being obligated to anybody. I mean nobody. I mean we raised
less than $200,000. By election day, we had spent less than
$400,000. We had to raise more after the election than we did
before the election. If I had lost I would have been ten years paying it
off at least. But as it was it was paid off by inauguration day. But I
also told our fundraisers; I said look we have gotten this far, we
don't need to become obligated now. We got the job so
don't take more than $1000 from anybody. As a result
I had the luxury of probably that nobody has in this day and time. Now I
think, I think things have changed but at the time I was running in the
early years of the pacs and this sort of thing, I always knew that you
were likely to get financial support from people who gave you that
support because you were representing the ideas that they believed in.
Our own experience in 1972 was that people gave us so little chance of
winning until George Little took over the finances and fund raising oh
about six weeks maybe two months before the election, I guess about six
weeks. I think he raised more money that last six weeks than we had up
to that time. Because out of that
$200,000 less than we had raised I had put in $50,000
on my own that I went out to the bank and borrowed and took the second
mortgage on the house. We had decided that we were in for a penny in for
dime, that kind of thing. That if you are going to go, you are only
going to go one time that you had better do the best that you can. I
think it was only in the last two to three weeks before the election
that people started to really think maybe I had a chance and then some
money started to come in.
- JACK FLEER:
-
So your interpretation from what you said earlier about your belief that
people gave money to persons that represented their ideas and the fact
that you didn't get much money would be not that there
weren't people out there who supported you but that they just
didn't think you could win. They wondered whether you could
win.
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
That is right. And some people gave the money even when they
weren't sure that you even had a chance just because they
were loyal or whatever. And we had people give us money that said they
couldn't publicly support us and some of them probably
didn't even vote for us. I don't know. I think
things have changed in terms of fund raising because I get the sense now
that too many people are trying to buy access and that it
shouldn't be necessary to have to buy access. It ought to be
there. And with presidents, you have only got so many hours in the day
and there are just not that many people you get a chance to see you. We
said to the black leadership, to union leadership, not leadership
really, people, that while there were issues that we wouldn't
agree on that I would always be open to listen to what they had to say.
That implied that they would have access to come in and talk and I
didn't view that as any big deal. I just thought that was
part of the job, listen to people with different points of view. I
didn't realize at the time I was campaigning, I think the one
surprise after inauguration day was how many
people wanted to see you and how few people you could see in relative
terms and how many people wanted you to make a hands on decision
yourself as opposed to having a cabinet member or department head or
whatever to do that.
- JACK FLEER:
-
Related to your idea about campaigning and financing and the possibility
that you might have lost because you didn't have adequate
financing, there is a argument in the campaign finance debate that the
current system does run that risk. That legitimate alternatives and
legitimate views are not given the light of day because of the absence
of funding.
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
Yes, I know and as much as I was a victim of that absence in a way, I
still have a hard time bringing myself around to a public financing
approach. I just sort of believe that campaign place is a little bit
like the market place that if you got a good product that it ought to
draw contributions. Now I grant that circumstances vary from place to
place and in our case we were sort of in an unusual situation because we
just hadn't elected anybody in 70 years, 72 years, 74 years.
But today a Republican and Democrat candidate probably start off even in
terms of fund raising. If they are good people to express themselves
well and have some vision about where the state ought to go they ought
to be able to draw money. At the presidential campaign level or the
congressional campaign, senatorial campaign level, that is the same
thing tends to apply. There are some states where you are going to have
a clear leg up if you are a Democrat nominee or a Republican nominee as
the case may be. But public financing in those cases probably
wouldn't make that much difference. I think there is probably
a more viable argument for public financing when it comes to
congressional elections because of the advantage of incumbency.
Doesn't have anything to do with party and that pacs in
particular are afraid not to give to incumbents. They have a clear
advantage of being in Washington, being able to have as
many receptions as they want to and as much contact with
lobbyists as they want. Challengers just don't have that. I
think it is very, very hard to beat an incumbent. The statistics are
pretty clear that 90% of them that run for the election get elected. And
if you look back at 1994 even the Republican swing then had more to do
with people not running again than it did with a huge swing.
- JACK FLEER:
-
You mentioned that you did not or you told George Little not to take
contributions greater thana $1000. I guess that was late in the
campaign or after the campaign.
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
After the election.
- JACK FLEER:
-
You did not have that kind of limit prior to the election.
- JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR.:
-
No and I am sure that we got some contributions of more than that. For
instance Marvin Johnson down in Duplin County with the chicken poultry
thing down there was one of our bigger contributors. It made it hard for
me to send George of all people down to see him sometime in the first
year or two to tell him if he didn't get his stuff cleaned up
and quit dumping stuff in streams we were going to have to shut him
down. At the same time part of it was that we decided early on I had
seen the state chairman, I had seen some candidate get so involved in
the mechanics of the campaign that they didn't do their job
as a candidate. We decided early on that we were going to have to have
some strategy meetings here and there, that I was going to be the
candidate and Gene Anderson was going to sit in Raleigh and do the
schedule for the staff and the schedule for me. And I went on the road
six days a week and when and where they said to go and I would know if
they were screwing up but we both knew what we needed to do. So I was
just a candidate. I wasn't worried about fund raising except
I knew we weren't getting any money in.