California's Tom Campbell: GOP Senate Candidate Who Defies Easy Labeling

In an era of expedient political branding, California's Tom Campbell, a Republican candidate aiming to win Barbara Boxer's U.S. Senate seat, defies labeling. A free-market economist who advocates breaking up big banks, a social liberal with conservative views on immigration, an opponent of the nation's recently passed national health care legislation, he supports repealing the federal antitrust exemption for insurance companies.

In polls, Campbell, 57, trails former Hewlett Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina for the nomination but, unlike Fiorina, leads Boxer in a hypothetical matchup. Another Republican opponent is state Assemblyman Chuck Devore, and he and Fiorina are attempting to position themselves as the most conservative GOP candidate in the June 8 primary.

Campbell, a former law professor, business school dean, state senator and five-time member of Congress, announced his candidacy for governor last summer, but retreated to the Senate race early this year rather than oppose two candidates with huge war chests, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. In an interview with Politics Daily, Campbell -- who has unsuccessfully run twice for the Senate -- spoke wistfully about his decision to bail out of the governor's race, and about what he hopes to accomplish in the Senate.

PD: In explaining your switch from the race for governor of California to the U.S. Senate race you have cited the exceptional wealth of your then Republican gubernatorial opponents, saying in an interview: "The governor's race no longer afforded the opportunity." Afforded is an interesting word. What does that tell us about politics today?

Tom Campbell: I thought I had a lot to offer. Public service is how I spent my life both in Sacramento as a state senator and on Capitol Hill as a member of the House. So I've run for office. But nothing in my memory or in political history comes close to the amount of money being spent in this governor's race. It's frustrating, saddening and certainly disappointing that so much money is being spent, substantially on negative advertising. I contemplate uses for that money in non-political ways.

PD: You opened up a lead [over Boxer] in the polls, but you may have to spend heavily to stay there. At least one of your opponents, Carly Fiorina, has more money at her disposal than you -- so even though you've jumped into a less expensive race, do you feel like you've been hit by lightning twice.

Campbell: Not sure that's right. Carly Fiorina did loan her campaign $2.5 million last year. But as of March 3, Federal Election Commission reports show she has not contributed any more. In the governor's race, Meg Whitman is in a different class by a very large factor. Going into the last month of the campaign, it will take a lot to undo the momentum we've built and there are no indications that my opponents intend or have the ability to raise huge sums that we're seeing in the governor's race.

PD: You've run for the U.S. Senate before, losing in the 1992 Republican primaries to a more conservative opponent, a radio talk show host who, in turn, lost to Barbara Boxer. You lost in the 2000 general election to the more liberal Dianne Feinstein. Once again, you are being attacked for being too moderate -- or even liberal -- on social issues. Remind us where you stand on social issues such as abortion.

Campbell: I'm pro-choice. The decision should be left to the woman.

PD: Health care: Polls show that Californians favor the new health care law. Your opposition is posted on your website, where you say: "First, do no harm. Don't destroy the private health and insurance system in our country." Are there any parts you support?

Campbell: Yes. But I would have laid them out differently. I would have covered those with pre-existing conditions and those who are too poor to afford private health insurance or don't have Medicare or Medicaid. I would have done this with pre-assigned risk pools, under existing Medicaid. Mandating health coverage, as the current legislation does, is an intrusion on individual liberty. I oppose the excise tax on the so-called Cadillac plans that someone in government considers too generous to the policyholder. Secondly, I would have paid for the reform transparently instead of opaquely. All of our premiums are going to go up but no one knows by how much. It would have been better governing if we had decided how much we wished to spend on this overhaul and then let us all know how much.

PD: Your fellow Republicans often blame trial lawyers for driving up health care costs. Do you agree?

Campbell: Trial lawyers are significant. A recent PriceWaterhouse study shows that defensive medicine -- therapies ordered, prescriptions written that may not be medically necessary so that physicians can indemnify themselves, contribute to about 10 percent of health care costs over all.

PD: Your stance on same-sex marriage?

Campbell: Couples should be allowed to marry whether they are gay or straight.

PD: More than half a million Californians signed a petition to make legalizing marijuana a ballot issue in November. Where are you on that?

Campbell: I am not favoring it. I don't think the case is being made for doing so.

PD: You favor sending the National Guard to protect our border from illegal immigration. What about the argument that seasonal workers are essential to California's agriculture and immigrants have helped drive California's technology industry?

Campbell: California's economy is substantially but not predominantly agriculture. High-tech does rely on foreign engineers especially. I believe we need to expand our guest-worker program as in H-1B [a non-immigrant visa program for temporary workers in specialty occupations]. But for those who come here illegally because employers make it attractive for them, both the attractors and the illegal workers should be held accountable under the law. We don't do that. We treat them as if we are issuing a parking ticket. So we need a physical barrier and we need to assign enough personnel to guard the border.

PD: Do you agree with the Arizona crackdown that is drawing huge protests, particularly from Latino groups? What do you say to Hispanics -- or do you concede them to your presumed opponent in the November election?

Campbell: I do agree with the Arizona law. If you read it, it has two straightforward positions. There will be no sanctuary cities and no one can pretend that the federal law does not apply. I agree with that. San Francisco is wrong to be a sanctuary city. Secondly, where there is a lawful stop, when there is then a reasonable doubt as to one's immigration status, law enforcement has the right to demand proof. California had its own version. In 1994 voters passed Proposition 187, which denied undocumented immigrants health care, social services and public education. Gov. Pete Wilson, who supported and signed the measure into law, took a lot of heat.

PD: Demonstrations erupted throughout California. Could we see a repeat? Could this affect your own campaign?

Campbell: I was one of two Republicans to oppose 187 because it was short-sighted. I believe it is far better to have a young person in school than in a street gang. If an illegal is coughing, do we give them an incentive to not go and get checked?

PD: Your opponents are calling you a tax-and-spender, citing your year as Governor Schwarzenegger's finance director. What did you do to earn their ire and why weren't your policies able to stem California's mounting debt?

Campbell: I never proposed tax increases. But I knew systemic change was needed. The governor said: "Give me a permanent fix." So I developed a constitutional fix, restricting spending to population gains and inflation. The plan took any revenue and put it in a true reserve that could not be raided. It carried forward the previous year's budget into a new year automatically, essentially a hard freeze. The model -- Proposition 76 -- mirrored the Gramm-Rudman congressional legislation with cuts across the board and a freeze on spending. Voters defeated the measure.

PD: As in other states, Republican candidates in California are vying for Tea Party endorsements. Recently, one of your opponents, Chuck Devore, received Tea Party backing. Are you modifying your message to appeal to more Tea Partiers?

Campbell: The party has been good for the system. These are individuals who care deeply about our country and have found a way to express it. But no, I will not alter my message, which is smaller government, a constitutional government that demands fiscal responsibility.

PD: Why are we seeing so much activism from these splinter parties as well as a resurgence of independents?

Campbell: It is a reaction to deficits when the economy turns bad. When I'm out of work, or a relative is out of work, or a friend is out of work, I begin to ask why. Employers are scared to offer jobs. They have no idea of coming inflation or what interest rates are going to be because government spending is totally out of line. Conversely, Proposition 76 failed in California because we wanted to hold the line on spending at a time of relative economic health -- even though the state was losing money.

PD: You've seen the polls reflecting the increasing disapproval of elected officials. Bitter bipartisanism seems to be turning off voters. Where does all this nastiness under the Capitol dome come from?

Campbell: The immediate record is one of single-party rule. I have an issue with the way the Democrats are managing this lack of debate and bipartisanship. They are not being pragmatic. I know Olympia Snowe. If they couldn't get Olympia Snowe on health care, they weren't trying. Here's a second example. Two days in a row, they attempted to push through their version of finance reform. I believe they are not aware of the perceived arrogance for single-party rule. If, God willing, I am elected to the United State Senate, my record as a pragmatist is clear.

I admire President Obama for being intellectually curious. He may have strong views, but I think he finds intellectual argument valuable. But I don't believe President Obama has managed his legislative intent well. He simply deeded responsibility to Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House. He said to them: "I want a health care bill." But he provided them little detail. He said: "I want financial reforms." But he didn't say: "I want derivatives exchanged through a clearinghouse." In the abstract, there is nothing wrong with this style of management. But in practicality, it leads to embarrassment when the policy as presented includes things like the infamous "Cornhusker kickback."

PD: Are you saying your own party has not played a role in fanning the flames? What would you do to douse the hostility -- or at least temper it in order to restore public confidence?

Campbell: I would want to revisit and insist on our principles. I would want our party to be perceived as willing to work with the other party without compromising our principles but recognizing we are going to have to work together. I think if you are going to be a successful actor in the public arena this is essential.

PD: Who in the Senate most emulates those practices and who would you align yourself with?

Campbell: Lindsey Graham. I know him fairly well. He's a man of honor. He represented the views of a constitutional government well. During the Clinton impeachment, he was a voice of reason and managed the proceedings fairly. He has shown an inclination to work with the other side of the aisle for the best outcome.

PD: You've already criticized Obama's management of the legislative initiatives. In what other areas do you find yourself in disagreement with the president?

Campbell: I couldn't be more critical of his position on Iran. This is huge. The only way -- and it may be only a slim chance -- but the only way to keep Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons is that that we send a clear signal right now that if Israel attacks Iran, we support Israel. "Now, got it Ahmadinejad? Are you clear? No ambiguity." If Israel does as it did back in 1981 (when it destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak with fighter bombers), the U.S. will support Israel. If Israel has to cross Iraqi air space to get to Iran, we will support Israel. Instead, President Obama is saying maybe we can live with a post-nuclear Iran and hope for the kind of containment that worked against Soviet Union.

PD: You were a disciple of Milton Friedman and a supporter of Alan Greenspan, the former fed chairman who is now musing aloud that the big banks should be broken up. As someone who voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall [the 1933 act that created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and other banking reforms], what were your thoughts as you watched the Senate committee's hearings on Goldman Sachs and the concurrent debate on financial reform?

Campbell: We should never have allowed the banks to get so big. The Democrats, even in their reforms, aren't granting that the banks have gotten too big. Break them up. The FDIC should oversee commercial banks. Investment banks are on their own. We don't regulate swaps for futures. There is no inherent danger if an investment bank investing in swaps doesn't own a commercial bank. But when they own a commercial bank you have systemic risk. I have only grown in my contentment that I was among only five Republicans to vote against the repeal of Glass-Steagall, even though the president and Republican leadership wanted the bill to pass.

PD: Describe your own version of financial reform.

Campbell: We need consumer protection, including a disclosure. Are brokerage houses acting as market makers or investment advisers? Parts of the hearings have focused on the confusion. Goldman Sachs says it was a market maker, while investors thought it was an investment adviser. We need disclosures: "We may very well disagree with you, this may very well be a dangerous investment but we're simply a market maker. Do not assume our advice." Secondly, there is a need for a clearinghouse for futures and options needed for swaps. There needs to be a device to make sure the investment banks have enough money to cover the bets. When you don't have enough, some crisis like AIG comes along and the government scurries to cover the bet. That's where the American people are outraged. They are saying: "We did not sign on to bail you out. If you had made money, you would have kept it. Why are we helping you out now?" Third and last, while I argue for the FDIC to oversee commercial banks, and I'm confident we will return to separate banking entities, I do not think a federal agency should be assigned to decide what is appropriate risk. That is difficult for most skilled investors to know. I do not want a federal agency drawing that line. On the other hand, I think it is now fair to say: "You risk, you lose, you fail on your own." That must be a strong and indelible policy.

PD: Sen. Al Franken says an activist judge is one whose decision is different than the accusing politicians would like. Which justices have you most admired and who have given you pause?

Campbell: Historically, Potter Stewart, a fine justice. He was oftentimes a majority maker. He recognized the limits of judicial intervention -- and recognized as well that the court needed to pay deference to the political branches. He always thought it best to pay attention not to the people appointed for life but the people appointed by the population to represent their interests. As for the justices I have known, both Blackmun and Brennan gave me pause. With both I could predict their outcomes as soon as I saw the case. Justice Brennan would often choose the liberal outcome and then reason to it. Sometimes, he would use systems for reasoning that he had criticized, if it would get him where he wanted to be. Whereas Stewart opposed the use of race in Bakke [the landmark affirmative action decision on classroom admissions]. He said the Constitution is colorblind. On the current court, I would say Justice Ginsberg is most predictable in the same way as Brennan and Blackmun. Of the person I like most, I would have to say [long pause] Justice Roberts, though he is new. He doesn't seem to be as polemic, and he appears to know the power of assigning the writing of the opinions to the right justices.

PD: What is your view of Elena Kagan?

Campbell: Solicitor General Elena Kagan has spent one year and one month in her job, arguing six cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to then, she had argued no cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. She has zero judicial experience, unlike every member of the current court, each of whom came to the high court following service on lower courts. Her experience in government, rather, is in working as a staff member for four years in President Clinton's White House. This is a very thin record on which to evaluate a candidate for the Supreme Court. We have no idea how she will rule as a judge. The positions she has taken in the brief time she has been solicitor general are the views of her client, and shed no light on her own jurisprudential philosophy.

The role of the United States Senate is to confirm a judicial nominee if that person has the experience, intelligence and work ethic for the job; and if the person's judicial thinking is sufficiently within the spectrum of reasonable jurisprudential debate. I have serious reservations whether Solicitor General Kagan has sufficient experience; and I have virtually no information to judge where her own judicial philosophy fits in the spectrum of reasonable debate. If I were a senator, I would withhold my vote for those reasons. It is possible that additional information will come out during the hearing process that could better inform me; but until and unless that occurs, my vote would not be in favor.

PD: What is your opinion of the recent 5-4 decision removing the limits on corporate spending in political campaigns?

Campbell: I supported McCain-Feingold, and I therefore find fault with this decision.

PD: You have been accused of favoring the Palestinians over Israel. Yet, a moment ago you said you fully back an Israeli incursion into Iran if Iran is conclusively found to be arming itself with nuclear weapons. Is there a dichotomy here?

Campbell: I have always said I favor economic aid to Palestine, not military. I don't think it is favoring the Palestinians over the Israelis to say that Palestine should have its own country by now. An overwhelming number of Israelis agree with me. I do also favor the alliance between Israel and the United States. We face same enemies.

PD: I'm assuming, then, that you disagree with President Obama's statement during the 2008 campaign that he would be willing to go anywhere and negotiate with anyone without preconditions.

Campbell: This is very much a mistake. To sit with a United States president is a privilege that should be earned. As we know, China holds a great part of our national debt. How does this jeopardize us as a nation and make our international diplomacy vulnerable? This is a national security risk. When the U.S. completed an arms sale to Taiwan, they threatened to drop that debt on the market. That's powerful leverage. China has demonstrated it is willing to suffer economic consequences in order to achieve diplomatic ones. The threat of selling your sovereign debt is a very dangerous business.