March 12, 2018 will mark the 50th anniversary of the most consequential primary election in American history:  the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary in which anti-Vietnam war Minnesota U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy made a most unanticipated strong showing against incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson.  This upset resulted in a series of events whose impact literally endures to this day. 

As a result of McCarthy’s New Hampshire showing, two monumental political events occurred almost immediately.  Within a week, New York Democratic U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy abandoned his position of noncandidacy and entered the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.  Then, on Sunday night, March 31, 1968, LBJ, faced with a certain loss to McCarthy in the forthcoming Wisconsin primary and defeats by RFK in those that followed announced that he would not seek nor accept the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination. 

What followed the Johnson renunciation was a series of events that made 1968 a year in which, in the words of presidential election historian Theodore H. White, American politics became unhinged. 

Robert Kennedy would certainly have won the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination and defeated the Republican nominee, Richard M. Nixon.  The prospect of a Kennedy restoration ended most tragically with his assassination on the night of his ultimate triumph: the June, 1968 California primary. 

After the RFK assassination, the Democratic Party divide between the pro-LBJ and the dovish sectors of the party deepened.  The Democrats gathered at their convention in Chicago in August, 1968 and nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey as their presidential standard bearer.  The convention will forever be remembered for the violent street confrontations between anti-war demonstrators and Chicago police.  All this made inevitable the election of Richard Nixon in November, 1968, a result deemed to be most unlikely at the outset of 1968.   

All these events, together with the subsequent irrevocable leftward movement of the Democratic Party were set in motion by the improbable candidacy of Gene McCarthy.  I was not a supporter of his, but I will always admire him.  My freshman year of college, 1967-1968, coincided with his candidacy. I will never forget my fellow students, on the verge of radicalism, going “Clean for Gene,” getting a shave and haircut, putting on a suit, and travelling to New Hampshire to campaign for McCarthy. 

For many, McCarthy’s remoteness made him an enigma.  My feelings towards him could be best expressed in the words of the aforesaid Theodore White:  With the passage of time, one’s admiration of McCarthy deepened while one’s affection for him lessened. 

Nevertheless, the remarkably profound impact of the Gene McCarthy 1968 campaign upon American history is undeniable and recognized universally by American historians.  What is forgotten is the man who made possible that campaign, a man with deep New Jersey roots, Stewart Mott.

It was the late former Democratic New York Congressman Allard Lowenstein who importuned and persuaded McCarthy to embark upon his insurgent 1968 candidacy after he had been rebuffed by his first choice, Robert Kennedy.  It was Stewart Mott, however who virtually solely bankrolled the McCarthy candidacy. 

Stewart Mott was the son of Charles Mott, the co-founder of General Motors and a graduate of Hoboken’s Stevens Institute of Technology.  Visitors to the Stevens Hall of Achievement in Hoboken learn that Charles Mott was one of its five initial inductees.

Prior to the federal post-Watergate fundraising reforms of 1974, financial moguls in both political parties engaged basically in two forms of campaign financial assistance: 1) Political fundraising, where the financial mogul in question used his or her business connections and leverage to raise money for his or her preferred candidate, with the implicit promise of post-election access by donors to the victorious candidate;  and 2) Political philanthropy, where the financial mogul in question uses a huge portion of his or her fortune to bankroll in whole or in part the candidacy of his or her preferred candidate on the basis of shared ideals and beliefs. 

Stewart Mott’s bankrolling of the 1968 Eugene McCarthy campaign was a classic example of political philanthropy at its finest.  Political philanthropy, however, was basically outlawed in federal elections by the post-Watergate campaign finance reforms of 1974.  While political financial moguls could still contribute unlimited amounts in the form of independent expenditures through superpacs, they were now severely limited as to amounts they could donate directly to campaigns.  No insurgent challenger campaign on the part of a non-wealthy person, such as Gene McCarthy in 1968 could previously have had any viability without the presence of a billionaire political philanthropist able and willing to personally bankroll the campaign.  It is virtually impossible for political fundraisers to raise funds for underdog outsider candidates from business community donors motivated by the possibility of post-election access.   

Accordingly, anti-establishment challenger campaigns by non-wealthy candidates were rendered impossible at the federal level by the post-Watergate reforms of 1974 and at the state level by subsequent duplicate state legislation.  This made post-Watergate campaign finance reform a cure worse than the disease. 

I believe there is a vital need to make viable once again anti-establishment campaigns by non-wealthy challengers such as Gene McCarthy in 1968.  That is why I have advocated for some time the following dramatic revision of campaign finance laws at both the federal and state level:  No limitations as to sources and amounts of direct or indirect campaign contributions, but full disclosure within 48 hours of all such donations and campaign expenditures.  The following is a brief explanation of the policy basis for these reforms and how they would work in practice. 

Contrary to most election law lawyers and legislative advocates, I have long believed that the intent, purpose, and original understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes 1) any prohibitions against corporate or union federal election contributions, either to a campaign or by independent expenditure; or 2) any limitations as to the amount any person or entity may so contribute.  In support of my contention, I give you the literal language of the First Amendment:   

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.   

Does the First Amendment permit Congress to pass laws prohibiting corporations or unions from publishing materials advocating the election of a particular candidate?  Absolutely not.  

Does the First Amendment permit Congress to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech or of the press of a person or entity by prohibiting campaign advocacy publication expenditures over a certain amount? Absolutely not.  

Furthermore, I have never understood the rationale of the prohibitions on either corporations or unions making direct contributions in federal elections.  Under present federal election law, Nazi sympathizers or members of the Ku Klux Klan are permitted to make contributions to candidates for President, while corporations and labor unions are prohibited.  The irrationality of this is apparent. 

The argument is often made that if corporations and/or unions are permitted to donate to federal election campaigns, they will use their “deep pockets” to buy elections. An article in the New York Times, hardly a bastion of conservatism, by David D. Kirkpatrick entitled “Does Corporate Money Lead to Corruption?” on January 23, 2010, in the wake of the Citizens United decision addressed the empirical evidence on this issue.  

The article first discussed the factual findings in the Citizens United opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a centrist jurist.  Justice Kennedy found that no evidence was produced in 100,000 pages of legal briefs to show that unrestricted campaign money ever bought a lawmaker’s vote.   Furthermore, Kirkpatrick quoted Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, as stating, “There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government.  It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”  

There is, however, a more fundamental issue regarding corporate or union contributions:  If a candidate’s campaign has received millions of dollars from a corporation, union, or billionaire, and the amount and source of such contribution has been publicly disclosed, isn’t it up to the voters to decide whether such contributions have made the recipient candidate beholden to a nefarious person or entity? 

The public interest is served by mandating full and immediate disclosure of all such contributions, whether made to a campaign or by independent  expenditure.  The public interest is not served by the enactment of campaign finance laws that infringe upon First Amendment freedoms.  

It is not difficult to establish enforcement machinery to guarantee immediate and full disclosure.  In this era of computer technology, full disclosure is easy: a person or entity who makes a contribution or independent expenditure should be required to submit on-line to the FEC a report of same within 24 hours.  Likewise, a campaign that receives such a contribution should be required to file on line with the FEC a report of receipt of same within 24 hours.  Finally, independent expenditure contributors and campaigns should continue to be required to list a “Paid for…” disclaimer on their television commercial or other media item.   Violators of all these disclosure requirements should be subject to serious civil and/or criminal penalties.  

I realize the long odds against adoption of the campaign finance reforms I am advocating.  The establishments of both political parties do not want to increase the prospective viability of campaigns such as the Gene McCarthy 1968 campaign, which could threaten their power and privilege.  My hope, however, perhaps a forlorn one, is that as Americans become more aware of the salutary historic impact of the Gene McCarthy campaign of 1968 and the need to revive the possibility of such anti-establishment challenges, the campaign finance reforms I am proposing will gain support at the grassroots level and the possibility of serious consideration at both the federal and state level.  This would be a most fitting tribute to the political courage of Eugene McCarthy and the political philanthropy of Stewart Mott in that unforgettable year of 1968.  

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush and as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission during the administration of former Governor Christie Whitman.