Aspen Daily News interviews Romanoff

02/01/2010 - Aspen Daily News - Andrew Travers

Andrew Travers: What effect will the recent supreme court decision to allow unlimited corporate campaign donations have on the midterm elections?

Andrew Romanoff: I think one of the dangers is, say you’re a member of congress and there’s a bill in front of you and it might be bad for a giant corporation or some other special interest group, you’re now going to be thinking that your vote against the interests of this corporations will come back to bite you in millions of dollars in campaign advertising, because corporations are people and money is speech and special interest groups will now have the ability to bankroll without limit.

I think that’s not good, honestly.

AT: And you are not taking PAC money or corporate money. Is that going to hurt your campaign?

AR: Obviously we are going to need to raise some money to win, but we are relying on people. So, more Colorodans contributed to our campaign in the last three months of the year than to any other campaign in Colorado. What that says to me is folks actually want a candidate to be accountable to them, not just to the special interest groups that bankroll congress and block reform.

A lot of voters have said, and I think you saw this in Massachusetts and you will see this across the country, voters have taken a look at both political parties and said ‘a plague on both your houses. If you care more about your own job security as a politician than your constituents you should find another line of work.’

And I think voters are right.

AT: If you were in the Senate right now, what would you be doing to get some meaningful health care reform done?

AR: The most important time to stand up is when you can actually make a difference, not after the deal is already cut, the dye is cast and the vote is taken. You saw plenty of people march down to the senate floor and denounce bills that they had just voted for. That’s not leadership. If the senator from Nebraska is going to hold up the bill to extract backroom deals to benefit his state — and he did, he got his state out of Medicaid — or the senator from Louisiana negotiated what folks are calling “the Louisiana purchase” in return for her support for this bill, then one member of the U.S. Senate could stand up and say, ‘No, if you want my vote you’re going to have to do not only what’s best for my state but what’s right for the United States.’

You didn’t see any senators stand up and say that, I’m sorry to say, in the majority party. So in my view we ought to take the pork out, put the public option back in, remove the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies and do those things before you actually — before you sell your vote.

There’s a reason that insurance companies and special interest groups lavish millions of dollars on members of congress, and voters ought to ask, ‘Why? What do they expect to get in return for their money? And why did the Senate and the House go along with a deal to shield profits for pharmaceutical companies? What puts the interest of these powerful donors over those of their constituents?’

I won’t have that conflict because I’m not taking that money.

AT: You talked earlier about favoring a carbon tax, rather than the cap and trade bill that passed the House.

AR: One way to structure this proposal is to make it revenue neutral, so that as someone once put it, ‘Pay for what you burn not what you earn.’

In other words, reduce the income tax, so people pay less for working, which is the kind of activity we should be encouraging. You can keep more of what you earn, but you pay more for what you burn. You reduce pollution by the same thread. That would be one way to structure the proposal so that, net, people would actually pay more. And in the long term if you steer utility companies toward renewable sources the cost of renewable energy will go down. You need to figure out, it seems to me, a way to goose e the market for renewable energy. We’re doing that in Colorado in a number of ways — we passed a renewable energy standard — the voters actually passed it, we doubled it, the governor just agreed to increase it to 30 percent. So that instead of relying on fossil fuel we are going to actually steer the market toward sun, wind, biomass — that’s one way to do it. The carbon tax is another.

And the bill I just mentioned at the end [of my earlier remarks] is the most exciting in some ways, that tells consumers we will roll your electric meter backwards if you put more energy on the grid than you take. That would be another way to get homeowners involved with this.

AT: Do you think those programs can be implemented on a national scale?

AR: Yes, I do.

AT: What’s holding that back.

AR: One, some members of Congress lack the courage of their convictions. I’ve heard plenty of folks say, ‘Gosh, that makes perfect sense. We believe it’s the right thing to do. But we’re worried about our own reelection chances and these proposals are so easy to demonize — especially a carbon tax that has the word tax in it.’ But the truth is the opposition to these bills is going to call them a tax no matter what. That’s what they call cap and trade. This proposal I think is more transparent, more efficient, more effective, less susceptible to gaming and makes more sense.

Cowardice is part of the problem. The contributions from the nation’s biggest polluters is another part of the problem. They spend money on congressional campaigns not out of the goodness of their own heart but because they know that’s the best way to get the ear of a politician. And they spend money, obviously, lobbying Congress, and running television ads that con voters into fearing some of these reforms. That’s true on energy policy, that’s true on health care policy, too. In both cases these are matters of life and death. The fate of the planet is literally the whole ball game. And on healthcare, which is an issue I’m very passionate about, someone in Colorado will die because he or she cannot afford to treat or prevent an illness. Somebody will die tomorrow and the next day and 75,000 people will die in the course of the year in America because medical care is out of reach. And instead of actually acting as if we’re actually in a crisis, which we are in, Congress is dithering.

AT: The most interesting part of your bio, to me, is your work with the Southern Poverty Law Center. You were working on hate crimes there, and basically with domestic terrorists like the KKK. How has that influenced your feelings about trying a terrorist like Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a court in Manhattan?

AR: I think he ought to be tried in a military tribunal.

But most of the work I did at SPLC was with law enforcement officials. So we would track Klan and Nazi activities, scan the Internet — which was one of their new recruiting tools when I was working there 20 years ago — and then I would prepare reports so that cops and sheriffs and other law enforcement folks around the country could monitor the various groups in their communities. I’ve worked with victims of crimes in Colorado, especially domestic violence.

AT: But does your experience there connect at all with how you believe we should deal with terrorists?

AR: If you are being charged with, as Khalid Sheik Mohammed is, with more than one act of terror, if military tribunals were set up for this purpose then it’s a good place for these things.

AT: Are you familiar at all with the Hidden Gems wilderness proposal out here?

AR: Yeah, a little bit.

AT: Do you have a take on it at his point?

AR: I think it’s the right way to protect an important part of our planet.

Some folks suggest that protecting the environment is at odds with economic development. I think they’re wrong. I think one of the reasons people choose to come here and companies choose to do business here is because it’s a beautiful place to live. I think we would make a mistake, we would lose, not only tourist revenue but we would lose our quality of life if we decided to just pave over Colorado. That would be a short-term strategy.

AT: So you think that federally designated wilderness is the best way to protect land, or do you mean conservation in general?

AR: I suppose it depends. What I tried to do in the state house is use the tools we had there. We would use any means possible to encourage folks to preserve their land. I wrote a bill that tried to protect conservation easements so that landowners who keep land free of development would receive some financial incentive to do that. I think that’s appropriate. I think if you don’t do that, you could turn half of Colorado into a big strip mall that stretches from Fort Collins to Pueblo.

AT: Another issue folks are talking a lot about is medical marijuana. Five or so have opened here since the summer. What do you think of current federal drug laws?

AR: I think the nation’s drug laws are not working. I think we need to have a serious conversation, as a country, about how to reform how we enforce the law. Most of my efforts in Colorado were at combating drug abuse, because our state ranks among the highest in the country when it comes to addiction and among the lowest when it comes to funding treatment. And there’s a connection.

My mom was a social worker when I was growing up, so she treated people with mental illness and some of them treated themselves with alcohol or drugs, which is a pretty lousy way to go. So most of my emphasis has been on that, and I think it’s a tragedy. Kids in Colorado being born with fetal alcohol syndrome because their mom wasn’t getting treated for alcoholism, they end up with a lifetime of developmental delays that in some cases can never be remedied. That’s something they pay for and we do too.

AT: So are you talking about decriminalization for non-violent offenders and people with addictions?

AR: What I supported in Colorado, and eventually Governor Owens supported as well — he vetoed one bill and signed a second one the following year — was to provide either alternative sentences or reduced sentences for non-violent drug offenses — not distribution, but possession. And we used the savings that came from those reductions or alternative sentences to fund treatment. I think that is a much more cost effective way to go.

The recidivism rate in our prison system is roughly 50 percent — so within three years of their release on parole, half of our offenders will be committing crimes again, even more with folks with mental illness. It’s like 80 percent within a year if they’re seriously mentally ill. The definition of insanity, Einstein said, is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, which is what we’ve been doing. We lock people up, we don’t treat their addictions or their illnesses or their illiteracy, which is also a big predictor of their likelihood to reoffend. Then we act surprised when, lo and behold, the reoffend. And then we lock them up again. And we spend $30,000 a year doing it. That is, or was, the average cost per year of keeping a prisoner in Colorado — it’s $100,000 to build a maximum security prison cell. So we’re going broke, and the fiscally conservative approach would be to attack the things that are driving recidivism, rather than habituating.

AT: Is that something you can do through federal legislation?

AR: That’s a good question. One value that I bring to this job is the experience of actually having to balance a budget at a state level, which is something we’re required to do. We don’t have a choice. Balancing the budget in Colorado is not just a good idea, it’s the law. So every year we had to do something that Congress doesn’t, which is make revenues and expenditures match before we adjourn. We can’t borrow our way out of these problems, we can’t tax our way out of them, we’ve got 120 days to figure out how much money we’re taking in, how much money we want to spend on services, and make the math work. I think, whether it’s the Department of Corrections, health care, or education, the discipline that comes with that is something Congress would benefit from.

I know I’ve wandered out of drug law here, but it’s related because it’s something that’s driving our budget higher. The alternative, it seems to me, is just a pile of debt to hand down to our kids. Congress just lifted the debt ceiling to $14 trillion or so. Somebody’s got to pay for that. And I talk to a bunch of college students who can do the math, too. They figured out pretty quickly that if we’re not spending what we’re consuming they’re going to have to pay.

AT: What issues do you find local folks here are asking you most about — spending, jobs, the wars ...

AR: A range of issues. Oil and gas development. Jobs, a couple folks asked about restoring America’s manufacturing base, health care obviously because it’s been on the top of the congressional agenda — I think the environment is pretty central.

Transportation, talking a little bit about a rail line from Glenwood to Aspen and we talked a little bit about the rail line that may run from Denver into the mountains.

AT: What are your priorities among those?

AR: The three that I’ve been pursuing are the economy, healthcare and the environment. Three good examples of priorities that the Congress has nudged. So it’s a year and a half now since the beginning of this financial meltdown, Congress has not passed a package of financial reform, so the Wall Street banks that are partly responsible for this — and we haven’t actually pursued an aggressive jobs program that will put people back to work.

We haven’t succeeded in reforming health care, or transforming it — which is my preference. Now, it appears that some members of Congress are very upset and uncomfortable and badly bruised by this healthcare debate. They went to their leadership and said, ‘We want to put off this debate about health care until a non-election year.’ I think that’s pathetic. When you get elected to a job you should do it, even if it means that you lose your job. You should be willing to take on tough issues. Most Americans, I think, understand how much is at stake here and want action. The fact that so many members of congress, as I’ve put it, are more concerned about their own job security than in ours, is part of the problem.

AT: And job security isn’t something you are worried about at the moment, not having one.

AR: I had a really rewarding job and I think I did it well. The point of getting power is not to keep it, it’s to use it to improve the lives of the people you represent. I think sometimes folks forget that. I think they get so comfortable in these positions of power that they forget why they sought them in the first place. Or they get seduced by the special interests that bankroll their campaigns. People say, ’Oh, this senator seems to be setting in quite nicely.’

I think that’s part of the problem. I’m not running for office so that I can settle into Washington’s country club. I think somebody needs to stand up and take on some of these entrenched interests, whatever the costs to your own career.

AT: But some folks would say this run is also costing your party.

AR: I don’t buy that argument at all, and I’ll tell you why. One, I think an election by definition is the most democratic thing in the world. Literally. Small ‘d.’

The governor filled a vacancy, which is his right, but there’s a million registered Democrats who’ve had no say in who the Democratic nominee should be. There are a million Republicans who haven’t had a say in who their nominee should be. . .

I also think a primary can strengthen the party, and I think it did in 2008. I think the president emerged stronger from that contest. I think a lot of people got engaged who otherwise may have sat it out.

The test depends on what kind of primary you run. I’ve taken pains to distinguish my candidacy without disparaging my opponent. I’m disappointed that the other team has chosen not to follow suit by characterizing me, prematurely I think, as a career politician. But I suppose if that’s the worst they can say about me, it’s not the end of the world.

I know this is the attitude of the Washington political culture: you circle the wagons, you protect incumbents, support everybody who is in office and avoid a primary at all cost. I think that may be good for Washington but it’s a pretty raw deal for the rest of us. I’m not entitled to serve in the U.S. Senate. I don’t think anybody is. This is a job that you actually have to earn and that’s what I intend to do.