Outsider in the White House (10 page)

During the trip I had an opportunity to meet with Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, as well as other government officials. I also met with some of the opposition, including Jaime Chamorro, the editor of the opposition newspaper,
La Prensa
. Father Miguel D'Escoto was then the Nicaraguan foreign minister. I met him in a small church in Managua where he was lying in bed, fasting in protest against U.S. support for the contras.

This trip took on special significance because I was accompanied by a reporter from our local newspaper, the
Burlington Free Press
, the largest paper in the state. The reporter, Don Melvin, covered the City Hall beat. He found out that I was going to Nicaragua and somehow managed to convince his editors that if his job was following the mayor, then that meant following him to Nicaragua. Don filed a story each night from Nicaragua that made the front pages of the paper. Our relationship remained entirely professional, and I had no clue as to what he was writing until I returned home. As it happened, he did an excellent job of describing what he saw, and his articles succeeded in countering a lot of the lies and distortions about Nicaragua trotted out by the corporate media.

One of the most moving experiences of the trip occurred on our very first day there. Shortly after we arrived in Managua, we boarded a small plane and flew to the town of Puerto Cabezas, on the Atlantic coastline. Before I left Burlington, the city had agreed to develop a sister-city program with Puerto Cabezas. I went there to meet with local officials and work out the details. News had just reached the town, which had a heavy Miskito Indian population, that some people who had returned to their home on the Rio Coco had been killed, and their bodies were being transported back to Puerto Cabezas.

Eighteen hours earlier, Don and I had been breakfasting together in Burlington. And now, on that same unbelievably long day, somewhere in an Indian village on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua, we listened to the wailing of family members who received their dead relatives back into the village. It was an unforgettable experience.

The sister-city program with Puerto Cabezas was very popular and continues to this day. Out of that program came many trips back and forth of Vermonters and Nicaraguans, and the development of many friendships. The people of Burlington provided a significant amount of material help in terms of medical supplies, school equipment, and other desperately needed goods. In return, we had the opportunity to learn about a courageous people and a very different culture.

On May 28, 1988, Jane and I were married. The marriage ceremony was held—where else?—in North Beach, a public park on Burlington's waterfront. A lot of people attended.

On the next day we began a quiet, romantic honeymoon. We went to Yaroslavl, in the Soviet Union, along with ten other Burlingtonians, to finalize our sister-city relationship with that city. Trust me. It was a very strange honeymoon.

Like the Puerto Cabezas project, the sister-city program with Yaroslavl has been very successful. Each has different constituencies of support. Puerto Cabezas mostly attracted the energy of left-wing activists who were initially involved because of their support for the Sandinista Revolution and opposition to U.S. intervention in Central America. The Yaroslavl project received more broad-based backing, including from a number of business people in the city.

In 1987, the Leningrad Youth Choir gave a magnificent concert at Memorial Auditorium, our largest facility. The audience was especially moved when the young people from Leningrad performed alongside high school students from throughout Vermont. We also played host to a number of Soviet students who visited Burlington High School as part of an exchange program.

Jane and I visited Cuba in 1989. I had hoped to meet with Castro, but that didn't work out. But I did meet with the mayor of Havana and other officials.

Burlington had a foreign policy because, as progressives, we understood that we all live in one world. We understood that just as actions taken outside of our city affected us, we could have an impact on national and international developments. If children in Nicaragua were suffering because of U.S. policy, it was our responsibility to try to change that policy. If children in the United States were going hungry because the federal government was spending more than was necessary on the military, we also had a responsibility to work on changing that.

As the mayor of Burlington, and someone committed to grassroots democracy, I saw no magic line separating local, state, national, and international issues. How could federal cuts in education not be a local issue? They affect our public schools. How could environmental degradation not be a local issue? It affects the water we drink and our health. How could issues of war and peace not be a local issue? It is local youngsters who fight and die in wars. Ultimately, if we're going to revitalize democracy in this country, local government will have to assume a much stronger and more expansive role.

I think back on my eight years as mayor of Burlington with enormous satisfaction. We had shown that good people could come together, take on very powerful special interests, and successfully fight for social change. We had shown that if you open the doors to City Hall and are prepared to fight for the interests of ordinary people, they will come in and join the struggle.

But let me be very clear: a major factor in our success was that we worked
extremely
hard. We had to in order to survive. Year after year. Yes, the movement was filled with bright people who had loads of creative ideas. Yes, we ran attractive and articulate candidates, and enlisted people who became excellent administrators. But unless you are ready to hit the streets, knock on doors, and communicate with your constituents, you're not going to be successful.

We did not accomplish all that we set out to do, and we made our share of mistakes. But no one, not even our worst enemies, could accuse us of being armchair radicals. We outworked our opponents in every campaign. Remember that in Burlington, elections are held every year when half the Board comes up. That's a lot of work.

In 1983, the
Burlington Free Press
, the city's daily newspaper and voice of the business community, urged the Democratic and Republican parties to join forces around one candidate in order to defeat my reelection bid. Gee. Here I was, year after year, telling people that there wasn't a helluva big difference between the two major parties, and the
Burlington Free Press
agreed with me.

But the two parties did not combine in 1983. Instead, they ran separate candidates. Judy Stephany, a leader in the Vermont House of Representatives, ran as the Democratic candidate; Jim Gilson, the chairman of the school board, was the Republican candidate. The election night results were Sanders 52 percent, Stephany 31 percent, and Gilson 17 percent. The Progressives were also successful in reelecting two members to the Board of Aldermen.

In 1979, before the progressive movement was active in Burlington, 7,000 people had voted in the mayoral election. In 1981, when I was first elected, participation went up to 9,300—a 30 percent increase. In 1983, when I was reelected, 13,320 people voted, almost twice as many as in 1979. The citizens of Burlington had seen a local government working for their interests, and they came out in large numbers to support it. In the low-income and working-class wards, I won close to 70 percent of the vote in a three-way race, and our aldermanic candidates won landslide victories.

Interestingly, as Burlingtonians paid more and more attention to local elections in March, they also voted in far larger numbers in the national elections in November. In 1984, 18,129 Burlingtonians voted in the presidential elections, a 23 percent higher turnout than in 1980. In the national election, the city voted strongly Democratic.

In 1985, I ran for a third term against the former lieutenant governor of Vermont, Democrat Brian Burns. The Republican candidate was Diane Gallagher, a member of the City Council. In that election, I received 55 percent of the vote, Burns 31 percent, and Gallagher 12 percent.

When I announced for reelection for a fourth term in 1987, I stated that, if I won, this would be my last two years. In that election, somewhat belatedly, the Democrats and Republicans finally heeded the advice that the
Burlington Free Press
had given them in 1983. They rallied around one candidate, Paul Lafayette, who was a Democrat on the City Council. Needless to say, taking on the combined parties wasn't easy, and Paul ran a smart campaign. When he was nominated by the Democrats in a contested caucus, close to a thousand people, a huge turnout, attended the meeting. After six years out of the mayor's office, the Democrats were very anxious to regain City Hall. We were very happy, therefore, when we defeated Lafayette, 54 to 46 percent.

Despite a poll showing me with a very high favorability rating and no serious opposition, I left office in April 1989. Eight years was enough. At the end of the month I attended my last Board of Aldermen meeting as mayor of Burlington. I was very happy that this meeting ended on a better note than my first. The Democrats, Republicans, and Progressives presented me with a beautiful newspaper collage, highlighting some of the outstanding events of my tenure.

I was also delighted that my replacement as mayor would be Peter Clavelle, a Progressive. Peter had served in my administration for a number of years, most recently as the director of economic development, where he did an outstanding job. Peter became mayor by defeating a candidate supported by both the Democrats and Republicans. I was leaving the city in good hands.

This whole campaign fundraising situation stinks to high heaven. In the past, I have fought hard for campaign finance reform which limits the amount of money that can be spent in an election and which emphasizes public funding of elections and small individual contributions. Ordinary Americans should have a chance to win elections, not just the rich or representatives thereof. If reelected, I will accelerate my efforts in this area.

Ironically, Susan Sweetser is attacking me on the issue of fundraising. She criticizes the fact that I do not list every contribution under $200. (Federal Election Commission law mandates only that contributors of $200 or more be itemized.) And in press conferences and press releases, she points out that I receive much of my support from out of state. Hence the strategy of tying me to a national cabal of left-wing extremists.

For years, Vermont Republicans have been furious that I have been able to raise money and run strong campaigns. They understand, as I do, that a winning campaign is well nigh impossible without adequate financial resources. In 1988, it is likely that if I had been able to spend as much as my Republican opponent, Peter Smith, I would have won. In 1990, while we were outspent again by Smith, we raised enough money to mount a forceful campaign—and win. I was not outspent in 1992 or '94.

As the only Independent in Congress, I face unique fundraising handicaps that my campaign works very hard to overcome. Unlike Democrats and Republicans, I do not receive any funds from a political party. I do not benefit from the coordinated campaigns that Democrats and Republicans utilize. My campaign does not get support from a party organization that provides staff, polling, literature, offices, mailings, voter checklists, and other services. Further, as a Progressive, I have adamantly refused financial support from Big Money interests. Throughout my political career, I have never accepted one penny from a corporate PAC. (Of the Banking Committee's fifty-two members, only two, including myself, receive no PAC funds from interests associated with the corporate financial community.)

Most importantly, the vast majority of my contributors do not have a lot of money and are unable to give large amounts. In campaign after campaign, I receive
more
individual contributions from Vermont than my opponents, but
fewer
total dollars. Our average campaign contribution is less than $35. My Republican opponent will always have a much higher average contributions. Sweetser, for instance, is collecting many $1,000 checks from some of the richest people in the state, not to mention the $30,000 she raised at the $500-a-plate function attended by Dick Armey.

So, how have we raised money in the past, and what are we doing this campaign? Simple. We play to our strengths. While our average campaign contribution is small, we receive an enormous number of contributions from middle-class and working people, in Vermont and throughout the country. This campaign we hope to receive some 20,000 individual contributions, an incredible number. As the only Independent in Congress, and as a progressive, working people from every state have contributed to my campaigns. If the Republicans think I'm embarrassed by this, they can think again. I'm proud to have the support.

Raising money from so many people takes an enormous amount of work and record keeping. We have to record every contribution that comes in and make certain that our bank deposits are correct. We also have to fill out the FEC reports several times during the campaign—and make sure that they are right. Tineke and Jerome Russell and Sara Burchard have volunteered for this massive undertaking for the last two campaigns. They have done an extraordinary job.

It is unlikely that we will ever be able to raise as much money in Vermont as a strong Republican like Sweetser. The arithmetic is simple. If 400 wealthy individuals made an average contribution of $500, Sweetser would raise $200,000 in Vermont. That is much more than we have ever raised, or are ever likely to raise. You just can't accumulate that kind of money when your average contribution is less than $35, and when you get thousands of contributions from people who are doing the best they can by sending a check for $10 or $20. I would need close to 6,000 contributions averaging $35 to match her $200,000, not to mention the greatly increased costs and the labor associated with actually raising that much money from so many people.

While I will not accept PAC money from corporate America, I gladly accept PAC contributions from organizations fighting to improve life for ordinary people. Over the years, my campaigns have received strong financial support from PACs associated with organized labor, the environment, women, senior citizens, human rights, and the needs of children. That is continuing in this campaign.