Is The Forbes Campaign Really Rich Man, Poor Us?
The news about the wealthiest man running for president in 1996 was rich: Malcolm Forbes Jr. is seeking donations in his bid for the White House.
Forbes has said he would spend up to $25 million of his own money to become the commander-in-chief. Now it turns out that so far “spend” really means Forbes will “loan” his campaign the money, a distinction that allows the campaign apparatus to pay him back.
The New York Times reported, and so have others, that Forbes has already “spent $15 million of his own funds.” But the technical difference that we now know exists from Forbes’ filings with the Federal Election Commission means that the Forbes for President Founders Trust, the arm of the campaign to which one can donate $1,000 after receiving a direct-mail appeal, can pay back the loans to the campaign from the treasury of contributions.
The long and short of all this is that Forbes himself stands to be repaid for any funds he provides - “loans” - to his own campaign.
This is all quite amusing to me since I feel personally responsible for starting this debate about Forbes, his proposed flat tax and how much money he is spending. In December I wrote an opinion piece, with my colleague Charles Lewis, wondering why Forbes would not disclose how he would be affected by the very flat tax that he as president would seek to implement and which would affect every American.
The response from the Forbes campaign was, and continues to be, evasive. “All Americans would benefit from a flat tax,” Gretchen Morgenson, the Forbes campaign press secretary said. “Americans are less interested in how this flat tax will benefit Steve Forbes, but how it will benefit them.”
We requested Forbes’ tax returns and Morgenson responded, “We have complied with all the ‘disclosure’ requirements. We are not required to make them (tax returns) available to the public. And we are not going to make them public.”
(Bob Dole, who lately has been hearing Forbes’ footsteps in Iowa and New Hampshire, released his tax returns, in part to show that Forbes would not.)
After we asked these questions and after we had our accountant (a brave man by the name of Clovis Sanford) run a hypothetical tax return for Forbes, we were criticized for implying that the reason Forbes is running for president is to personally save millions from a flat tax. Now, of course we made no such allegation. But the argument used against us was that Forbes was intent on spending $25 million of his own money and it would take him 50 to 100 years to recover that investment even if he saved double our hypothetical calculation. That argument tends to wilt in the light of the new tidbit that Forbes is not exactly without some recourse for recovering the money he makes available - “loans” - to his campaign.
We were accused by the editorial page of the Washington Times of not understanding “basic political concepts” and of having a “narrow mindset.” The basic political concept involved with Steve Forbes and the flat tax and what he says about the source of funding for his campaign is: Disclosure.
Our narrow mindset is wholly in favor of full disclosure from someone who wants us to hire him as our next president. That is a simple concept that the editorial writers and campaign staffs seem unable to grasp.
The point is, Steve Forbes won’t answer questions about his flat tax and how he would fare.
The other candidates have other issues they won’t address.
None of us would hire someone to work for us if that person wasn’t fully forthcoming about issues relevant to the job. We shouldn’t hire a president who will not answer the relevant questions. If there is a failure to respond, then we should tell the candidate who wants our vote that such evasion is unacceptable. Tell him that in the 1996 presidential election, there is too much at stake: The truth.
xxxx