Fair Play: A Q&A with Christine Todd Whitman

Christine Todd Whitman made New Jersey history when she was elected the state’s first—and still only—female governor in 1993. Four years later she made American history, when she became the first Republican woman in the nation to be re-elected governor. Term-limited out of office, Whitman joined President George W. Bush’s cabinet as his first Environmental Protection Agency director, a position from which she resigned two and a half years later following some public conflicts with the administration. 

Since leaving government, Whitman has become a leading voice for the moderate wing of her party and an advocate for reforming the American political process to make it more inclusive. City & State Editor Morgan Pehme spoke with Whitman about campaign finance reform, the Port Authority and her handling of 9/11. 

The following is an edited transcript. 

City & State: Given that you were the governor of New Jersey, how come you have taken such an interest in publicly financed elections in New York State? 

Christine Todd Whitman: Because it’s an opportunity for New York to be a leader and to show other states it can be done and the importance of opening up the process. Frankly, I was not a fan early on of public financing, but the more I looked at it the more I felt that it was the only way to give those who don’t have access to great wads of money the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. It’s also a way to help control some of the costs. We have public financing for the gubernatorial race in New Jersey, and when you sign on for that, you agree to limit your expenses. Of course, now we have the outside groups that are able to spend, but at least there’s some discipline [with public financing] to the extent that people start to look at this as being important and an important commitment by the candidate. 

C&S: The main opposition to publicly financed elections in New York State comes from Republicans. Why do you think that members of your party bristle at this reform, and what do you think can be done to make them come around to it? 

CTW: I think that their objection to it was what mine was initially, which was we don’t want government [to get involved in] campaigns in this way and “I don’t want to support somebody with whom I don’t agree.” The bigger picture, though, is the one they have to look at, particularly if they want to reach out to women and minorities. Those are the people who haven’t been playing in the system the way that white men have, and you have to give them some help; this is a way of leveling the playing field so that we send a message that we support this kind of thing because it’s good governance, because it would help deflect some of the influence of the big money donors, and for Republicans you point to unions. The Koch brothers aren’t the only people who give a lot of money. There’s a MoveOn.org and there are the unions, so it should play to [the Republicans’] advantage too to see some of this and get some of their nontraditional candidates more attention. 

C&S: With the Bridgegate scandal, there has been a much greater focus on the composition of the Port Authority. In your experience as governor, is the Port Authority overly politicized in the way that it is structured? 

CTW: The Port Authority has always been a delicate balance. I always fought with them because I thought New York was getting too much money. [Laughs.] It depends on which side of the river you sit, who you think is getting the majority of the projects. The important thing that I kept reminding people about the Port Authority is what is good for one side inevitably helps the other. We really are connected as economic entities, and it does help New York to have better ways for people to commute into the city to work. It helps New Jersey for people to be able to get to those jobs because of what that does for the economy of New Jersey and the taxes they pay. But it’s always a tug-of-war between the two states as to what infrastructure projects are shovel-ready, who’s getting the biggest bulk of the money, and that’s why you’ve always had a split between the executive director and the chairman. It shouldn’t be used, obviously, for political ends, but to the extent that infrastructure and policies are political, it’s going to get caught up in that. 

C&S: Lastly, as director of the EPA, you received criticism for declaring in the immediate aftermath of the World Trade Center attack that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe. Do you have any regrets about how you handled 9/11? 

CTW: No. If I could do it over again I would not answer the question I was asked first. I would talk only about the pile, and then answer the question, because the answer to the question as to whether the air quality in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe is absolutely right based on what the scientists were telling us. Every single morning we would have a conference call, we would find out what the readings were, I would reassert that whatever I said was based on fact and the facts were that the ambient air quality in lower Manhattan after the day of the collapse was safe to breathe. On the pile was a different subject, and every day when I answered that question, that I put second because that wasn’t the question I was asked, but I did say those on the pile should wear respirators. Beyond that, we were in meetings every day—we being the EPA—with those who were the emergency responders in the city who were mapping out what was going to be attacked that day on the site, and every day our people were saying, “They’ve got to wear respirators.” We, unfortunately, were not in a position to be able to enforce that. But as far as the information that was given to the public about the ambient air quality in lower Manhattan in general, it was totally based on scientific review. If I could have done something differently, it would have just been to switch around how I answered the question, so I framed it against on the pile, as opposed to the question everybody wanted to know which was [when] they could move back into lower Manhattan. And by the time they were allowed to do it, it was safe to do.