[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 47 (Tuesday, April 26, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. Madam Speaker, it is time for real reform of campaign 
finance. S. 3, passed by the Senate, was a constructive bill. As 
amended by this House, it is not a constructive bill. It is a sham.
  Let us take a moment to look at the claims made by the sponsors of 
the so-called campaign finance reform in this Chamber and at the 
reality of what this bill would really do.
  Claim one: The House Democrats say S. 3 as amended by them, 
institutes spending limits.
  The reality: Only a small number of campaigns will even come close to 
the proposed spending limit. The reality is that for most campaigns, 
the so-called limit only means taxpayer financing.
  Claim two: S. 3, as amended by this House, will presumably limit 
political action committees.
  The reality: That is false. House Democrats consider the $5,000 
political action committee donation that can be made in each election--
primary and general for a total of $10,000--simply a sacred cow that is 
untouchable, and not even open to any compromise.
  House Republicans, on the other hand, endorsed a ban on all political 
action committees. Senate Republicans, and even Senate Democrats, did 
exactly the same. All but the House Democrats support a ban on 
political action committees. Only House Democrats block action on such 
a ban.
  Claim three: The House Democrats claim that this bill will level the 
playing field between incumbents and challengers.
  The reality: The entire bill is unfair to challengers. That is why 
the House Democrats have controlled the House for 39 years. They do not 
want a bill that will permit a level playing field. That is why they do 
not include the franking budgets for mail for the incumbents, we--both 
Republicans and Democrats. Those franking budgets can pay for thousands 
and thousands of pieces of unsolicited mail as an election comes near.
  This money gives incumbents a massive advantage over any possible 
challenger.
  Claim four: There will be increased disclosure and audits of campaign 
finances if this bill passes.

                              {time}  1040

  The reality: Audits will be difficult to do, since the Clinton 
administration has reduced the funding available for the Federal 
Election Commission. In 1992, every Presidential campaign that accepted 
taxpayer funding faced an audit. Under S. 3, as amended by the majority 
in the House of Representatives, only 5 percent of the congressional 
campaigns that accept taxpayer dollars will face random audits.
  It is one thing for the House to have audits of Presidential 
campaigns; it is another thing for the House Democratic majority not to 
want to audit its own expenses. But does that bias really surprise any 
of us?
  Should the taxpayers just accept the congressional candidate's word 
that indeed the money has been spent appropriately? Of course not. If 
we are going to give taxpayer money to any campaign, Presidential or 
House Member, as the Democrats propose, then the taxpayers at least 
deserve to know that their money has been spent appropriately.
  Claim five: The proposed bill will reform campaign spending.
  The reality: To quote the bill--the bill the House Democrats forced 
down this Chamber's throat--the bill says, ``This act shall not be 
effective until the enactment of revenue legislation.''
  And the Democratic majority has made absolutely no provision in this 
bill for how you would fund it. No realistic revenue options have yet 
been introduced and the revenue ideas that have been proposed so far 
are more of a sham than the other so-called reforms, all of which are 
shams.
  Democrats claim that in this bill they have reforms. They do not.
  Claim six: This bill cleans up campaigns.
  The reality: The Federal Election Commission banned congressional 
staff from loaning or donating money to the campaigns of their bosses. 
Such donations are an obvious conflict of interest and an opening to 
extortion of one's staff.
  Section 506 of this bill inserts a loophole for advances on amounts 
up to $500. In California, I should remind my colleagues, four current 
and former members of the State legislature have been indicted by the 
U.S. attorney and convicted of extortion-related offenses that involve 
campaign finance. Is it really time to open up new loopholes at the 
Federal level?
  Claim seven: Republicans are blocking reform.
  The reality: That is so silly, it is laughable. The Democrats are the 
majority in the House. Anything they want to pass, they can pass. 
Anything they want to block, they can block.
  The Democratic majority blocked the only bipartisan bill--the so-
called Synar-Livingston bill--from even coming to the floor. While that 
bill did not totally ban political action committees, it at least cut 
them from the $5,000 per election they can now give to one candidate 
down to $1,000 per election. The majority party strangled that 
progressive proposal in the Committee on Rules. It was afraid the 
proposal would pass, as it would have if Members could have voted on 
the measure.
  All I can say, my colleagues, is that this Chamber should be ashamed 
of the action it took earlier.
  Republicans oppose the public financing of campaigns. Thoughtful 
Americans oppose the public financing of campaigns. In reality, House 
Democrats themselves must oppose public financing of campaigns, since 
they will not provide funding for it. Even Democrats know that public 
financing is a bad idea.

  Republicans stand ready to work with the Democrats on a real reform 
bill. We do have concrete proposals that will truly change the way 
campaigns are run.
  We support a ban on political action committees.
  We support a ban on soft money.
  We support a ban on contribution bundling by special interest groups.
  We support a requirement that candidates raise most of their money 
from the voters in the district--not from the special interest groups 
in Hollywood, New York, and Washington, DC.
  Many Republicans and Democrats support similar goals. The Senate 
Democrats and Republicans agree. The House Democrats should yield to 
the Senate in conference. If they do not, let us come together on a 
bipartisan reform bill. A real reform bill.

                          ____________________