[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
          SENATE CAMPAIGN REFORM BILL VIOLATES BASIC FAIR PLAY

                                 ______


                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 26, 1994

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, as the House and Senate prepare for 
conference on their campaign finance reform bills (H.R. 3/S.3), I want 
to shed light on a provision in the Senate bill that discriminates 
against Independents and third-party candidates and encourage the House 
conferees to eliminate this provision.
  As written, the Senate reform bill's best provision is a carrot that 
helps force candidates to stick to the spending limits. If eligible 
Senate candidates agree to abide by a spending limit and then one of 
them backs out, the candidate who plays by the rules receives public 
funds as compensation. This is a worthwhile provision that can serve to 
encourage all parties to play by the rules--fearing if they do not, 
their opponent will be rewarded.
  Unfortunately, if you are an Independent or third-party candidate who 
has met the standard eligibility requirement to be a Senate candidate 
and has stuck, to the spending limit, you will only get half the 
carrot, at most, if your opponent breaks the spending limit.
  The provision against Independents or third-party candidates in the 
Senate reform bill directly violates the Copenhagen Document, a 
politically binding agreement that states that participating nations 
not discriminate against individuals or political parties seeking 
political office. It also states that nations must provide parties and 
organizations with legal guarantees that enable them to compete with 
each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law. The Senate 
bill breaches both of these provisions of the Copenhagen Document.
  How can the Senate honestly require all candidates to meet the same 
contribution threshold, and then deny some of them equal public funding 
simply because they are not part of the two-party system? Such 
discrimination in favor of Democratic or Republican candidates is 
contrary to our Nation's democratic principles and offend the basic 
sense of fair play. It has no place in a so-called reform bill.
  With only half the compensation for playing by the rules, 
Independents will pose less of a threat to an established party 
candidate who casts off spending limits. If a Republican or Democrat 
running for the Senate against an Independent decides to abandon the 
spending limit or even conspire to break the limit, with half the 
compensation to the Independent provide ample ammunition to run a 
competitive race?

  This provision against Independents shows the Senate's disregard for 
a public that is increasingly tired of politics as usual and often 
frustrated with the candidates served up by our entrenched two-party 
system. If democracy and fairness are to be served, the Senate must 
change its legislation to make certain that all candidates, including 
those outside the two-party system, can compete on a level playing 
field.
  As the only Independent in Congress, and the first in 40 years, I am 
in the unique position to oppose rules that tilt the balance against 
Independents and third-party candidates. I am not a candidate for the 
Senate, but recently Ballot Access News sketched out a plausible 
scenario of what could have happened to me in Vermont had I run for the 
Senate. I have attached that scenario for the Record. This scenario 
reveals the completely discriminatory nature of the Senate campaign 
reform bill.

                [From Ballot Access News, Jan. 11, 1994]

                    S. 3 Violates Copenhagen Accord

       S. 3, the ``Congressional Spending Limit and Election 
     Reform Act of 1993'' as passed by the Senate, clearly 
     violates the Copenhagen Document, which the United States 
     signed in 1990. The Document pledges nations not to 
     discriminate for or against any political party or candidate. 
     S. 3 mandates higher public campaign subsidies to Republicans 
     and Democrats running for the U.S. Senate, even when another 
     candidate has raised more money and otherwise shown more 
     public support than the major party candidates.
       Suppose Vermont's Independent member of Congress, Bernie 
     Sanders, were to run for the U.S. Senate. Also suppose that 
     Sanders had raised $800,000 in small contributions from 
     individuals. Also suppose that his hypothetical Republican 
     opponent, the incumbent, has raised $1,620,000, and that the 
     hypothetical Democratic candidate has raised $60,000 (this is 
     not an unrealistic scenario; in the U.S House race in Vermont 
     in 1992, Sanders raised $575,791; his Republican opponent 
     raised less; and the Democratic candidate raised less than 
     $5,000 and only polled 8% of the vote).
       The amount raised by the Republican Senator exceeds the 
     $1,200,000 voluntary cap for Vermont in his particular year 
     in our hypothetical example, so S. 3's public campaign 
     subsidy program would go into operation.
       Sec. 503(b)(2)(B) of the bill contains the formula for 
     determining Sanders' subside. His amount would be the least 
     of these three calculations: (1) small contributions to 
     Sanders minus 5% of the legal spending cap, or $740,000; (2) 
     50% of the legal spending cap, or $600,000; (3) the excess 
     over the spending cap spent by the candidate who didn't 
     adhere to that cap, in this case $420,000. Sanders would 
     receive the least of these three amounts, i.e., $420,000.
       Sanders' Democratic opponent would receive an amount 
     determined by Sec. 503(b)(2)(A) of the bill. In this example, 
     since the excess spending by the non-capped Republican is 
     more than 1.33% of the spending cap, but less than 1.67% of 
     the cap, the Democrat would receive two-thirds of the 
     spending cap or $800,000.
       To summarize: the state's independent member of the U.S. 
     House, who won with 58% of the vote in 1992, would receive 
     $420,000 in public campaign subsidies, only half the amount 
     of money he had raised. Yet his Democratic opponent would 
     receive $800,000, an amount 13 times greater than the amount 
     of money he or she had raised.

                    [From Roll Call, July 25, 1994]

          Senate's Campaign Reform Bill Unfair to Independents

                       (By Rep. Bernard Sanders)

       Movie buffs will recall the Cary Grant Classic, ``Arsenic 
     and Old Lace,'' where two spinsters thought some people would 
     be better off dead, so they started politely poisoning them.
       A similar real-life plot is embodied in the Senate campaign 
     finance reform bill that's sure to cripple any anti-
     establishment candidates. Old-fashioned, two-party 
     politicians are sitting on their patriarchal thrones drinking 
     fruitful wine and sharing it with third-party and Independent 
     challengers. And surprise, surprise, it's laced with arsenic.
       As written, the Senate reform bill's best provision is a 
     carrot that helps force candidates to stick to the spending 
     limits. If eligible Senate candidates agree to abide by a 
     spending limit and then one of them backs out, the candidate 
     who plays by the rules receives public funds as compensation. 
     This is a worthwhile provision that can serve to encourage 
     all parties to play by the rules--fearing that if they don't, 
     their opponent will be rewarded.
       Unfortunately, if you are an Independent or third-party 
     candidate who has met the standard eligibility requirements 
     to be a Senate candidate and has stuck to the spending 
     limits, you will only get half the carrot at most if your 
     opponent breaks the spending limit.
       The provision against Independents or third-party 
     candidates in the Senate reform bill directly violates the 
     Copenhagen Document, a politically binding agreement by 
     participating nations of the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe. The Copenhagen Document commits 
     participating nations to respecting the right of individuals 
     and groups to establish political parties or other political 
     organizations and to provide such parties and organizations 
     the necessary legal guarantees to enable them to compete with 
     each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law.
       It further states that participating nations should respect 
     the right of citizens to seek political or public office, 
     individually or as representatives of political parties or 
     organizations, without discriminations. The Senate campaign 
     finance reform bill clearly breaches both of these 
     provisions.
       As funding for Congressional campaigns gets more out of 
     reach for the average American, Americans are getting more 
     and more disgruntled with the current two-party system. It is 
     very revealing that more Americans now consider themselves 
     Independents than either Republicans or Democrats.
       I feel like Gary Grant, the nephew in the movie, stumbling 
     upon two kindly, sweet-natured political parties that know 
     what is the best choice for American voters. I have joined 
     the two-party Congress as a Member of the House. But I have a 
     more distant relationship because I am not part of the two-
     party system.
       It further states that participating nations should respect 
     the right of citizens to seek political or public office, 
     individually or as representatives of political parties or 
     organizations, without discrimination. The Senate campaign 
     finance reform bill clearly breaches both of these 
     provisions.
       As the only Independent in Congress (and the first in 40 
     years), I am in the unique position to oppose rules that tilt 
     the balance against Independents and third-party candidates. 
     I supported the House campaign finance bill last year. While 
     the bill does not go far enough in addressing the cancerous 
     role that big money plays in American politics, at least it 
     does not discriminate against third-party and Independent 
     candidates.
       With limits on spending and PAC contributions, strict 
     controls on what a candidate can give to his or her own 
     campaign, and elimination of party ``soft money,'' we can 
     substantially reduce the cost of elections and the influence 
     of big money. Only then can we finally begin to open up the 
     process to challengers who are not millionaires, and yes, in 
     some cases, candidates who consider themselves Independents. 
     But the arsenic is in the wine for any Independent or third-
     party candidate who chooses to run for the Senate.
       How can the Senate honestly require all candidates to meet 
     the same threshold, and then deny some of them equal public 
     financing simply because they are not part of the two 
     established parties? Such discrimination in favor of 
     Democratic and Republican candidates is contrary to our 
     nation's democratic principles and offends the basic sense of 
     fair play. It has no place in a so-called reform bill.
       With only half the compensation for playing by the rules, 
     Independents will pose less of a threat to an established 
     party candidate who casts off spending limits. If a 
     Republican or Democrat running for the Senate against an 
     Independent decides to abandon the spending limit or even 
     conspire to break the limit, will half the compensation to 
     the Independent provide ample ammunition to run a competitive 
     race?
       This provision against Independents shows the Senate's 
     disregard for a public that is increasingly tired of politics 
     as usual and often frustrated with the candidates served up 
     by our entrenched two-party system. If democracy and fairness 
     are to be served, the Senate must change its legislation to 
     make certain that all candidates, including those outside the 
     two-party system, can compete on a level playing field.
       ``Bottoms up.'' But remember, in the movie it's the two old 
     spinsters who get trundled off to the asylum for the rest of 
     their lives.

                          ____________________