[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, one of the votes scheduled today involves 
invoking cloture on debate on the campaign finance reform bill. I want 
to state to my colleagues that it is my intention to vote against 
invoking cloture on this measure. I would like to share with this body 
the reasons for my vote.
  I have followed with considerable preoccupation the issues and the 
arguments surrounding campaign finance reform. If I am hearing my 
colleagues correctly, the core of the matter is, to put it 
unpleasantly--the perception that Senators' votes are influenced by 
sizable contributions to their campaigns.
  Mr. President, I react to this measure as I reacted to its cousin, 
the ban on meals and theaters and sports tickets from lobbyists. 
Namely, I question its intent, its assumptions, and its effect.
  The intent is clear enough. The House and Senate bills seek to thwart 
an alleged concentration of influence by limiting the amount of single-
source campaign funds. In pursuing that intent. Mr. President, this 
measure paradoxically tries to defeat a perception by caving in to it. 
It assumes that the interests of political action committees are 
suspect, self-serving, and contrary to the public good.
  This assumption disregards that your constituents often start those 
organizations, comprise their membership, and provide their resources. 
It ignores the possibility that constituents speaking through 
corporations or unions and associations share a candidate's ideas about 
jobs, education, or any issue. It refuses to consider that constituents 
may agree with the views of a PAC even if it is out-of-state. None of 
this matters: Their financial support will be abridged under the blind 
assumption that it defies public interest.
  The House and Senate measures hope to encourage campaign spending 
restraint by mandating slashed advertising rates, lower postage rates, 
and various kinds of vouchers. However, if voluntary restraints are not 
honored by every candidate in a contest, of if one candidate has 
limitless personal funds, a Perot provision kicks in: The disadvantaged 
candidate receives money from the ultimate fountain of nameless and 
faceless funding--the taxpayer.
  The American taxpayer is already upset about our salary, benefits, 
and office expenses. I can scarely imagine what they would say about 
paying to get us elected, too.
  Actually, we know that Americans think about taxpayer-funded 
campaigns: In 1977, 27.5 percent of Federal tax returns designated a 
dollar or more toward the Presidential election campaign fund; in 1992, 
the figure was 17.7 percent.
  Mr. President, I am reminded of the reservations our colleagues have 
already expressed: How this measure invites first amendment challenges, 
the inconsistency between reducing the deficit and creating bounteous 
new spending, how this rightly is called an entitlement program for 
politicians.
  And with those reservations in mind, I believe the real question is 
``what standards do people expect us to meet?''
  I believe the people of Tennessee are not outraged when Tennessee 
businesses and unions and associations support candidates that share 
their concerns. I believe they expect me to set standards of decorum 
and propriety in soliciting funds and spending them. Most of all, I 
believe their biggest concern is knowing who I am dealing with, who 
contributes to my campaign, and whether my votes and my advocacy have 
been influenced.
  If I tell the people of Tennessee where I am getting my campaign 
contributions, they can compare my voting record to those sources of 
funds and decide for themselves whether my vote advances the public 
interest or narrower private interests.
  In short, Mr. President, I believe our efforts should lie in 
disclosing the source of campaign funding, not in limiting the 
legitimate expression of voter preference through financial support. I 
repeat: The effort we should address--as I said when we passed lobbying 
reform--is disclosure, not the attempt to legislate propriety.
  The way to avoid impropriety is to exercise individual judgment about 
what is proper--and to face the consequences if voters believe it is 
not. The way to earn the regard of the American people is for us to act 
with regard to their needs and their future. And the way to reaffirm 
the purpose we bring to public office is to resist the public cynicism 
this measure reacts to.

                          ____________________