[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 103 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

                                 ______


                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 22, 1995
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in a recent meeting between you and the 
President, it was agreed that you would support the creation of a blue-
ribbon panel to recommend long-overdue reforms to our campaign finance 
system.
  It has been almost two decades since some of the reforms enacted by 
Congress in the Federal Election and Campaign Act of 1971 [FECA] were 
overturned in the landmark Supreme Court case Buckley versus Valeo. The 
Court ruled that while the Federal Government has an overriding 
interest in limiting campaign contributions to candidates, it has no 
compelling reason to limit expenditures under any First Amendment test 
of free speech and expression. The Court concluded that, unlike limits 
on contributions, spending caps serve no legitimate purpose in guarding 
against corruption of the electoral process.
  However, several years ago a bipartisan commission, the Committee on 
the Constitutional System, concluded that one of the greatest threats 
to our political system is the rapidly escalating cost of campaigns and 
the growing dependence of incumbents and candidates on money from 
donors who might expect a favorable vote in exchange for a 
contribution. Moreover, the Commission found that gridlock could take 
hold by leaving office holders open to multiply-conflicted opponents, 
all of whom may believe their contributions should engender a 
legislator's support. Such activities frustrate all participants in the 
system and encourage the promulgation of unsound public policy.
  The Committee on the Constitutional System concluded that there was 
only one effective way to fix the problem, through an amendment to the 
United States Constitution. There is no doubt that concerns about 
limiting the quantity of speech will be vigorously debated. They should 
be, since no one should take lightly any proposal to amend that sacred 
document. However, limits on some kinds of speech, such as debate on 
the floor of this chamber, are well established as necessary to orderly 
deliberation. The underlying logic of time limits on debate is the 
realization that unlimited speech inhibits our ability to govern.
  In his dissenting opinion to Buckley versus Valeo, Justice White 
wrote, ``Expenditure limits have their own potential for preventing the 
corruption of Federal elections themselves.'' 424 U.S. 264, (1976).
  The amendment I propose contains 13 words: ``The Congress shall have 
authority to limit expenditures in elections for Federal office.'' 
While brief, the weight of these words is mighty. This amendment, 
possibly combined with other reforms, would allow the Federal election 
process to be returned to the people, and permit those who seek and 
hold elective office to place their energies into solving public policy 
problems rather than political problems.
  I hope that any commission designated to make a recommendation to 
Congress on campaign finance reform consider the virtue of turning off 
the constant flow of cash into Federal campaigns through a 
Constitutional amendment to limit campaign expenditures.


                          ____________________