[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S513-S514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S.J. Res. 48. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and 
expenditures intended to affect elections; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


             campaign expenditures constitutional amendment

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today for 
purposes, with the cosponsorship of the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina, Senator Hollings, to introduce a constitutional 
amendment which is broader than any yet pending, which would authorize 
the Congress and the State legislatures to set spending limits on what 
any individual can spend of his or her own money in the context of a 
candidacy.

  I had wanted to introduce this amendment on January 30, which is next 
Tuesday, because January 30 is the 20th anniversary of the decision of 
the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo, which said that an 
individual can promote his or her candidacy to the maximum extent he or 
she chooses with their own personal funds as a matter of first 
amendment protection of freedom of speech.
  It has always been a little hard for me to understand how anything 
from the freedom of speech is implicated in a matter of campaign 
financing. For the past 6 years, Senator Hollings and I and others have 
tried to advance this constitutional amendment, which is difficult 
because it picks on the first amendment.
  But in seeking to amend the first amendment, we do not seek to change 
the language of the first amendment, which I think is sacrosanct. What 
we seek to do is to overrule, in effect, a split decision by the 
Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the first amendment.
  Money is the scourge of politics, and to buy high public office is, 
obviously, against public policy. There are many who have, in effect, 
bought public office, including some seats of the U.S. Senate. But it 
is only recently that this matter has come into sharp focus when a 
candidate for the Presidency of the United States, who is reputed to 
have assets in excess of $400 million, set out to, in effect, buy the 
White House.
  According to this morning's New York Times, some $15 million has 
already been expended on that effort. I think it is especially 
problemsome when a substantial part of that money is dedicated to 
negative advertising which, in effect, seeks to impugn the reputation 
of an opponent who spent more than 40 years in public life.
  I believe what is going on in the Presidential primaries, the 
Republican primaries, today has caused a great deal of focus of 
attention, and it is high time that we took some action to stop someone 
from buying public office, especially the Presidency of the United 
States, especially the White House.
  I will add, Mr. President, that I personally feel especially strong 
about this particular matter, because I filed for the U.S. Senate 
during the first election cycle following the enactment of the 1974 
legislation which limited the amount of moneys which could be spent on 
Federal elections.
  That 1974 statute said that for a State the size of Pennsylvania, 
with 12 million people, the most anyone could spend of his or her own 
money was $35,000. That year, I contested for that office with then-
Congressman John Heinz, who later I served with in the Senate as a 
colleague and who became one of my very, very best friends, a Senator 
we sorely miss in this body.
  But with the playing field somewhat leveled with the $35,000 maximum 
individual expenditure, I thought that race was one to be undertaken. 
Then, right in the middle of the campaign, on January 30--we had an 
August 22 primary in 1976; I declared my candidacy in November of 
1975--right in the middle of the campaign, the Supreme Court of the 
United States said any candidate can spend as much of his or her money 
that he or she wanted.
  Somewhat anomalous, my brother, who could have bankrolled my 
campaign--I do not know he would have, but he could have--was limited 
to $1,000 under the act, and that remained in place by the Supreme 
Court decision.
  It is a little hard to see the first amendment freedom of speech 
rights of 

[[Page S514]]
Specter being different than the freedom of speech rights of a 
candidate. We have lived with Buckley versus Valeo for 20 years, and it 
is bad legal construction. There is nothing in the first amendment, 
there is nothing in the logic of the law which suggests the first 
amendment gives an individual the right to spend as much of his or her 
own money as he or she chooses.
  It certainly is bad public policy to have someone seek to buy an 
office, especially the Presidency of the United States.
  So I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hollings and myself. As we 
have talked in the quarters and in the cloakrooms and on the floor of 
the Senate in these past several days, I believe that there is a 
growing sentiment in the Congress to do something about Buckley versus 
Valeo, to see to it that we do not have high public office up for sale 
in this great country.

                          ____________________