[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               INTRODUCTION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 171

                                 ______


                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 29, 1996

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced in the House today House 
Joint Resolution 171 which proposes an amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution to permit the Congress to limit contributions and 
expenditures in elections for Federal office. This amendment--when it 
is approved by the requisite two-thirds majority of each house of the 
Congress and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
States--clarifies that the Congress has the power to set limits on 
contributions and expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any 
candidate for Federal office. This resolution is identical to one 
introduced earlier this year in the other body by the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley].
  As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1976 in the case of 
Buckley versus Valeo, restrictions on wealthy individuals using their 
own money to--in effect--buy a political office have been held to be 
equivalent to restrictions on free speech. Efforts to restrict the 
independent expenditures of moneyed special interests for or against a 
particular candidate have likewise been held to be a restriction on 
free speech.
  Mr. Speaker, my proposed amendment to the Constitution will reverse 
the ruling of the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo. The effect of 
the Court's decision in that case was to equate money with free speech. 
The effect of this amendment is to make clear that money is not speech. 
In the very appropriate words of Senator Bradley, ``A rich man's wallet 
does not merit the same protection as a poor man's soapbox.''
  The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for us to clarify through an 
amendment to the Constitution that simple possession of money does not 
mean you have the better argument. Possession of money does not mean 
you are the better candidate. The time has come for the Congress to 
have the authority to regulate political expenditures of millionaries--
like Ross Perot or Steve Forbes or Michael Huffington in the political 
arena. In the case of these three men and others who have enjoyed the 
blessing of wealth, we applaud their ability to make money, we commend 
their business acumen, and we are delighted, in some cases, for their 
good fortune in having wealthy parents. At the same time, however, we 
do not think that any of those qualities entitles them to special 
access to the marketplace of ideas.
  It is essential for the health and well-being of our democracy that 
the Congress have the ability to assure a level playing field in 
elections for Federal offices. The amendment to our Constitution that I 
am introducing today will assure that Congress can assure a level 
playing field.
  One of the fundamental principles that is the basis of our democratic 
system of Government and our democratic Nation is the principle of 
freedom of speech.
  The fundamental concept is that if all ideas and all points of view 
are subjected to the same critical scrutiny in the marketplace of 
ideas, those ideas which are correct and true and superior will win out 
over those ideas which are inferior and erroneous and false.
  Our firm commitment to the principle of freedom of the press in our 
country flows from this commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of 
expression. Although, I think, all of us at one time or another have 
questioned the accuracy or the impartiality or the dispassion of the 
American news media, all of us are firmly committed to the principle 
that there must be a free, unfettered press. The multiplicity of free 
voices of expression is absolutely essential to the functioning of our 
democratic Government.
  In our democratic system, this principle of freedom of expression is 
a vital component of our process of electing Government officials. Only 
if there is full and open airing of the ideas for and against and about 
individual candidates for public office can we know which women and men 
are best able to represent us as President, Vice President, or as a 
Member of the Senate or the House.
  The fundamental requirement, Mr. Speaker, is that all ideas, that all 
speech, have reasonably fair and equal access to the market place of 
ideas--that good ideas and bad ideas and foolish ideas and brilliant 
ideas have equal access to the American people.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat to the application of 
the principles of free speech in our electoral process is the 
distorting effect of money. Under our present laws and the current 
interpretation of the Constitution and our laws by our Supreme Court, 
if you have money, your ideas--regardless of how good or bad they may 
be--have unfair access to the market place of ideas. It is important 
that we break this link between money and speech--money does not 
entitle someone to special access. Money is in fact the element which 
distorts free speech, and by distorting free speech it distorts the 
full and fair and informed intelligent decisionmaking.

  Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment does not make the ultimate 
decision about how campaign financing should be reformed, but it is the 
essential first step in establishing beyond any doubt that the Congress 
has the authority to regulate spending on campaigns. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this constitutional amendment. 
This is the vital first step that we must take, and for the future of 
democracy in our country it is essential that we take it as quickly as 
possible.
  I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the text of House Joint Resolution 171 be 
placed in the record:

                             H.J. Res. 171

       Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to permit the 
     Congress to limit contributions and expenditures in elections 
     for Federal office.
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of American in Congress assembled (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years from 
     the date of its submission by the Congress:


                              ``article--

       ``Section 1. The Congress shall have the power to set 
     limits on expenditures made by, in support of, or in 
     opposition to the nomination or election of any person to 
     Federal office.
       ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to set 
     limits on contributions by individuals or entities by, in 
     support of, or in opposition to the nomination or election of 
     any person to Federal office.
       ``Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, 
     by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this 
     article.''.

                          ____________________