[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 77 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E968]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         STATEMENT BY DAVID SMITH REGARDING CAMPAIGN FINANCING

                                 ______


                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 30, 1996

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would 
like to have printed in the Record this statement by David Smith, a 
high school student from Brattleboro, VT, who was speaking at my recent 
town meeting on issues facing young people:

       A couple of days ago, I heard two men laughing about the 
     term, ``representation of the people,'' claiming that the 
     people are no longer really represented. Unfortunately, I'm 
     beginning to agree with this, because I have a problem 
     believing that a politician is going to think about me--the 
     average voter--when the oil and gas industry gives Congress 
     $17-18 million annually; when the health industry gives $68.8 
     million, when the banking industry gives $42.1 million; and 
     that's just to name a few. Our government is overrun by the 
     influences of special interest groups, industries, 
     corporations, unions and other bit spenders.
       But you, the politicians, are also stuck, because the 
     average House election is up way past $150,000; the average 
     Senate election is up past $3.5 million. And that's average, 
     which means that the backwater, small-time candidate has no 
     chance of competing with the mainstream Republican or 
     Democrat, because he or she has no corporate, big-spender 
     backing. In short our campaign finance system is outdated, 
     flawed, and full to the brim with loopholes. We need changes.
       What I'm proposing today is a publicly financed system. My 
     proposal starts in September, 8 months before an election, 
     with candidates collecting low-dollar contributions. This is 
     the only private money in my whole system; and, since it's 
     low-dollar, it doesn't have any influence over a candidate. 
     This seen money lasts until the first primary in February. To 
     qualify for public financing, candidates must receive 20% of 
     the vote. Parties may also qualify for public financing by 
     getting 20% of the vote between two candidates, and sending 
     their most winning . . . candidate to run. Candidates who 
     receive the required vote will receive an account of money to 
     work with.
       In addition to monetary funds, the candidates will also 
     receive radio and TV space. But instead of getting 45 second 
     soundbites, candidates will receive 15 minute blocks, almost 
     like ``informercials,'' and this will force them to really 
     discuss in detail their platforms. And you can also get 
     debates going, and really educate the public. Lastly, 
     government will pay for one or two mass mailings per 
     candidate. Winners of the national conventions will then be 
     given money to campaign in the general election.
       Now, how are we going to pay for this? The Working Group on 
     Electoral Democracy estimated that a plan similar to this one 
     would cost between $5-600 million annually. And I've devised 
     two ways to pay for this: the first is a $6 flat tax on every 
     taxpaying American. Unfortunately, the taxpayers don't really 
     want another tax. So, an alternative plan would be a one 
     dollar check-off box on tax returns for Congressional 
     funding, right next to the one for Presidential funding. 
     Also, a one percent shift in funds from the military to 
     campaign finances, and last, the first national lotto game. 
     Vermont alone already receives around $23 million in funds 
     from various lotto games, and I think that a national lottery 
     game could bring in at least half of the money needed to fund 
     this campaign system.
       What this system will do, is it will do 5 things: first, it 
     will stop all public legislation from being influenced by the 
     wealth of industries, corporations, all private money will be 
     taken out of politics. Second, it creates a level playing 
     field for all candidates, rich and poor candidates must have 
     the same chance of being elected as everyone else, and voters 
     must start to elect candidates on their merits, not on their 
     money. Thirdly, it allows politicians to spend their time at 
     politics, not at campaigning. I've heard that politicians 
     spend between anywhere from 40-80% of their time campaigning. 
     In this system, they would spend 5% of their time 
     campaigning. [Fourth] it will allow politicians to get in 
     touch with what voters want, not what the heavy contributors 
     want. If they have to go to the grassroots to get their 
     support, then there will be more talk about what the real 
     voters want. Finally, it closes down all loopholes, so that 
     no private money can influence the private system, and we 
     will return to the ideal of ``representation of the people.''
       Congressman Sanders. Thank you. (Applause) You've touched 
     on a very important issue. David, let me ask you a couple of 
     questions. First, give us some examples, if you might, of the 
     role that big money plays in influencing politics, 
     influencing legislation. Do you have any examples that you 
     might be able to provide?
       Answer. Sure. A little while ago, the Legislature allocated 
     money for the Pentagon to build new bombers. This was in 
     spite of the Pentagon saying that, ``We don't want any new 
     bombers, we don't want the money.'' The reason the money was 
     allocated, was because of the influence of the corporations 
     that make and help produce those bombers. They have such 
     power, with their monetary funds that they can almost shape 
     the way legislation works.
       Congressman Sanders: You're absolutely right, that is a 
     very good example. Let me ask you the second question: 
     recently the Speaker of the House went on a tour around the 
     country, and he spoke at $10,000/plate fundraising dinners; 
     $10,000/plate to have dinner with House Speaker Gingrich. Why 
     would anybody pay $10,000--it was a very good dinner, no 
     doubt--but other than the good quality food, and you think of 
     another good reason why someone would want to go to dinner 
     with the Speaker for $10,000/plate?
       Answer. Sure. It was influence. By paying $10,000 to a 
     candidate, you get influence over that candidate so they will 
     better represent what you want. An example: if I was a 
     politician and I came back to the office one day and there 
     were 14 messages for me; 13 were from people I never heard 
     of, and the last was from someone who has paid me $10,000 at 
     a local charity the week before, the first person I'm going 
     to call back is that big payer. So, by paying lots of money, 
     we get more influence.

                          ____________________