[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S7887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 1953. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


            the campaign finance and disclosure act of 1996

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation which I believe addresses shortcomings in the current 
campaign finance law.
  First, though, if I were going to give a title to the campaign 
finance reform legislation under consideration in the Senate until now, 
I would call it the Incumbent Protection Act of 1996, because that is 
what proposed limitations on expenditures would accomplish.
  For us to limit campaign contributions across the board would be 
counterproductive and self-serving. Any such limit, voluntary or 
otherwise, would favor incumbents because it would inhibit the right of 
a challenger to go out and raise more campaign funds than an incumbent 
who already enjoys greater name recognition.
  Challengers would have no way of overcoming that very real 
disadvantage. We should strive to level the playing field, not tilt it 
further toward those who already enjoy the advantage.
  That said, there are a number of commonsense principles I believe can 
be invoked in order strengthen the current campaign finance law and 
make it more equitable.
  I support the idea of requiring that 60 percent of a Senate 
candidate's campaign funds be raised from individuals within his or her 
home State. This rule would ensure that those who would be represented 
by the candidate have the greatest say in the outcome of an election.
  I support limiting the use of personal wealth to finance campaigns. 
Right now there are no limits on the amount of personal wealth a 
candidate can spend on his or her own political campaign and be 
reimbursed. Today, such candidates are entitled to make personal 
campaign contributions to their own campaigns, and repay themselves 
after the fact. The status quo is campaign finance based on 
creditworthiness, and as such is inherently inequitable.
  I think we can fairly, and constitutionally, set a limit on the 
amount for which such candidates can be reimbursed for upfront 
expenditures from their personal pocketbooks.
  The bill I am introducing today would set a personal reimbursement 
limit of $250,000 on the use of Senate candidates' personal funds or 
funds from members of their immediate families.
  I support limiting political action committee [PAC] donations to the 
same amount as individuals are entitled to donate to a candidate.
  This legislation decreases the PAC contribution limit to the same 
limit as an individual. Under the bill individual contributions are 
limited to $1,000 and PAC contributions are lowered from $5,000 to 
$1,000 to make both categories of limitations equal.
  The vast majority of PAC's are cooperative, grassroots efforts within 
a specific group, or company, such as a teachers' association, a union, 
or a tax-limitation group. Most people who contribute to PACs give 
small amounts of money. If someone wants to participate in the process, 
they should be encouraged. Our campaign finance law should be neutral. 
Neither PAC's, nor individuals, should be given preferential treatment.
  I support the idea of doing away with the congressional franking 
privilege for mass mailings during election years. I do not use and 
have never used the franking privilege of mass mailings at any time. It 
is, frankly, an advantage for incumbents provided at taxpayer expense 
which should be canceled.
  My legislation would eliminate mass mailings as franked mail from 
January 1 of an election year through the date of an incumbent 
Senator's general election. This may seem strenuous, but it is 
absolutely necessary.
  Mr. President, campaign finance reform is a work in progress. We are 
in the process of restoring confidence in the political process. For 
the American people, this is a plus--not a weakness. The ability to 
fine tune and strengthen the political process while preserving our 
basic democratic institutions is one of the great strengths of our 
country. It requires our greatest dedication.
                                 ______