[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8585-H8586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            CAMPAIGN REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today in the more 
dispassionate time of special orders, and one day following the vote on 
campaign finance reform, to talk about campaign finance reform and what 
the future is. I am not particularly interested in getting into a 
partisan dispute today.
  I think that it was worthwhile defeating the bill yesterday which put 
more money into politics, it did not take money out, but that was 
yesterday. Let us talk about some of the very real factors that are 
affecting campaign finance reform, and some of the difficulties in 
crafting a bill that deals not only with candidates but the overall 
issue of campaign finance reform.
  First of all we had the Buckley versus Vallejo decision by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in the 1970's, which began a trail of decisions or 
started a line of decisions which effectively says that expenditure of 
money is the equivalent of speech; that as someone has the ability to 
say anything they want, if money enhances or permits them to say that, 
they can then expend that money.
  So free speech and expenditure of money begin to be equated as the 
same. That is, I think, a disturbing trend, but that is a judicial 
decision.
  So first of all we have that case, and what that then did effectively 
say, that we could not limit how much an individual could spend in 
their own campaign. If we have a billionaire, that billionaire can 
spend a billion dollars, if they want, of their own money for their own 
campaign. We can limit how much somebody can contribute to that person. 
We cannot limit how much that person can spend themselves.
  The second major decision occurred only a couple of weeks ago, in 
which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political parties cannot be 
limited in how much they can spend for independent expenditures on 
behalf of their candidates. Let me give my colleagues an example:

[[Page H8586]]

  John Jones, hypothetical candidate, is running, and his political 
party decides they want to make an independent expenditure, that is, 
without communication with John Jones, in his behalf. They were 
previously limited in how much they could spend. Now they can spend 
hundreds of thousands of dollars running a negative ad campaign against 
John Jones' opponent, leaving John Jones then free to run positive ads 
and not have his fingerprints attached to negative campaigning.
  Incidentally, four of the Justices suggested at that time that that 
doctrine ought to be able to carry over to making direct expenditures 
on behalf of the candidate, so that firewall may be following shortly.
  So now we have a situation with the Supreme Court where we cannot 
limit how much a candidate can spend on behalf of himself or herself 
out of their own individual funds, and we cannot limit how much a 
political party, Democrat or Republican, can spend on behalf of a 
candidate as long as it is independent.
  The third factor we have in today's elections are independent 
expenditures, whether it is the Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO, the Christian Coalition, or 
whomever, that they can spend in behalf of a candidate as long as it is 
an independent expenditure. Once again, an outside group can come in, 
run hundreds of thousands of dollars of political advertising, as long 
as theoretically it is not done in coordination with the candidate. 
Once again, we can pass all the legislation we want affecting a 
candidate, but if we have independent expenditures it really does not 
make any point.

  The fourth is one that both parties abuse, I feel, and that is soft 
money, the ability to funnel lots of money, unlimited amounts, in 
effect, to political party committees in States, effectively for 
organization. Soft money is becoming a bigger and bigger loophole.
  A fifth element of great concern, both Presidential candidates in 
both parties are circumventing or getting around as much as they 
possibly can the present limitation on campaign financing. The only 
area, incidentally, where there is some public financing of campaigns 
is in Presidential campaigns. It is supposed to be limited, but both 
parties are getting around that as aggressively as possible.
  Finally, the watchdog of campaigns, the Federal Elections Commission, 
is not adequately funded, and so in effect we have got a watchdog that 
has been defanged or the watchdog is not being given much of a leash to 
go do its job.
  What we may ultimately have to consider in this country and I just 
suggest this for discussion purposes, is if there is ever going to be a 
serious limitation of money, if we are going to be able effectively to 
control how much individuals or individual groups put into campaigns, 
we may have to talk about a constitutional amendment that overcomes the 
Supreme Court decisions. But until that happens, then I think the 
public is going to have to be prepared to take control of this process 
and demand that the Congress do the same thing.
  I use the retail, parking lot test. A lot of people are concerned 
that political campaigns are turning into retail contests. Then use the 
retail principles to combat it. The parking lot test for me is when I 
am standing in a parking lot campaigning and somebody comes up and 
says, ``Bob Wise, I don't think that this should be happening'' or 
``Are you involved in this?'' So that way political candidates, whether 
incumbents or challengers, soon get an idea of what the public will 
accept.
  It may be that the public is going to have to say what it would not 
accept in campaigns. The public or perhaps outside groups are going to 
have to devise a voluntary code, and thus get some campaign reform and 
force Congress to act.

                          ____________________