[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H36-H37]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Let the Public 
Decide Campaign Finance Reform Act. Two developments over the last year 
have demonstrated that for all practical purposes there are no longer 
any campaign finance rules in this country. One development is the 
series of court decisions which have resulted in special interest 
groups being able to get around virtually all limits of existing 
campaign finance law. They are allowed to do so by engaging in so 
called independent expenditures or by issuing promotion schemes which 
maintain the fiction that such groups are not involved in individual 
campaigns. The second development is the recent series of news stories 
involving large contributions of so-called soft money to both political 
parties. The result is that wealthy people and groups can skirt the 
intention of Congress to limit the amount of influence that wealthy 
individuals or organizations can have on the political process.
  Merely tinkering with existing campaign laws will have no real 
effect. It will do no good for instance, to pass feel good legislation 
which would cut the $5,000 limit on contributions by political action 
committees if companies who finance those political action committees 
can make indirect expenditures 20 or 30 times as large through other 
means.
  For me, the last election was the last straw on campaign finance. I 
honestly believe that this problem can only be addressed with a flat 
out elimination of all private money in general elections. That will 
eliminate the soft money problem and many of the other spectacles we 
have seen recently. The legislation I am pushing contains a 
congressional finding that the existing system has so corrupted public 
confidence in its own form of government that Congress must take major 
steps for campaign finance which so far have been blocked by the 
courts. We are doing so because some constitutional scholars suggest 
that we may be able to move the Supreme Court to change its mind if 
Congress makes such a finding. But, if the Supreme Court continues to 
block the kind of reforms I have in my bill, the bill provides for an 
immediate consideration by the Congress of a constitutional amendment 
which would give Congress the authority it needs to regulate campaign 
spending.
  The only way to fundamentally change the current system is to take 
out all private money from financing general elections. I make no 
apology for reaching that conclusion. In a democracy, elections are not 
private events; they are the most public events that occur in our 
national life. Elections belong to the people and they should be 
financed that way, not by the well-heeled and well-connected.
  The Let the Public Decide Campaign Reform Act would:
  Forbid all private funding in general elections. But, the public must 
understand that political campaign cannot be financed through 
immaculate conception. Elections would be financed by voluntary 
contributions from individuals to a Grass Roots Good Citizenship Fund. 
To raise the necessary funding, the Federal Election Commission would 
be required to conduct a major national television advertising campaign 
informing the public of the opportunity to eliminate the influence of 
interest groups on elections by making voluntary contributions to that 
fund. Those voluntary contributions would be supplemented by a one-
tenth of 1 percent to be paid by all corporations with profits above 
$10 million.

  Eliminate the ``soft money'' loophole, which allows huge amounts of 
money from wealthy individuals and corporations to go to political 
parties and benefit congressional candidates.
  Establish spending limits on how much congressional candidates can 
spend, with some flexibility because of the different costs to run for 
office in different parts of the country.
  Allow the American public to determine the amount of money each 
candidate receives in the general election by basing the amount on the 
electoral support that the candidate or his preceding party nominees 
received in that district over the last 5 elections. It would also 
allow third-party and independent candidates to receive public funding 
based on their demonstrated public support.
  Allow private money to be contributed only to primary elections based 
on the principle that each political party has its own basic 
constituencies, and that the parties themselves have a role in deciding 
how their own nominees are chosen;
  Distinguish in primary elections between broad-based ``little 
people'' PAC's and ``High Roller'' PAC's, and limit contributions from 
``High Roller'' PAC's.
  Under my bill, the American people themselves would actually be able 
to decide how much will be spent on congressional campaigns and how 
much each candidate will receive. Democracy cannot function if American

[[Page H37]]

citizens do not themselves take responsibility for supporting the most 
public events that occur in this country--our own national elections.

                          ____________________