[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H409-H410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       POLITICAL SYSTEM OVERHAUL

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, for too long our political system has been 
in need of an overhaul. Our political campaigns last too long, they are 
too negative, and they cost far too much. Each year this country breaks 
the record-setting campaign spending of the previous year, and the end 
is never in sight. By some estimates over $2.5 billion was spent on the 
1996 elections. Mr. Speaker, clearly the system has become obscene.
  Last week President Clinton came to this Chamber and he challenged 
this House to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. He set July 4 as 
the deadline. I believe the House can certainly pass reform legislation 
by then and declare itself independent of the fundraising tyrant that 
plagues our system.
  We all know that this is not a new issue. It is not an issue that 
needs to be studied and spoken and lobbied forever. The Members of the 
House know the issue of campaign finance reform, and they know it well. 
There is not one credible reason why the Republican leadership cannot 
get finance reform to the floor by the President's deadline. In fact, 
before the Republicans were in the majority, the House had passed 
campaign finance reform legislation. However, it was vetoed by 
President Bush.
  When campaign finance reform laws were first created following the 
Nixon Watergate scandal, the goal was to get money out of the system 
and disclose to the American people exactly where the money was coming 
from to finance Federal campaigns. Over 20 years later, there is more 
money than ever in the system, and it is not being fully disclosed to 
the American people.
  To begin with, the explosion of what we call soft money has infused 
more money into campaigns than ever before; nearly $881 million in soft 
money, which is about 73 percent of the increase since 1992. This soft 
money comes from corporate and other sources specifically barred from 
campaigns by Federal law, and it has seeped into the system over the 
years and is now completely out of control. Our campaign finance laws 
need to be tightened when it comes to the issue of soft money.
  Another problem is independent expenditures. Various well-funded 
interest groups from either side of the political spectrum will target 
their political opponents and spend millions to defeat them. However, 
these millions will not count toward the current contribution limits, 
and the target of the independent expenditure has to raise even more 
money to stay competitive.
  Finally, the cost of the campaigns themselves have completely gotten 
out of control. Television costs, between production and broadcasting, 
have gone through the roof. The same is true for radio. And any 
aspiring politician living in New York, Chicago, or the Los Angeles 
media market knows that the costs there alone may be the sole reason 
that keeps him or her from running. They simply cannot afford it.
  The fact that someone should be scared away from running for office 
merely because they do not have the money, I believe, is a tragedy. How 
many good honest councilmen or small town mayors or clever businessmen 
or women were kept from going further in public service because they 
lacked the money? How many great Congressmen and Senators have left us 
because they were just sick of the fundraising chase and had enough? 
How many millionaires will decide to run for Congress and win not on 
the strength of their ideas but on the size of the bank accounts? Mr. 
Speaker, if we do not have campaign finance reform on the floor by July 
4, we may just end up a Congress of millionaires and not of the people.
  Although it is still fairly early in the session of Congress, there 
have been several good campaign finance reform bills already introduced 
in-house. I just wanted to mention some of them. There is a bipartisan 
bill introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] which seeks to implement 
voluntary spending limits, lower media costs, and eliminate soft money. 
This bill is the House version of the Senate McCain-Feingold bill that 
President Clinton endorsed. There is also another voluntary spending 
limits bill introduced by my colleague from California (Mr. Parr].

[[Page H410]]

 There is even a bill proposing a constitutional amendment to put 
limits on campaign spending.
  Clearly, the membership of this House is ready to tackle the issue of 
campaign finance reform and get a bill passed by July 4, the deadline 
set by the President. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that the 
leadership, the Republican leadership, are ready to meet the 
President's challenge because I think it is clearly one of the most 
important issues facing this Congress this session.

                          ____________________