[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 34 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2340-S2341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  OPPOSITION TO THE HOLLINGS AMENDMENT

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from South 
Carolina, Senator Hollings, for his many years of effort to reform our 
campaign system. His commitment to this endeavor is principled and 
longstanding.
  I have supported the Senator's efforts in the past, cosponsoring and 
voting for his legislation that would amend the first amendment of the 
Constitution to allow Congress and the States to limit the amount of 
money spent on political campaigns.
  Mr. President, with all due respect to his efforts and my past 
efforts, however, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Senator's 
proposed constitutional amendment.
  I have supported the Senator from South Carolina's effort in the past 
because I believed then, as I do now, that we need to improve our 
current campaign system. But, in my zeal for reform, I ignored what was 
really at stake.
  Over the past weeks, however, after much thought and consideration--
after many discussions with constituents and reviewing the writings of 
many constitutional scholars, all of who support campaign finance 
reform--I have come to the conclusion that amending the first amendment 
would be far worse than the current situation.
  Indeed, if we passed a constitutional amendment to amend the first 
amendment to solve our current campaign finance problems, the cure 
would be worse than the disease.
  Mr. President, the proposed constitutional amendment simply takes 
away too much--the cost is too high and the risks too great.
  The first amendment is properly viewed as one of the most sacrosanct 
bundle of rights protected under the U.S. Constitution and this 
proposed resolution would strike at the heart of the first amendment--
core political speech.
  Mr. President, to support such a repeal, is to threaten the very 
breath of every other right protected under the Constitution--and then 
nothing is sacred, nothing is sure, nothing is protected.
  Without free speech, liberty has no meaning.
  And this amendment would seek to do what the Supreme Court has said 
cannot be done under the first amendment of our Constitution.
  In 1974, in the seminal case of Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme 
Court as the Presiding Officer knows, struck down the Federal Election 
Campaign Act's expenditure limits on candidates, individuals, and 
groups on first amendment grounds--finding that the Government's 
interest in, among other things, reducing the appearance of corruption 
was insufficient to justify restricting core political speech and 
expression.
  Mr. President, the question facing the Supreme Court was, at bottom: 
``whether a person can be prohibited from spending money to communicate 
an idea, belief, or call to action''? The Court's answer was ``no.''
  Since Buckley, the Court has consistently found that the first 
amendment protects political speech and expression rights from 
intrusive government restrictions such as campaign spending limits.
  In FEC versus National Conservative Political Action Committee the 
Court again struck down spending limits. This time, reaffirming that 
restrictions on independent expenditures by political committees on 
publicly funded presidential general election campaigns violate the 
core of the first amendment's protections.
  More recently, in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee 
versus FEC, the Court found that political party expenditures made 
without coordination of a candidate were entitled to first amendment 
protection as independent expenditures.
  The Court rejected the argument that independent expenditures 
threaten corruption or give the appearance of corruption.
  Mr. President, this amendment is about more than just overturning one 
Supreme Court case, it is about overruling a whole line of first 
amendment case law.
  Over the years, the Court has made it clear that the Buckley decision 
was not some fluke. In fact, Buckley has been reaffirmed many times 
over. The answer should not be to undo the first amendment because it 
is viewed as an impediment to reform.
  There are better, perhaps more realistic and more effective ways of 
addressing the problems in our campaign finance system.
  Mr. President, I believe that changes can be made to improve our 
current system and I intend to support efforts to reform our current 
campaign finance system.
  But first, we need to start by enforcing current law, especially in 
regard to foreign contributions. No foreign contributions should be 
allowed to influence our political process.
  It is important to remember that adopting this amendment won't do 
anything to address the abuses that have recently come to light 
regarding the White House, DNC fundraisers and foreign influence. 
Existing laws were broken in accepting foreign contributions.
  However, we all know that our current laws are not sufficient. We 
need to target abusive practices which both parties agree should be 
eliminated.
  And, Mr. President, I believe that one of the most far reaching and 
important changes we can make in the system we have today is to demand 
full disclosure of all campaign contributions and expenditures. The 
public has a right to know where all funds in the political system come 
from and where they go.

  I also remain fully opposed to any form of public financing of 
political campaigns and intend to fight efforts to shift the cost and 
effort of running for public office from political candidates to the 
taxpayer of America.
  I find it offensive that some would argue that the only way we can 
purify the political process and eliminate the appearance of corruption 
is to launder campaign funding through the U.S. Treasury.
  American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for political 
campaigns. We have public financing of Presidential campaigns now, and 
you can see how effective that was in reducing corruption or the 
appearance of corruption in the last election.
  Mr. President, reform cannot and should not come at the expense of 
the public, and yet the reform proposals now being put forth would 
first rob American citizens of their first amendment rights under the 
Constitution and then require them to pay for the cost of political 
campaigns.
  What a deal. Reform could not be easier--for the political 
establishment.
  This amendment has serious ramifications beyond the immediate 
restrictions placed on an individual's rights to free speech and 
expression. This amendment also threatens the power of the American 
people over their Government.
  By restricting the right to speak freely and to participate in the 
political process, we restrict our rights to political debate and 
reduce our ability to control and check our Government. In fact, we 
give up even the pretense of self-government.

  I would rather be criticized for changing a position than forever 
limiting the rights of Americans to speak,

[[Page S2341]]

to argue, and to participate in the world's oldest constitutional 
democracy.
  Again, I sincerely commend my friend and colleague, Senator Hollings, 
for his effort and commitment to campaign finance reform, but I wish he 
would reconsider, as I have, his commitment to change the first 
amendment. I think it would be a mistake now. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes of the time taken 
by the minority leader, Mr. Daschle.

                          ____________________