[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1112-E1113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               INTRODUCTION OF THE VOTER EMPOWERMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DAVID DREIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 4, 1997

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, exactly 1 month from today is the deadline 
imposed by President Clinton in his State of the Union address for 
Congress to vote on a campaign finance reform bill. But the reality is 
that the deadline will come and go with no action taken because the 
most widely debated proposals, which violate our constitutional right 
to free speech and protect incumbents by imposing campaign spending 
limits, are rapidly losing support with each passing day.
  It is time to consider new ideas that will enhance, rather than 
undermine, voter participation in our Federal elections process, and 
restore public accountability in the campaign process. That is why I 
have introduced H.R. 1780, the Voter Empowerment Act. It takes a 
different approach to addressing the problems of our campaign finance 
system. It will enable voters to make more informed voting decisions by 
giving them greater access to more campaign information. To this end, 
the legislation requires all disclosure information to be made 
available on the Internet, and establishes a disclosure limit for issue 
advocacy and soft money expenditures.
  It also requires the Federal Election Commission [FEC] to facilitate 
disclosure by mandating electronic filing for individual Federal 
candidates, PAC's and national parties within the next 2 years. After 
the implementation of electronic filing, the FEC would publish an 
expansive Internet site on the World Wide Web which would contain a 
separate page for every congressional and Presidential candidate, each 
PAC, and every national party. A congressional candidate's page, for 
example, would contain the aggregate contribution and expenditure 
amounts for the previous and current election cycle. If a candidate 
received money from a PAC, a link would be available to the PAC's page 
so that the public could learn more about their goals and beliefs. With 
the disclosure information freely available in an understandable format 
on the Internet, Americans will no longer need to rely on special 
interests and the media to interpret the FEC data for them. And most 
important, the new information will allow voters to make more informed 
choices at the polls.
  The Voter Empowerment Act will further increase the amount of 
information that is made available to the public by requiring persons 
or groups that spend more than $100,000 on specific advertisement to 
disclose to the FEC within 24 hours the amount of money spent, the type 
of communication and where it was broadcast or distributed. In 1996, 
issue advocacy communications inundated the voting public through voter 
guides and radio/television advertisements. Regrettably, the public had 
no idea who paid for or published these communications.
  During the 1996 election, many of the issue advocacy communications 
were paid for with soft money contributions, which are not subject to 
Federal disclosure regulations. Recognizing the need to facilitate 
disclosure without impeding the free speech rights of contributors, the 
Voter Empowerment Act contains a disclosure provision for individuals 
who contribute $250,000 in soft money to national parties. The bill 
requires individuals who contribute more than a quarter of a million 
dollars to inform the FEC of that amount, and it requires national 
parties to disclose to the FEC where the soft money was spent or 
distributed.

  Some of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, may criticize these two 
disclosure provisions for either doing too much or too little. Some 
claim that increased disclosure provisions regarding soft money and 
issue advocacy communications will restrict an individual's free speech 
rights. However, the Supreme Court has upheld reasonable disclosure 
limitations on campaign expenditures. Furthermore, the limits have been 
set extraordinarily high so only the largest donors, not grassroots 
activists or small contributors, would be required to file with the 
FEC. On the other hand, some may argue that the advent of soft money 
marks the ruin of our campaign system, so it should be banned. 
According to the Supreme Court, independent expenditures and soft money 
must be considered as political speech and deserve to be protected 
under the first amendment. Therefore, efforts to ban soft money are 
blatantly unconstitutional.
  In addition to facilitating disclosure, the Voter Empowerment Act 
encourages more individual participation in campaigns by indexing all 
Federal contribution limits to 1974 dollars. Established in the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1974, the current contribution limits were 
meant to lower the cost of campaigns and eliminate the advantages of 
incumbency. However, the opposite has occurred. Between 1974 and 1994, 
total campaign spending, in constant dollars, by House candidates has 
nearly tripled, and reelection rates for House incumbents hit an all 
time high in 1988. By raising the contribution limits, individuals will 
be able to exercise their right of free speech more effectively and 
candidates will not be forced to spend a large amount of their time 
raising campaign funds.
  To further encourage increased participation by individuals, the 
Voter Empowerment Act reinstates the tax credit for individual 
contributions. Similar to the credit repealed in 1986, individuals 
would be able to claim a 50-percent tax credit up to $200--$400 for 
joint filers--if they contribute to a Federal candidate, PAC or 
national party. The credit would apply to the total contributions for 
the year.

[[Page E1113]]

  Encouraging individual contributions to Federal candidates is one of 
the best ways to eliminate the advantages of incumbency. In a recent 
study, Dr. Gary Jacobsen, a political science professor who specializes 
in the American campaign system at the University of California, San 
Diego, found that the positive effect of increased expenditures on 
behalf of incumbents was low to nonexistent, while the positive effect 
of increased challenger spending was enormous. It was no coincidence 
that, in the last election, all of the incumbent Senators who spent 
less than the limits set in the so-called McCain-Feingold bill won 
their races, and the challengers who spent less than the limits lost. 
Incumbents have free mail privileges, paid staff and the ability to 
generate press coverage. For challengers, additional campaign 
contributions are the only equalizer to those inherent advantages.
  I would also note, Mr. Speaker, that the FEC has become ineffective 
in its responsibilities to enforce our campaign finance laws. 
Frequently, the FEC takes an excessively long time to file a complaint 
against candidates or parties who violate campaign finance laws.
  For example, last month the FEC filed suit against the California 
Democratic Party for violations of election laws in the 1992 election. 
Five years after the alleged violations, the FEC is finally getting 
around to prosecuting those who broke the law. The American public 
cannot rely on the FEC to prosecute violations 5 years after the fact. 
Certainly, the FEC cannot turn back the clock and redo the 1992 
elections. The FEC can only ask for a monetary fine, which would be a 
small price to pay for winning the Presidency and two Senate seats.
  Many other experts in campaign finance reform have suggested that the 
FEC is not capable of handling its enforcement authorities. In a 1989 
report, common cause suggested, ``the best * * * remedy may be to 
abolish the FEC altogether.'' While the Voter Empowerment Act does not 
pursue that goal, it does transfer the FEC's enforcement authority to 
the Department of Justice. The Attorney General would have the latitude 
to design and develop the campaign finance enforcement division. The 
task of establishing a new office to enforce campaign finance laws 
would not be impossible for the Justice Department. In the past, the 
Attorney General has been given the responsibility to create new 
offices within the Department of Justice. Three years ago, she formed a 
new office comprised of lawyers from different departments to 
compensate citizens who wwere exposed to nuclear testing.
  Without its enforcement powers, the new FEC would be free to focus 
exclusively on those duties for which it was originally created. That 
is to facilitate disclosure and providing contribution and expenditure 
information to voters. With this limited responsibility, my legislation 
reduces the number of Commissioners from 6 to 2, with their terms 
staggered and limited to two full terms. In addition, the FEC would be 
required to work with the Justice Department in the development of new 
regulations, and would have to publish a compilation of advisory 
opinions with an index and publish names of candidates and committees 
who have accepted illegal contributions.
  Finally, my legislation eliminates the Presidential Election Campaign 
Fund and tax checkoff. Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``To compel a man to 
furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he 
disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'' The Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund forces Americans to give their tax dollars to campaigns 
which they may not agree, and most Americans have not been supportive 
of the tax checkoff and campaign fund. Since 1981, the participation in 
the tax checkoff program has declined quite steadily. The repeal of 
taxpayer subsidies for Presidential candidates is what the American 
people want and it is long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, over 50 bills have been introduced to change the 
campaign finance system in this country. While we all agree that change 
is necessary and improvements are possible, I believe the Voter 
Empowerment Act offers a more reasonable approach to improving our 
campaign finance system without undermining public participation in our 
electoral process. I urge my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring 
this legislation.

                          ____________________