[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 89 (Monday, June 23, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1298-E1300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




OPEN LETTER OF SENATOR NANCY KASSEBAUM BAKER AND VICE PRESIDENT WALTER 
MONDALE TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CONCERNING BIPARTISAN 
                            CAMPAIGN REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 23, 1997

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, last week two of America's most respected 
and distinguished senior statespeople, Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker 
and Vice President Walter Mondale, visited with several bipartisan 
reform leaders on Capitol Hill, including myself and several of my 
fellow cosponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997. The 
purpose of their visit was to discuss an open letter they wrote to the 
President and to Members of Congress on the topic of campaign reform. 
For my colleague Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut and 
myself, I enter Senator Kassebaum Baker and Vice President Mondale's 
letter into the Congressional Record.

         An Open Letter to the President and the Congress of the 
           United States From Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. 
           Mondale,
                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 1997.
       Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress: In March, the 
     President asked that we help in the cause of campaign finance 
     reform. Since then we have observed closely the national 
     discussion of this issue, which we believe is central to the 
     well-being of American democracy. We would now like to report 
     about our initial recommendations, with a plea, in the best 
     interests of our political process, that the Executive and 
     Legislative Branches commit themselves to a course of urgent 
     debate leading to early and meaningful action.
       One of us is a Republican. The other is a Democrat. We are 
     inspired by the bipartisan efforts of Senators John McCain 
     and Russell Feingold, and Representatives Christopher Shays 
     and Martin Meehan, to achieve campaign finance reform. The 
     bipartisan effort of new members of the House, led by 
     Representatives Asa Hutchinson and Thomas

[[Page E1299]]

     Allen, is also a foundation for hope. We are mindful that no 
     change will occur unless there is a consensus in both parties 
     that reform is fair to each. We also believe the imperative 
     task of renewing our democracy requires that we all look 
     beyond party. Guided by basic lessons from our Constitution 
     and national experience, we must identify specific measures 
     and commit ourselves to action where agreement is within our 
     grasp, even as we identify other questions for further 
     consideration.
       The Constitution, in this as in all public affairs, is our 
     first teacher. It directs that the Congress shall make no law 
     abridging the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has 
     provided substantial guidance how that command applies to 
     campaign finance laws. Whether any of us might wish that the 
     Court had decided particulars of prior cases differently, our 
     national legislative task is to give full honor to its free 
     speech decisions.
       The Constitution also enshrines political democracy. One of 
     its central purposes is to ensure that every individual has 
     the right to participate fully in the electoral process. As 
     Madison said of the Congress in The Federalist Papers (No. 
     52), ``the door of this part of the federal government is 
     open to merit of every description, ... without regard to 
     poverty or wealth.'' Our campaign finance system must 
     respect, and do everything it can to bolster, the 
     constitutionally rooted primacy of individual citizens in our 
     political democracy.


       In applying constitutional values to campaign finance, we 
     do not have to start from scratch. We have had a century of 
     debate and legislation about several essential matters, 
     including what we now describe as ``soft money.'' From early 
     in the twentieth century, federal law has prohibited 
     contributions from corporate treasuries to federal election 
     campaigns. Starting in the 1940s, this bar has been applied 
     equally to contributions to federal election campaigns from 
     union treasuries. The basic principle of these constraints, 
     upheld by the Supreme Court, is that organizations which are 
     granted special privileges and protections, provided by 
     federal or state law for economic advantage, should not be 
     permitted to leverage that advantage to cast doubt on the 
     integrity of our national government.
       In the 1970s, in response to the constitutional crisis that 
     began twenty-five years ago this week, the Congress 
     established limits on individual contributions to candidates 
     and political parties, and barred large individual 
     contributions to them that threatened to undermine 
     governmental integrity in reality or appearance. Though it 
     subsequently invalidated several other reform provisions of 
     that time, the Supreme Court sustained this central element 
     of our campaign finance law.
       At the end of the 1970s, the Federal Election Commission 
     began to erode these important protections. The Commission 
     authorized national party committees to spend the proceeds of 
     a new category of contributions which we now know as ``soft 
     money.'' This allowed previously prohibited corporate and 
     union treasury contributions, and also unlimited 
     contributions from individuals, to the national political 
     parties. The theory has been that if contributions are not 
     used directly in a federal election, federal campaign finance 
     laws do not limit them. At first, the amounts of soft money 
     involved were relatively small. But as happens with cracks in 
     dikes, the power behind the breach has overwhelmed all 
     defenses. The resulting flood of money to the national 
     parties and their campaign organizations now threatens the 
     credibility of our entire electoral process.
       We believe that Congress, as a matter of high priority must 
     stop, unambiguously, all ``soft money'' contributions to the 
     national parties and their campaign organizations. The 
     Congress should also prohibit the solicitation of soft money 
     by those parties and organizations, any federal office 
     holder, or any candidate for federal office for the seeming 
     benefit of others, but in truth to circumvent the prohibition 
     of soft money to the national parties. These interrelated 
     acts would do much to reinvigorate the basic concept of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act: that, while we must remain 
     mindful of the political parties' needs for resources to 
     perform their vital role in the political process, it is 
     individuals, subject to contribution limits established by 
     Congress, who are the heart of the system of private 
     contributions for federal elections. The prompt end to soft 
     money solicitations by presidential candidates, among others, 
     would also assure that the public gets full value for its 
     investment in publicly financed presidential elections.
       A recurring observation about the 1996 and other recent 
     federal elections is that candidates have lost control of the 
     conduct of their campaigns. Indeed, many candidates are at 
     risk of becoming bystanders to campaigns waged by others in 
     the name of ``issue advocacy.'' As a result, the 
     accountability of the candidates for the conduct of campaigns 
     is seriously compromised. Part of the problem is the need to 
     sharpen definitions, that may have worked twenty years ago, 
     to distinguish campaigning for candidates from a more general 
     public debate of issues. Another part is the need to update 
     the disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act. Progress on both counts is necessary to assure that our 
     political process achieves the substantial benefits that 
     should result from an end of the ``soft money'' system.
       First, it is essential that Congress establish, on the 
     basis of the experience of recent elections, an appropriate 
     test consistent with the First Amendment for distinguishing 
     advocacy about candidates from the general advocacy of 
     issues. The purpose of this test should be to identify for 
     consistent treatment under the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     significant expenditures for general communications to the 
     public, at times close to elections, that are designed to 
     achieve specific electoral results. The Supreme Court has 
     said that Congress may regulate federal campaign activity to 
     avoid corrupting influences or appearances. In doing so, the 
     Congress should look at reality, not the self-applied labels 
     of partisans. Our objective should be to assure that 
     comparable expenditures are treated comparably.
       The gains from ending ``soft money'' will be incomplete if 
     money currently spent by parties is only redirected into so-
     called issue advertisements, including those by surrogate 
     organizations established to circumvent campaign finance 
     laws. A tightened, realistic definition of statutory terms 
     will not foreclose communications to the pubic on behalf of 
     the interests of business enterprises and unions even up to 
     Election Day, under regulations evenly applied to their 
     political action committees. It will mean that communications 
     to the general public in periods close to elections that are 
     designed to achieve electoral wins or losses are financed 
     through the voluntary contributions of individuals, such as 
     to their parties, political action committees, or candidates.
       Second, disclosure is an essential tool because it allows 
     citizens to hold candidates accountable for the means by 
     which campaigns are financed. On election day voters can only 
     express themselves about candidates on the ballot. Even 
     candidates, however, may not know the true identity of 
     entities that dominate the airwaves during the closing weeks 
     of a campaign with electoral message patently targeted to 
     favor or disfavor them or their opponents. Broader disclosure 
     of the sources of financing of campaign advertisements would 
     contribute to the robustness of political debate. It would 
     ensure that candidates know to whom they might respond, and 
     that the electorate knows who can be held accountable for the 
     accuracy or demeanor of advertisements.
       Additionally, we should take advantage of an electronic age 
     in which information can be transmitted rapidly from, and 
     updated frequently by, party and campaign officials, and made 
     readily available to the public with equal rapidity.
       No limitations and no disclosure requirements are worth 
     much in the absence of timely and effective enforcement. 
     Indeed, the absence of credible enforcement causes damage 
     beyond the campaign finance laws by engendering real doubts 
     about the application of the rule of law to powerful members 
     of our society. The American public believes resolutely that 
     a fundamental premise of our constitutional democracy is that 
     high elected officials, like ordinary citizens, are subject 
     to the rule of law, and to the timely application of it. The 
     Congress and the President need to work together to assure 
     the public that campaign finance laws are not pretenses.
       The President and the Senate should take immediate action 
     to assure that vacancies on the Federal Election Commission 
     are filled by knowledgeable, independent-minded individuals 
     who are not subject to the suggestion that they are appointed 
     to represent political organizations. We say this because we 
     need a clean break from the past, not to be critical of any 
     former, present, or potential member of the Commission. It is 
     within the President's power to accomplish this new start for 
     the Commission, beginning today. We urge the President, in 
     consultation with the leadership of the Congress, to name an 
     advisory panel of citizens whose task would be to recommend 
     highly qualified candidates for the President's consideration 
     for appointment to the Commission, subject of course to the 
     Senate's advice and consent.
       Congress can take further steps to protect the independence 
     of the Commission. If commissioners were limited to one term, 
     they would have no occasion to measure the impact of their 
     decisions on the possibility of reappointment. The 
     independence of the Commission can also be furthered by 
     placing its funding on a more secure, longer term basis.
       The potential for deadlock inheres in the requirement that 
     the Commission have an even number of commissioners. Because 
     the Congress also has made the Commission the official 
     gatekeeper to the United States courts, judicial action to 
     resolve complaints under the Federal Election Campaign Act is 
     impeded unless permitted by a majority of commissioners. 
     Thus, a deadlocked Commission is an obstacle to the 
     adjudication of meritorious claims. It is important to rely 
     on the expertise of the Commission, but when the Commission 
     is unable to resolve complaints, our respect for the rule of 
     law

[[Page E1300]]

     requires that complainants have the right to a fresh start 
     through a direct action in the United States courts against 
     alleged violators. The law should be amended to provide for 
     this in the event that the Commission in unable to act 
     because of deadlock or a lack of resources.
       We have not attempted to set out an exhaustive list of 
     reforms which may be attainable and would make a significant 
     contribution. Other important proposals by members of 
     Congress or students of campaign finance reform merit 
     consideration, such as encouraging small contributions 
     through tax credits, or providing greater resources to 
     candidates through enhanced access to communications media or 
     through flexibility by the parties in supporting candidates 
     with expenditure of hard money contributions. Rather, our 
     purpose is to illustrate that it is possible to identify and 
     act on particular, achievable improvements, which should not 
     be postponed or neglected. We very much encourage and support 
     a larger debate about other changes at the federal and state 
     levels in the manner in which political campaigns are 
     financed. Additional changes will be essential to renewing 
     American democracy. The enactment of immediate reforms may 
     give us a measure of time to address other reforms, but 
     should never become an excuse for avoiding them.
       We urge that the work of the Congress over the next few 
     months be spurred by one overriding thought: no one would 
     create, or should feel comfortable in defending, the campaign 
     finance system that now exists. Public cynicism about our 
     great national political institutions is the inevitable 
     product of the gaps that exist between our principles and the 
     law, and between the law and compliance with it. The trend 
     lines, also, are all wrong. If we were unhappy about campaign 
     financing in the election of 1996, as the public is and as 
     members of both parties ought to be, then we should 
     anticipate with great trepidation the election of 2000, 
     absent prompt reforms.
       The challenge for this Congress is to put in place changes 
     for the presidential and congressional election cycle that 
     will start the day after next year's elections, a little more 
     than sixteen months from now, to enable an election in the 
     year 2000 in which we will have pride and the public will 
     have confidence. Your leadership in that endeavor will serve 
     the interests of American democracy, and command the enduring 
     appreciation of all of us who know how needed that leadership 
     is.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Kassebaum Baker.
     Walter F. Mondale.

     

                          ____________________