[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6183-S6184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROJECT
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today, I want to bring to the attention of
my colleagues and other interested persons, a letter from the campaign
finance Project. As my colleagues are aware, this project is being led
by two of our former colleagues, Nancy Kassebaum Baker and former Vice
President Walter Mondale. They were asked by President Clinton earlier
this year to lead a bipartisan effort to develop a solution for
reforming our campaign finance laws.
Last week, they issued an open letter to the President and to the
Congress about their observations and what they believe should
constitute real and meaningful reform. They have identified several key
areas that they believe are essential to these reform efforts: a
complete ban on ``soft money;'' refine and sharpen the definitions of
``issue advocacy'' and ``independent expenditures;'' improve disclosure
of campaign finances; and strengthen enforcement and leadership at the
Federal Election Commission.
I have the privilege to meet with both Vice President Mondale and
Senator Kassebaum Baker. They are sincere in their efforts to reform
our campaign finance system. They believe, as I do, that our failure to
act in this issue will only fuel the public's cynicism about the
institutions of the Congress, the Presidency, and the electoral process
as a whole. I commend this letter to my colleagues attention and ask
unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the letter was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
An Open Letter to The President and the Congress of the United States
from Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Walter F. Mondale--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 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
[[Page S6184]]
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 to 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 public 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 messages 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 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 is 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.
____________________