[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4610-H4611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, we are close to July 4, and it was not 
that long ago the President asked us to come to the Congress with a 
campaign finance reform bill that we would vote on by July 4, get it 
through the House, the Senate, and bring it to the President's desk.
  There has been virtually no action on campaign finance reform. I 
think I know the reason. There is a fundamental difference between the 
majority of the Republicans and the majority of the Democrats. 
Enunciated by the Speaker, Speaker Gingrich says, ``One of the greatest 
myths of modern politics is that campaigns are too expensive. The 
political process in fact is underfunded, it is not overfunded.''
  Now, it is interesting because my colleague, the Speaker in 
particular, seems to say in almost every other category that there is 
too much money. If it is feeding children, he says there is too much 
money. We cannot throw money at the problem. If it is education, he 
does not want to throw money at the problem. But when it comes to 
campaigns, he thinks there is not enough money.
  I find it very hard to grasp this concept. And if we take a look at 
what has happened here, things like low-income energy assistance has 
been cut by 50 percent since 1978. We have had community development 
banks have gone up 27 percent. Maternal and child health block grants 
have gone up 91 percent from 1978. Congressional campaigns have gone up 
294 percent. It does not indicate a shortage of cash.
  What it indicates is in reality that we spend way too much time 
raising money. And if one is running for the Senate in California, the 
last race was $14.4 million. In 1992, there was a cheap race for 10.4 
million. And we come to an average of about $12.4 million. A winning 
candidate must raise $39,744 over the course of the 312 weeks to make 
sure they have the money for that race.
  Now, there is a reason why the Republicans basically exercise their 
class warfare not just in the tax bill and not just in the budget 
authority and where they want to spend money, but why they want wealth 
to be represented in the political process, because they have a 
tremendous advantage.
  So when one talks to the Speaker and he says he thinks you need more 
money, well, they have already got about a $200 million-some advantage 
in the campaign funding system that we have here today. I do not know 
how much more of an advantage he wants to have.
  My belief is that the democratic institutions we have here ought to 
represent people and not just a way to funnel money into the political 
system. Candidates spend too much time raising money. The American 
people no

[[Page H4611]]

longer have the confidence they once had in our system. It seems clear 
unless we change that, we will undermine this institution and all other 
institutions of this democracy.
  When people hear about $50- and $100,000 contributions, they sit back 
and say, well, my participation does not matter. Why should I volunteer 
when somebody can write a check for a quarter of a million dollars? Why 
should I send in $50 or $75 or $100? It is going to disappear in the 
flood of money that is coming into politics.
  We spend too much time raising money. We are losing our voters 
because of the money in the campaign, and it just is destroying the 
very fabric of our political system.
  Now, what should we do? I think, one, we should make sure we do not 
rig the system to just give more power to those people who have money. 
The way I think we solve that is by picking an amount of money that the 
average citizen could participate in the political process.
  I think there ought to be a $100 bill, a piece of legislation which I 
will enter in the next several weeks which will limit contributions to 
$100. I then want to put a tax on advertising, on television, radio and 
newspaper ads and use that money for a match to make that contribution 
about $700 worth of cash.
  Then we need to limit spending. We have to have enough so that a new 
person can challenge an incumbent. But we do not want to spend our 
entire lives chasing money and doing fund-raisers rather than 
representing our constituents or maybe even spending some time with our 
family.
  The political crisis that is here is one of confidence in the 
institutions of this democracy. My parents survived Hitler and fled the 
Soviet Union to come to the United States, not simply because of its 
economic success but because this was a country that guaranteed 
freedoms and provided for participation in its democracy. Young people 
and old people alike believe they can no longer access this democracy 
unless they have a political action committee, unless they have 
thousands of dollars to give.
  Let us give this democracy back to the people. Let us limit campaigns 
to $100 from an individual. Then I think we will find volunteers 
flowing back into the political system and participation of average 
Americans. This should not be a race about money. It ought to be a race 
about getting people into the system.

                          ____________________