[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H7013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, Madam Speaker. The only thing more 
complicated today, Madam Speaker, than our current campaign finance 
system is the Tax Code. But the solution of ridding the ills of the 
current system is not by making things more complicated, as much of the 
legislation that is being offered today in Congress does.
  Now, some have suggested that our first amendment rights should be 
curtailed in order to create some type of mythical level playing field 
for Federal elections. Now, the minority leader, the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], was quoted this year as saying, in Time 
Magazine, 1997, February 3, ``What we have here are two important 
values in direct conflict. Freedom of speech and our desire for healthy 
campaigns and a healthy democracy. You can't have both.''
  Quite frankly, I find this viewpoint wrong. In fact, I believe one 
can have freedom of speech and healthy campaigns. The American people 
should never be forced to lose a part of their precious freedom in 
order to pursue a socially engineered campaign finance system.
  The courts have been very clear that the Government cannot restrict 
the freedom of American citizens in an effort to implement strict 
expenditure and contribution limits. In Buckley versus Valeo the U.S. 
Supreme Court, in 1976, ruled that ``In the free society ordained by 
our Constitution, it is not the Government, but the people, 
individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as 
associations and political committees, who must retain control over the 
quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political 
campaign.''
  What we need to do is to enforce the campaign finance laws that are 
already on the books and then work together to simplify the laws so the 
American people are being well served.
  The modern campaign finance system was dramatically affected in 1908 
during President Teddy Roosevelt's administration, when corporate 
contributions were banned. Congress then mandated in 1910 that Federal 
candidates disclose all campaign contributions.
  Congress thoughtfully extended a corporate ban to include labor 
unions beginning in 1943. Corporations and unions, after these bans, 
could then only give to Federal candidates through Political Action 
Committees, PAC's. PAC's are separate, segregated funds that pool 
voluntary contributions from designated classes of individuals such as 
members of unions and employees of a company to give or spend in 
Federal elections.
  Now, the Hatch Act in 1940 had also limited all campaign 
contributions to $5,000. The Hatch Act was then applied to union PAC's 
when union contributions were banned from Federal elections.
  Now, as we all know, the flurry of campaign finance laws in the 
1970's revolved around the Watergate scandal. The legislation from the 
1970's imposed limits on contributions, required uniform disclosure of 
campaign receipts and expenditures, and established the Federal 
Election Campaign Commission, the FEC, as a central administrative 
enforcement agency. A part of these reforms that limited certain 
expenditures was struck down by the Supreme Court in the hallmark case 
of Buckley versus Valeo.
  These laws imposed limits of $1,000 per individual every election on 
contributions to candidates, parties, and PAC's, and a $5,000 limit for 
PAC's every year. An aggregate limit was set on individuals and PAC's 
at $25,000 per year that could be given to all Federal candidates, 
parties, and PAC's.
  Again, what is needed now is not to make the laws more complicated. 
Rather, simplicity is the path to strengthening our system and gaining 
credibility with the American people. We can also gain a tremendous 
amount of credibility with the American people by actually 
investigating and enforcing the current law.
  So, Madam Speaker, this morning my message is, like the Tax Code, 
simplicity and enforceability are what is needed today in the campaign 
finance reform matter. No matter what laws are put in place, we will 
have smart people stretching those laws. We need to enforce the laws 
that are on the books and keep them simple and understandable.

                          ____________________