[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10269-S10270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have spent several days recently and 
this week talking about campaign finance. I would like to share some of 
my thoughts. It is one of those issues that have become so complicated 
and so convoluted that it seems to me it is very difficult for a person 
to really bring it down to the simple basics, particularly if you 
haven't listened to all of it.
  Proponents of campaign finance reform bills will have you believe 
this is the top issue and in the interest of Americans, that everyone 
on Main Street is waiting breathlessly for some significant action that 
would be more important than tax relief or the balanced budget--no. I 
think that is not so. When I go back to Wyoming nearly every week, 
people don't come and talk to me about campaign finance. They want to 
discuss health care, they want to discuss public lands, they want to 
discuss taxes.
  This is not to say that it is not important, certainly not to say 
that I am against finance reform, because I think there should be some 
thoughtful changes in terms of campaign financing. I just don't believe 
that it is a catastrophic issue. I don't believe it is an issue that is 
the most important thing on our agenda as it sometimes is termed.
  The steam behind the issue, as a matter of fact, is generally that of 
enforcing the laws that are now on the books. That is what the hearings 
were about. That is what brought it up. It is not new laws that are 
needed--enforce the ones that are now there, not merely adding more to 
be unenforced.
  I am in favor of campaign finance reform. I have been very involved 
in political systems, as a matter of fact, long before I was ever in 
elective office, because it seemed to me over a period of years that it 
is pretty clear that politics and campaigns are how we govern 
ourselves. That is how you and I in our precincts decide the big issues 
in terms of government. So I just think we need to make it the kind of 
a process in which people can be involved, the kind of a process in 
which the first amendment opportunities to speak are there and are 
extended to everyone--not just limited to the press.
  On the other hand, we can't overlook the defects we saw in the last 
campaign cycle. The answer, however, is not to marshal the powers of 
the Federal Government and increase governmental intervention. We can 
reintroduce principle, we can introduce integrity and serious 
compliance into this important function of governing ourselves by 
strengthening and enforcing the reporting and disclosure laws, by 
limiting the influence of soft money on the national level, by 
requiring that a majority of the funds in a campaign come from the 
district in which the election takes place, by banning compulsory 
contributions.
  I don't think we ought to pass a bill just because we want to go 
through the rhetorical process, just because we want to shift the 
attention from not adhering to the law to writing new laws.
  We are talking about being home, and I hear more than anything else 
in Wyoming, ``Wait a minute, the issue is not new law; the issue is 
enforcing the laws we have.'' I think disclosure is the most important 
of the election issues. In that case, voters can determine where the 
money comes from to go to a candidate and make their own judgment as to 
whether or not that is reasonable. It is a simple way to bring our 
system of privately financed campaigns on track by strengthening and 
enforcing existing disclosure laws.
  Privately financed--I think it is a mistake to move more and more to 
how the taxpayers finance campaigns. It seems to me that has proven not 
to be useful. Candidates in parties must offer fuller and more timely 
disclosure of campaign receipts and spending activities. Reports must 
be prompt and

[[Page S10270]]

early. Now there is a period of time between the last reporting and the 
election in which donations and contributions are not reported until 
after the election is over. That is wrong. We ought to change that. 
Candidates' reports are often late and partial and voters are kept from 
knowing what they should know about contributions prior to the time of 
voting. People need to be better informed. We can do that and we 
should.
  Soft money--I am concerned about the increased amount of soft money 
being spent on a national level. I say again, I was very involved in my 
party prior to being elected, and I saw us use money of that kind to do 
things that I thought were useful, and continue to think are useful--
party building, voter identification, voter registration, getting 
people to vote and participate in government. That is what soft money 
is for.
  Unfortunately, the receipts for campaigns have increased some 200 
percent from the 1992 Presidential election to the 1996 cycle. That is 
a little scary. That is a lot. This money is not subject to the kind of 
disclosure requirements and restrictions in the kind of things that so-
called hard money is. Voters have the right to be suspect of this kind 
of dough, it seems to me, since there are really not stringent 
accountability standards. We must develop, I think, a contribution 
limit on soft money. It doesn't need to be small. It can be healthy, 
but it should not be unlimited, and it should be for party building.

  We talk sometimes disdainfully about politics. Politics is how we 
govern ourselves. That is how you and I who live in our precincts are 
able to make an impact. I feel very strongly about that.
  Fundraising in the district--pretty evident that is the important 
thing. I support the idea of having at least 50 percent of the money 
that goes into the campaign come from the district from which the 
candidate runs.
  Now, I am the first to admit--and that is one of the difficulties 
with all kinds of election controls and election restrictions--there 
are ways to go around that. In my State there are large companies that 
run mines, for example, that contribute to campaigns from out-of-state 
headquarters. They will simply contribute from instate headquarters, 
and it will be the same money. But, nevertheless it is important. I 
think there is a great shift of money from one place to another outside 
of the eligible voters, simply because of interests that are somewhere 
else, that go to this campaign. I suggest that at least 50 percent come 
from the area in which the candidates come.
  Compulsory dues being used for campaigns I think is a real mistake. 
Labor unions are the only ones that really are able to do that. I think 
it certainly ought to be voluntary on the part of the member whether or 
not those dues are used for that purpose. There are some polls recently 
that say that is greatly supported, 4 to 1, by members of unions. I 
think that is right. They should not be restricted from using their 
money for that purpose if they choose to, but they need to choose.
  Mr. President, in summary, voting is one of the highest privileges of 
being a citizen. Not only is it a privilege, it is an obligation and a 
responsibility if we are to have a government of the people, by the 
people and for the people, then the people must participate, must be 
given an opportunity to participate.
  It is ironic to me, it seems to me we are in a time where we have the 
technical ability to have more information available to more people 
than ever in history. Can you imagine what it was like to vote 100 
years ago? How much do you think people knew about national elections? 
Very little, I suspect. Now we know anything that happens in the world, 
and we know it in 10 minutes. Yet we seem not to have the kind of 
participation that we really ought to have in a citizen government. 
That is what we ought to be striving to have as we deal with election 
finance--voters being responsible, voters fulfilling their obligation, 
voters being knowledgeable, and voters being able to choose.
  One of the real meaningful ways, of course, is that individuals can 
contribute to that point of view that they support. We should work hard 
to ensure that campaign system is free of some of its current laws and 
yet open and free and not governed in every detail by some bureau 
somewhere that decides what you can say in an ad. Those kind of things 
are not useful and, indeed in my opinion, move us in the wrong 
direction.
  I hope we continue to work on this issue. I hope we do some things. I 
hope we stay away from the convoluted notion that we ought to have 
somebody in some bureaucracy, somewhere, manage all of the election 
activities. Here again, these kind of things belong in our communities, 
they belong in our States, they belong in our towns, they belong in our 
school boards. That is where they ought to be.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________