[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 135 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. NEWT GINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 1997

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit into the 
Congressional Record an excellent article on campaign finance reform by 
the former Governor of Delaware, Pete du Pont:

             [From The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 24, 1997]

                      Price Controls on Democracy

                           (By Pete du Pont)

       Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. The hard cases of 
     Clinton campaign cash corruption are pushing Congress toward 
     very bad law--the McCain-Feingold bill, which would, in 
     effect, impose price controls on political involvement.
       The First Continental Congress understood well the 
     consequences of legislated prices, which had been imposed 
     during the Revolutionary War. In June 1778 it concluded that 
     ``limitations on the prices of commodities are not only 
     ineffectual for the purposes proposed, but likewise 
     productive of very evil consequences to the great detriment 
     of the public service and grievous oppression of 
     individuals.''
       But the failure of price controls reaches back to the 
     beginning of government. As Robert L. Scheuttinger and Eamonn 
     F. Butler document in ``Forty Centuries of Wage and Price 
     Controls,'' in 2150 B.C., the Kingdom of Babylon adopted the 
     Code of Hammurabi. Among its provisions were wage and price 
     controls. For example, the code said the price to hire a 60-
     ton boat shall be ``a sixth part of a shekel of silver per 
     diem,'' and the pay of a carpenter ``four grains of silver 
     per diem.''


                           Boundless Avarice

       Twenty-five centuries later, in A.D. 284, the Roman Emperor 
     Diocletian, complaining of ``raging and boundless avarice,'' 
     decreed that ``maximum [prices] be fixed'' for all foods and 
     services. Hoarding, riots, a black market and a failed 
     economy soon followed. Four years later Diocletian abdicated 
     his throne.
       Sixteen centuries after that, nations ranging from Lenin's 
     U.S.S.R. to Hitler's Germany to Richard Nixon and Jimmy 
     Carter's America imposed wage and price controls. All failed 
     to achieve their purpose and caused more problems than they 
     solved.
       So it makes perfect sense in the world of Washington to 
     insist that they be imposed again. This time Sens. John 
     McCain (R., Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D., Wis.), aided and 
     abetted by Common Cause, the New York Times and President 
     Clinton, want to impose price controls on political speech 
     and campaigns. Their legislative proposal contains a wide 
     variety of price controls: On campaigns (an overall spending 
     limit), on private broadcasters (advertising rates), on 
     government (postal rates) and on out-of-state contributors to 
     a candidate (the proportion of contributions they may give is 
     restricted).
       The legislation is a mind-numbing example of government by 
     the numbers. The overall spending limit for Senate races 
     ``shall not exceed the lesser of $5,500,000, or the greater 
     of $950,000 or $400,000 plus 30 cents multiplied by the 
     voting age population not in excess of 4,000,000 and 25 cents 
     multiplied by the voting age population in excess of 
     4,000,000.'' Oh, that is unless the candidate runs in a state 
     that has no more than one VHF TV transmitter licensed for 
     operation, in which case 80 cents is substituted for 30, and 
     70 for 25.
       In addition the bill proposes free television time for 
     candidates. Each candidate would be entitled to a total of 30 
     minutes, to be used Monday through Friday between 6 and 10 
     p.m., in minimum bites of 30 seconds and a maximum of five 
     minutes; but no more than 15 minutes on any one station. 
     Breathtaking in its complexity, McCain-Feingold calls to mind 
     a statement attributed to Soviet official Vladimir Kabaidze 
     in 1936: ``We cannot tolerate the proliferation of this 
     paperwork any longer. We must kill the people producing it.''
       Other reformers offer alternative schemes of government 
     control. Max Frankel, writing in the New York Times Magazine, 
     is for ``chasing political commercials off the air and giving 
     ballot-worthy candidates enough free air time to present 
     themselves to the voters.'' Two think-tankers, Thomas Mann of 
     the Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the American 
     Enterprise Institute, want to eliminate political party 
     ``soft money'' and narrow the definition of how much an 
     individual or organization can spend advocating or opposing a 
     public policy issue. And House and Senate Minority Leaders 
     Richard Gephardt (D., Mo.) and Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) want to 
     amend the Constitution, weakening the First Amendment to 
     permit campaign price controls.
       All of these ideas are bad economics, bad politics and, as 
     40 centuries of experience have proved, very bad public 
     policy.
       In addition to the First Amendment problem--the Supreme 
     Court ruled unanimously in Buckley v. Valeo that political 
     contributions are protected speech--there are enormous 
     fairness issues. Mr. Frankel's formulation hints at them: 
     giving ``ballot-worthy candidates'' free air time. So who is 
     ``ballot-worthy?'' Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats in 1948? 
     Eugene McCarthy's challenge to Lyndon Johnson in 1968? Harry 
     Browne or Ralph Nader, last year's Libertarian and Green 
     candidates for president? What impartial arbiter would decide 
     who may or may not run for election in America?
       Another affront to liberty is the McCain-Feingold proposal 
     to limit a candidate's out-of-state contributions to 40% of 
     all contributions. Under such a provision, non-Louisianans 
     who don't want to see David Duke elected to the Senate might 
     be unable to contribute to his opponent.
       Limiting issue advocacy is another clear and present danger 
     to American democracy. McCain-Feingold would permit the 
     federal government to regulate campaign speech that contains 
     ``express advocacy'' intended to affect an election. But 
     advocacy of issues is what elections are about. There should 
     be more of it, not less.
       Any state or local party activity, from voter registration 
     to kaffeeklatsches, that ``might affect the outcome of a 
     federal election'' would also be covered by national campaign 
     controls, effectively federalizing local elections. All this 
     is Big Brother writ large, a bit of Leninism superimposed on 
     modern America.
       Finally comes the question of political action committees. 
     Let's be clear, we are not talking of legalizing illegal 
     acts--foreign contributions to political campaigns, 
     solicitations from government offices or making contributions 
     in the name of another. We are considering whether people of 
     similar beliefs--union members or right-to-life advocates--
     may contribute to a common organization to increase their 
     political impact.

     

                          ____________________