[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9841-H9842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NEED FOR CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISING REFORM HIGHLIGHTED BY SPENDING FOR 
                       UPCOMING SPECIAL ELECTIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Snyder] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, over the last several months we have heard 
a number of discussions about the problem of large donations in our 
campaign system. I have been up on the floor, as have many people, 
discussing that issue.
  At one time I had a large blown-up check that we had which had been 
signed by my friend, Ima Big Donor, made out for $1 billion, with a big 
sign, ``To any old political party,'' a completely and perfectly legal 
donation under our current campaign laws. I continue to be optimistic 
that something will occur in this session of Congress that will deal 
with campaign finance reform.
  But when I go back home and make speeches and people ask me, do you 
think that you all are going to do anything in Washington about 
campaign finance and these terrible problems we are having, I say, 
look, it may take one more election cycle. Maybe we will have to go 
through the 1998 election cycle, and just see these thousands and 
thousands and millions of these soft dollars, these unregulated, 
unlimited, huge donations saturate our system to where the outrage of 
the American people will finally force this Congress, specifically the 
Republican leadership, to let us take up campaign finance reform.
  But I am thinking that maybe we are not going to have to wait that 
long, because we have some examples right now going on in special 
elections where we can see and predict what is going to happen in 1998.
  Right now in New York this Tuesday there is going to be an election 
to fill the seat of retired Representative Susan Molinari. We have two 
candidates, a Democrat, Eric Vitaliano, and a Republican, Vito 
Fossella. As the press reports a couple of days ago, the Democrat had 
spent about $35,000 in television ads and the Republican had spent 
about $85,000. I am sure those numbers are substantially higher now. 
But what we have is a duel between two local candidates who care very 
much about their country and are trying to win the election.
  But in the middle of this duel comes the 800-pound gorilla. The 800-
pound gorilla is the Republican National Committee. Not only is it an 
800-pound gorilla, it is an $800,000, $800,000 gorilla that has brought 
in outside money through the committee saturating the airways to tilt 
the election toward the Republican.
  Our laws do not have loopholes, they have an absolute, major sieve, 
and have become almost meaningless to deal with these massive amounts 
of money.
  Madam Speaker, for Mr. Vitaliano, the Democratic candidate, he is 
currently required by Federal law that he can only accept a $1,000 
donation from any individual, and he can only accept $5,000, maximum, 
from any political action committee.
  The Republican National Committee has absolutely no limit on the 
amount of money it can accept into the party as soft money, and in 
fact, there have been reports of donations over $1 million, and I 
suspect we will see more of those to that size.
  So what is the problem? The problem for the voters of New York, they 
are going to have to decide if that seat is for sale to the highest 
bidder. Folks say, well, Democrats do it, too. But I do not think that 
makes it in any better.
  All it means is if you are a local person sitting in New York, you 
are going to say, is the amount of Republican money coming in from the 
outside going to win the day or the bid, or will it be offset by the 
amount of the Democratic money coming from outside New York? Is that 
going to tip the scale? The seat becomes for sale to the highest 
bidder.
  The problem for our system is two, as I see it. No. 1, what do those 
huge donations buy? Is it access? That is what we often hear. Is it 
access, the ability of someone who makes a $300,000 donation to get 
into the seat of power and discuss the issues that a person who

[[Page H9842]]

makes a $25 donation does not get to do?

                              {time}  1300

  I think that is one of the problems. The other one is this issue of 
the 800-pound gorilla. When I am a candidate and I announce for a race, 
I call my brother-in-law and he sends me $25, and I call the guy down 
the street and he sends me $100.
  The outside money in these huge amounts, $800,000, absolutely 
overwhelms the local fundraising. It distorts the local politics. It 
makes the race one in which outside huge money powers control the race, 
and I think that is wrong.
  We have a second example. Our dear friend, Walter Capps, passed away 
just a few days ago, and there is obviously going to be a special 
election. There is already discussion out there in California about who 
is going to be in the race, and Walter's funeral has not even occurred 
yet.
  Yesterday's Roll Call newspaper has a quote discussing that race from 
an employee of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and 
this is what he said. ``We will do whatever it takes to win this seat. 
That means spending whatever it takes, ground troops, party money. This 
is the kind of seat where we will go to war to win.''
  Well, aside from perhaps commenting on the crassness of making such a 
statement even before poor Walter has had his funeral, listen to those 
terms. ``Party money.'' Not ``local money,'' ``party money.'' The 
$800,000 gorilla presents his head. It is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs campaign finance reform.

                          ____________________