[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM--AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEPHEN HORN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 30, 1998

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, last October, a group of 30 Republican members 
asked Speaker Gingrich to set open ground rules for the House debate on 
the issue of campaign finance reform. He promised to bring up these 
issues in March and he has done so.
  I and other co-signers hoped that we could build a bipartisan 
consensus to bridge the disagreements on campaign finance that divide 
the parties. As one who has been involved in this issue for many years, 
I had few illusions about the difficulties of this effort. But I 
believed that the House had developed a bipartisan group committed to 
genuine reform and that this group could become the nucleus for a broad 
agreement.
  The bipartisan Shays-Meehan group, the Tuesday Group Republicans, the 
Blue Dog Democrats, and the bipartisan freshman group of 1996 had 
demonstrated the possibilities on a limited scale. By joining forces, I 
hoped we could be the engine of bipartisan campaign reform in the 
House.
  Beginning last October, members of these groups and their staffs 
worked many long hours in an intense effort to produce the broad, 
bipartisan consensus all of us wanted. Unfortunately, despite the best 
of intentions and the good-faith efforts of all involved, we simply 
could not come to a final agreement.
  We diverged on a number of issues, including the extent of a ban on 
so-called ``soft money'' which seems unlimited and is largely 
unregulated contributions that both parties collect from corporations, 
unions, and wealthy individuals outside the scope of our present 
Federal election laws. Some of us were committed to a full and complete 
soft-money ban at the Federal, State and local levels. Others preferred 
the more limited approach in the freshman bill that bans soft-money at 
the national party level and prohibits Federal officeholders, 
candidates, and their agents from any involvement in raising, 
soliciting, directing, or transferring such funds. But it would not ban 
soft money at the State level.
  This disagreement was fundamental--it reflects strongly held 
principles on both sides and it is an honest difference of opinion.
  The members of the bipartisan working group also could not resolve 
disagreements over so-called ``issue ads''--the television and radio 
advertisements that flood the airwaves at the end of a campaign 
launching anonymous attacks on candidates without being required to 
disclose the source of their funding.
  A number of us wanted all special interest issue ads to comply with 
the same Federal election disclosure laws that bind us as candidates. 
That would include limits on contributions from individuals and 
political action committees and full disclosure and complete reporting 
of all contributions and expenditures. Others believed that imposing 
those restrictions on non-candidates would violate First Amendment 
freedoms and that, at most, we should require disclosure.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, these are not phony arguments. These are real 
differences of opinion on complex issues.
  There were other less severe disagreements, but in hindsight we 
failed to give adequate consideration to what is probably the most 
serious roadblock to any broad bipartisan consensus on campaign 
finance. That roadblock is the role of union money in our campaigns.
  From the start of the bipartisan discussions, Democratic members were 
very clear that they were united in opposition to certain Republican 
proposals, such as the ``Paycheck Protection Act'' that would require 
unions to obtain permission from individual union members before their 
dues could be used for political activities. This proposal was viewed 
as a pure ``poison pill'' intended to kill reform and therefore not 
subject to compromise.

  At the same time, a majority of House Republicans--162 of 225 are 
cosponsors of the paycheck bill--view this legislation in the exact 
opposite light. That is, many Republicans believe that failure to 
include Paycheck Protection is a poison pill for reform because a soft-
money ban would cut off Republican funds for grassroots activities such 
as voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts while leaving 
largely pro-Democratic unions free to spend their own money on such 
efforts for the Democrats.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, there are stark and fundamental disagreements 
between the two parties on this issue and the efforts to resolve those 
conflicts have not succeeded despite the very intense effort that was 
made over the past 5 months.
  The failure of the bipartisan working group means we are largely back 
where we began--splintered on two or three plans that are nominally 
bipartisan. While I believe that each of these proposals has merit, the 
reality is that each also lacks the depth of support and the staying 
power necessary to win passage in the House and the other body, to 
survive a difficult conference, and to be signed into law.
  Barring the development of a genuine bipartisan consensus, I see 
little reason to hope that we can pass a significant campaign reform 
bill this year. While some argue that a majority of the House supports 
the McCain-Feingold II proposal, I question the wisdom of trying to 
force the passage of a bill that already has been killed in the Senate 
and that does not enjoy broad bipartisan support here.
  If we are every to achieve real reform, it must be done on a fair, 
bipartisan basis and the unfortunate truth is that that basis does not 
now exist. As one who has spent a great deal of time on the McCain-
Feingold proposal, a Commission bill and major disclosure legislation, 
and a lot of energy in seeking a bipartisan consensus, I am 
disappointed but I am not willing to give up. Neither am I willing to 
waste time trying to assign blame or score partisan points on this 
issue.
  Republicans and Democrats must share equally in the failure to 
achieve consensus on this issue and both must be prepared to make 
important compromises if we are every to move forward. That means we 
must craft legislation with real reforms that affect both parties and 
every special interest group.
  The bill offered by Rep. Bill Thomas, chairman of the Committee on 
House Oversight is a serious effort. He accepted a number of our ideas. 
He worked avidly to build a consensus. He sought to strike a balanced 
and fair framework for campaign finance reforms. The legislation is not 
perfect. No bill is. Among other reforms, this bill would:
  Ban soft money contributions and spending by the national party 
committees and prohibit federal officeholders, candidates and their 
agents from being involved in soft money activities.
  Require full public disclosure of the sources of the special interest 
funding for issue ads that identify a candidate for federal office in 
the last 90 days of a campaign. Voters have a right to know who is 
trying to influence an election.
  Provide basic tools for state and local officials to combat voter 
fraud so that the votes of U.S. citizens are not canceled out by 
illegal votes.
  Require that unions and corporations give their members or 
stockholders the power to block the use of their dues or funds for 
political activities. Frankly, I believe some of the language in this 
section is too broad and needs refinement but the goal of balanced 
limits on unions and corporations is sound and necessary.
  These are real reforms. This bill would produce genuine, substantive 
and far-reaching changes in the way our campaigns are conducted. I 
support it and I urge my colleagues to do the same. If it passes, real 
progress will have been made.

                          ____________________