[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E614-E615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 22, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, April 22, 1998 into the Congressional Record.

                        Campaign Finance Reform

       I often hear that nobody really cares that the way we 
     finance political campaigns is rotten. Polls indicate that by 
     a wide margin Americans believe the system is corrupting and 
     needs a major overhaul, yet I rarely find people outraged 
     that the system isn't being reformed. The American people are 
     deeply cynical that the system will ever be changed. They 
     recognize that special interests and elected officials from 
     both parties are complicit in the system and have a vested 
     interest in perpetuating it. After all, they have made the 
     system work successfully for them.
       I've come to the view that those of us who think the 
     current system must be overhauled immediately need to spell 
     out more specifically why Americans should be outraged by the 
     failure of Congress to reform the campaign finance system.


                            Need For Reform

       Defenders of the current system argue that as a nation we 
     spend far less on our federal elections than is spent to 
     advertise various consumer products, that contributions from

[[Page E615]]

     individuals still exceed PAC contributions in congressional 
     races, that campaign contributions are protected by the First 
     Amendment right of free speech, and that it is difficult to 
     demonstrate a clear connection between campaign contributions 
     and voting patterns. Yet I believe that the current system 
     has serious problems and is in urgent need of reform.

                             Buying access

       Money talks. The current system of campaign finance is 
     anti-democratic. Those who have money clearly have a stronger 
     voice in our representative democracy. The reverse is also 
     true, that those without money have less of a voice. There is 
     no doubt that under the current system the have gain more 
     while the have-nots remain unrepresented or underrepresented.
       Those who contribute can be paid back with access, time to 
     discuss issues, and sometimes even a role in drafting 
     legislation, which means other people are being shut out of 
     the process. When the elected official walks into his office 
     late in the afternoon and has ten phone calls to return but 
     only time to make one, who gets the attention? Almost 
     certainly the person who has contributed substantially to his 
     campaign.
       It is hard to challenge the cynical view that large 
     contributors have bought their way into the White House and 
     obtained access to powerful Members of both parties. My view 
     is that the current financing system, if not constrained, 
     will end up doing serious harm to representative democracy.

                             Special favors

       Contributors usually want something in return for their 
     political contributions--a subsidy, a contract, a tax break, 
     a hand-out from the federal government. That costs taxpayers 
     money and makes it difficult to control federal spending or 
     properly allocate limited resources. The average American can 
     also be affected more directly. For example, you pay more 
     today for sugar because contributions from the sugar lobby 
     are a significant factor in keeping sugar price supports on 
     the books.
       The system can be corrupting. Candidates are put in very 
     difficult situations. It is almost impossible today to run a 
     political campaign without accepting money that has some 
     strings attached, even if the strings are subtle and not 
     explicit.

                       Enormous cost of campaigns

       The cost of campaigns for high office--driven largely by 
     the cost of television-- has risen to a point that it is 
     destructive to the democratic process. Today, competitive 
     House races can easily cost $1 million, and the winners in 
     Senate races on average spend well over $4 million. The 
     prospect of raising such amounts discourages many good people 
     from running for office, and both parties now make a major 
     effort to recruit wealthy candidates. Candidates have already 
     started to run expensive political ads, indicating that the 
     system is increasingly spinning out of control.

                         Time spent fundraising

       Under the current system, the candidates have to spend a 
     huge amount of time chasing money. A Senator running for re-
     election needs to raise a minimum of $15,000 every week of 
     his six-year term to try to hold on to his seat. Members are 
     so involved in the system that they often don't realize the 
     nature and the shape of the treadmill they are on. The more 
     time Members spend raising money, the less time they are able 
     to spend on public policy issues and meeting with 
     constituents to discuss the issues. Members will often state 
     that their vote is not for sale, but it is quite clear that 
     their time is.

                       Pressures to skirt limits

       The competition to raise money is so fierce that it can 
     push people to the edge of the law if not over it. It's no 
     accident that some of the biggest fundraisers in 1996 got 
     into deep trouble after the campaign for raising large 
     amounts of money from sources that were either forbidden or 
     doubtful under the law.

                           Numerous loopholes

       Even the current systems's rather mild restrictions on 
     money in politics have numerous loopholes. ``Soft money'' can 
     be donated in unlimited amounts to the political parties, 
     rather than to individual candidates, but it can easily be 
     diverted to individual campaigns. Through ``independent 
     expenditures'' outside groups can come into a state and spend 
     millions of dollars on television ads attacking a candidate 
     as long as there is no coordination with the candidate's 
     opponent. Spending on ``issue advocacy'' is growing even 
     faster, as outside groups can spend millions of dollars in 
     unreported funds for thinly veiled ads attacking a candidate 
     as long as the ads don't specifically say to vote against 
     him. All of this forces candidates to spend even more time 
     fundraising to prepare for possible attacks from forces that 
     are completely unaccountable to the voters.

                        Undermines public trust

       The rising flood of money that flows into campaigns 
     undermines public trust in government. By a four-to-one 
     margin Americans believe that elected officials are 
     influenced more by pressures from campaign contributors than 
     by what's in the best interests of the country. Cynicism is 
     always the worst enemy of democracy, and it has certainly 
     been bolstered by our campaign finance system.


                               Conclusion

       Reforming the current campaign finance system will be 
     enormously difficult unless there is a much greater public 
     outcry. Leaders of both parties simply do not see a need to 
     change a system that has elected them. Members read the polls 
     showing that the public has largely given up on the chances 
     of reform. They know how infrequently campaign finance reform 
     is brought up in their public meetings and in letters from 
     constituents. And they know that people will rarely vote 
     against them because of their failure to pass reform. If the 
     system is to be changed, the American people will need to 
     become more active in bringing that about.

     

                          ____________________