[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 63 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3359-H3360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak 
on behalf of a subject that this Congress will address this week and 
probably even after we come back from the Memorial week break. The 
subject that we are going to address that I think is very important to 
the American voter is campaign finance reform.
  Day after day, we see stories reported in the national media about 
the abuses of the last election on both sides of the aisle in the 
enormous and consistent chase of soft money.
  I know the American people who hear these terms, probably their eyes 
glaze over and say, what are you talking about in soft money? The soft 
money we are speaking of is simply in the terms of the $100,000, the 
$200,000, or even the $1 million contribution that flow into the 
national political parties from corporations, from labor unions, and 
from wealthy individuals.
  Ever since going back, really, to the early part of the 19th century 
or this century, we have banned corporate money and labor union money 
to individual candidates. Yet, even though an individual Federal 
candidate cannot receive the corporate or labor money, that same money 
can flow in under court decisions to the national parties to be used 
for campaign type ads that affect our elections and affect candidates. 
So that is the soft money loophole that people speak about.
  Particularly this last election, we saw a chase as we have not seen 
before in our campaigns where our national parties and our Federal 
candidates pursued this soft money, the huge contributions. It had a 
greater impact than ever before. So that points up the need for 
campaign finance reform.
  People ask me, why in the world are you being involved in this issue 
in the United States Congress? To me, it is very simple. It is the fact 
that, during my campaign, people asked me on the campaign trail, what 
are you going to do about reforming our campaign finance system?

                              {time}  1215

  I took the position, because I believed in it, that we ought to ban 
soft money to our national political parties, because of the abuses 
that we have seen. I believe that once you make that pledge, you ought 
to have the same position in Congress, so I have stayed committed to 
that.
  While we first came here as freshmen members of this great body, I 
met with my colleagues from across the aisles, the Democrat freshmen, 
headed up by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen), and then others 
on the Republican side of the aisle, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Rick Hill), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Merrill Cook), the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Kevin Brady), and others who worked diligently crafting 
a bipartisan bill on campaign finance reform that does not try to do 
damage to the other side but tries to keep a level playing field, so we 
can have a bill that will be constitutional, that would stop the 
greatest abuses, and then would be meaningful reform.
  That is what we crafted after 5 months of diligent work. We came up 
with this bill, and now it is the leading bipartisan bill on this 
floor. We have over 75 cosponsors to this legislation.
  I am very grateful to the Republican leadership who designated the 
freshman bill, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act, as the bill that 
would come forward to this body this week as the base bill to engage in 
the debate on campaign finance reform.
  As it comes to this body, it will be subject to amendments. It will 
be subject to different substitutes that will be offered. I think this 
is good. It is a very open process. It is one that everyone can 
participate in, present their ideas on campaign finance reform. We 
cannot guarantee the result. That assures that it is going to be a very 
democratic process.
  After we engage in this debate I hope the American people will be 
engaged and they will call their representatives, and that they will 
express their views as to what represents the appropriate change that 
we should have.
  The Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act will be presented this week on 
the House floor. We will start debate. Again, there will be amendments 
that are offered. Let me explain basically what this bill does, because 
it is very simple. It is straightforward, but it is very substantial 
reform.
  First of all, this bill bans soft money to the national political 
parties, again, the greatest source of abuse. There are those who say, 
well, it will just simply flow to the State parties at that point.
  We do not believe, under the tenth amendment to the United States 
Constitution, that the Federal Government should federalize all of the 
elections, because if you have an election in Arkansas or in Oklahoma 
or in Pennsylvania, you are going to have State candidates on the 
ballot and Federal candidates on the ballot, and we should not direct 
how every State party in the Nation handles money. I believe that the 
State laws should govern much of what happens at the State party level. 
So we address, as the United States Congress, the greatest abuse, the 
soft money, the abusive money that goes to the national parties, and we 
stop that.
  Secondly, we do set up the firewalls between the States that prevents 
this money from being transferred from State party to State party. 
Since the national parties cannot raise it, they cannot channel it down 
to the State parties. We also prohibit the Federal candidates or their 
agents from helping to raise that soft money, so this is very 
substantial reform when it comes to the abuse of soft money.
  The second thing we do is that we provide more disclosure for the 
candidates and for all of the different groups that are engaging in 
issue-type campaigns and information to the voters. That is what is 
important, so the candidates will reveal in a more timely way how they 
are getting their money and how they are spending it, so there is 
information to the public on what the candidates are doing.
  The next thing is information on what the issue groups are doing. We 
do not want to get into a constitutionally questionable area about 
where they get their money, but the people should know who is trying to 
influence the campaigns. Each of these groups, whether it is the AFL-
CIO, the Right to Life, or the Sierra Club, or any other group that is 
out there, such as the Coalition for Better Government, who knows who 
they are? They should be able to say who they are and how much they are 
spending.
  This is not an infringement upon the first amendment, this is 
consistent with our freedom of speech in America, but it still provides 
wonderful, important information to the electorate as to who is 
spending the money and who is trying to influence that campaign, who 
they are, and how much they were spending.
  The next thing we do is that we index contributions to the rate of 
inflation. Right now the individual contribution limit has been fixed 
since the early 1970s. There has been no change in that. The fact that 
there has not been any change has allowed that individual contribution 
to be eroded by inflation, so what was a $1,000 contribution is now in 
effect a $300 contribution. So we strengthen the role of individuals by 
indexing their contributions to the rate of inflation.
  These are important reforms that the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity 
Act accomplishes. These will be the basic parts of the reform that will 
be presented to this body this week.
  Another way to express what we are trying to do is that we are trying 
to empower individuals in the election process. How do we empower 
individuals? We empower individuals under this bill first of all by 
restraining the voice of big money interests; in other words, that is 
the ban on soft money. In order to strengthen the people's voice, we 
have to restrain the big money interests in politics. In that way, it 
strengthens the voice of the individual.

[[Page H3360]]

  I had a letter from a worker in my State who had worked hard for 
decades in building the party, in raising the small contributions, 
contributing the small contributions to the candidates. She wrote me a 
letter and said that it seems that that voice is being drowned out, the 
voice of the small contribution is being drowned out by the 
multinational corporations that are feeding our national political 
parties with literally millions of dollars of money. That was her 
impression. So if we restrain the big money interests, we empower the 
individual. That is what we are trying to do.
  Many times the opponents to reform cite the Buckley versus Valeo 
decision. It is the United States Supreme Court decision that talks 
about free speech, that talks about campaign reform. They were 
evaluating the reform that was passed in the 1970s.
  What the United States Supreme Court did in the Buckley versus Valeo 
decision was that it struck down limits on campaign spending, because 
spending was free speech. It struck down spending limits. Our bill does 
not do anything with spending. We do believe that it is appropriate 
that everyone spends money in campaigns because that is speech, that is 
free speech, that is first amendment privilege.

  But the United States Supreme Court also said that it was consistent 
with the first amendment to restrict, have a reasonable restriction, on 
campaign contributions, so that is why they upheld the $1,000 limit. It 
has been upheld, the corporate ban on contributions, and the labor 
union ban on contributions. They upheld the political action 
committees.
  So there are reasonable restraints that can be made that are 
consistent with the first amendment. We restrain the voice of big money 
interests by limiting their contributions and their voice, and that 
strengthens and empowers the voice of the individual in American 
democracy.
  Another thing we do to empower individuals is to empower them with 
information. That is the disclosure provisions, information as to where 
the candidates are getting their money, information as to what the 
issue advocacy groups are doing, who they are and how much money they 
are spending; who is trying to influence the elections.
  A voter out there needs to be empowered with that information to make 
good decisions on who they are going to vote for, who the special 
interests are, who is trying to influence that particular candidate, so 
we empower that individual with the information.
  Then we empower that individual, finally, by strengthening their 
voice, by strengthening their contribution, again, by indexing it to 
inflation, increasing their voice, increasing the amount that they can 
contribute to a candidate. So you empower individuals in our system of 
democracy. I believe that is significant reform. It is substantial 
reform. It is important for the voice of democracy.
  What will happen down the road? What will happen if this is passed? 
If this legislation is passed by this body, first of all, I believe it 
gives tremendous momentum for campaign finance reform over in the other 
body, the United States Senate.
  Secondly, besides giving that momentum, it will be held 
constitutional, because we have been careful to protect the first 
amendment, not to tread upon the rights of groups that are trying to 
influence the elections of this country, which is their first amendment 
rights. It will be held constitutional. I believe the President will 
sign it because it represents significant reform, so I think it can 
become law.
  Also, once this is passed, we will empower individuals in our system 
of democracy, and I believe we will strengthen the role of the 
political parties. I am a former State party chairman, so I believe in 
political parties. I believe in their voice, and that their voice 
should not be drowned out.
  However, I do not believe we ought to nationalize everything; that 
there is a role of the State party, a role of the national party, and 
there should be a balance between those. Our bill strengthens 
individuals, strengthens the political parties, strengthens their 
voices, and is a balance between the role of the candidates and the 
role of the issue advocacy groups. It represents significant reform.
  Members might ask, is it a cure-all? Is this going to stop all the 
abuses? I am afraid it is not. Any law we pass out of this body, there 
might be someone who will sit and figure out exactly a way to get 
around or avoid it. We tried to eliminate those loopholes, but there is 
going to be a chance for reform down the road.
  In the 1970s, four campaign reform bills passed this body, passed the 
Senate, and were signed into law, four of them. It has been decades 
since. We have an opportunity now to pass another law and have it 
signed into enactment. If we can do this, then it will set a pattern 
that, yes, we might want to review these laws again down the road. 
There might be some areas that the States need to address, but it is 
substantial reform. It is the first step to reform. It is reform that 
will give momentum to this effort and return democracy to the 
individual, and strengthen their role. That is what we want to 
accomplish.
  When we look at the people that support campaign finance reform, from 
both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, former Presidents, 
from Gerald Ford to George Bush to Jimmy Carter, all have said that we 
ought to ban soft money. We have academics who look at this and say we 
ought to do that, and that we can do it constitutionally. Then we have 
leaders of reform, people from both sides of the aisle in this House, 
that support this.
  Sure, there are opponents of this. They are going to try to kill it 
at every turn, but I think we have a great opportunity in this body to 
give something to the American people to fulfill our responsibility to 
them, and to fulfill our promises to them. When we do this in a 
bipartisan fashion, they will believe that we have done something good. 
It will reduce cynicism in America, it will increase confidence, and I 
believe that it is the most important thing we can do for the American 
citizens in this United States Congress.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Bipartisan Campaign 
Integrity Act. I hope that as we start this process, it will be an open 
and a fair procedure, one that we can say we are proud of; and that 
when we finish, when the day is done, we will say we have passed 
something that is good for the American public.

                          ____________________