[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3774-H3792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2183.

                              {time}  1215


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the 
financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other 
purposes, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, as we observed under the rule that was passed, we are 
beginning a process which is one of the more open processes in the 
history of the House of Representatives. In the area of campaign 
reform, we have an underlying bill, and we have 10 substitutes that 
will be made in order.
  In addition to that, there will be amendments that would be 
perfecting amendments that will be made in order to those substitutes. 
It begins to sound as though it could be a very confusing and difficult 
process.
  What Members need to know is that we have already shrunk the 
potential amendments from almost 600 to closer to 300. Now, 300 is 
still a rather ominous sounding number and, as we begin to prepare and 
structure those amendments, I think we will find that they will shrink 
even more.
  But to try to assist Members, ``You do not know the players without a 
program,'' as they say in sports, The Congressional Research Service is 
in the final hours of preparing a document which I think will prove 
invaluable to Members. It will provide, for example, a quick glance, in 
terms of a checkoff procedure, indicating which general areas each 
particular substitute involves itself. For example, does it deal with 
spending or benefits limits, political action committees? What does it 
do with individuals, parties, candidates,

[[Page H3775]]

in-State contributions limits or not, independent expenditures, et 
cetera?
  After it does the checkoff, so that you can do a quick analysis, it 
will go into more detailed tables taking those checks and turning them 
into statements as to what that particular bill does vis-a-vis the 
other bills. Then, finally, in the back as a constant resource it 
provides a summary of the amendments in chronological order so that 
Members can read in greater detail what each particular substitute 
would do.
  What I want to do for just a couple of minutes at the beginning is to 
back away from any particular measures that we are looking at and get 
Members to focus on the fact that we have been here before. That is, in 
1971, the Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act. It has had 
subsequent amendments, but the basic bill was subjected to a court 
review in 1976 called Buckley v. Valeo. Once again, rather than going 
into particular details, take a step back and focus on the basics that 
the court dealt with.
  One of the basics that the court dealt with in Buckley v. Valeo that 
I think we should take into recognition as we examine the alternatives 
in front of us is that the court examined the various provisions of 
that legislation and said some were constitutional and some were 
unconstitutional.
  For example, on the contribution limit area, they thought it was 
appropriate to have limits because corruption or the appearance of 
corruption was closely tied or at least the appearance was closely tied 
to money that was given to candidates. However, on the other end, the 
expenditure of those funds did not have that close tie to corruption or 
the appearance of corruption so the court struck the limits that had 
been placed in the legislation on expenditures. So the court went 
through and examined particular areas using its criteria and said, this 
is constitutional or this is not constitutional.
  Now, the key to the court being able to do that was a severability 
clause in the legislation. What we wound up with was a crazy quilt that 
did not fit any kind of a structured pattern for orderly campaign 
reform. I would urge my colleagues, one of the things that they should 
do in examining the proposed alternatives is to take a look and see 
whether or not it has a severability clause.
  We ought not go down the same road that we have been down. We should 
not have a comprehensive piece of legislation in which the court can 
examine it and say, this is constitutional but this is not. That is 
lined up with the crazy quilt pattern that does not make sense. We have 
lived with that procedure for the last 25 years.
  I will provide for Members and remind them, as we go through this 
process, which of the basic substitutes have a severability clause and 
which do not. From my perspective, those substitutes that do not have a 
severability clause are preferable. Why? Because if the Congress votes 
for a comprehensive reform and the court says a portion of it is 
unconstitutional, it allows the Congress to revisit the area and put 
together an overall comprehensive, coordinated plan. If one of the 
substitutes has a severability clause, we are right back into the crazy 
quilt, court-dictated this and that, when it does not fit.
  The Shays-Meehan bill has a severability clause. The Farr proposal 
has a severability clause. The Tierney alternative has a severability 
clause. One of the major substitutes that does not have a severability 
clause is the Hutchinson Freshman bill.
  The second provision that I think we have to examine is the criteria 
the court used to rule various provisions unconstitutional. It was 
primarily first amendment fundamental freedoms.
  Six years ago, 10 years ago the primary threat to the American 
Republic were political action committees. If we did not do away with 
political action committees, the Republic was to be threatened. It is 
interesting how few of the major substitutes talk about doing away with 
political action committees.
  The court said, people have a fundamental first amendment right to 
assembly.
  Today we are talking about something called ``soft money.'' The 
question is whether or not the court will continue to maintain its 
position as to whether or not people have a fundamental first amendment 
right to spend their own money as they see fit.
  So when Members look at these various substitutes, look at, in the 
general sense, whether or not they contain provisions that in all 
likelihood will be struck down by the court under the argument of 
fundamental first amendment freedoms and if the same substitute has a 
severability clause, which means inevitably the court will strike a 
portion and other portions will remain. That is what we have been under 
through the last 25 years.
  Please, do not subject us to that. Look at the substance. Does it 
clearly appear in the history of the court's decisionmaking around the 
first amendment to be a fundamental violation, notwithstanding your 
desire to do it? Then does it have a severability clause. These two 
tests, I think, will guide this House into making the best possible 
decision. If we want reform and we move reform, will that reform stick?
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, we are here today and we are frankly surprised, some 
of my Democratic colleagues, because many of my Democratic colleagues 
said to me over and over again that this present leadership was 
shameless, that you could not shame them into doing the right thing. 
And here we are. We are wrong. At least we are having a debate.
  It took us a number of attempts, the election of some Members in the 
middle of the session that finally brought the signatures with 
virtually every Democrat and about a handful of Republicans signing a 
petition to bring the bills to the floor directly that finally got the 
Republican leadership, with editorial after editorial condemning them, 
to at least give us a chance to debate.
  In the theater they say, sometimes life imitates theater. Let us hope 
that this show, this attempt to appear to engage the campaign finance 
reform process, could lead to reality, because if we can pass a bill 
from this Chamber and send it back to the Senate, it may just put the 
pressure on the Senate to be able to break that filibuster.
  We do have fundamental differences, our two parties. If you asked the 
Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) about 
poor people, he would say, we are spending too much money on them. If 
he talks about education, he says, there is too much money being spent 
on it.
  But, lo and behold, when it comes to campaigns, the Speaker of the 
House says, One of the great myths of modern politics is that campaigns 
are too expensive. The political process is in fact underfunded.
  It is not overfunded.
  I think he or one of his colleagues later said that all this money 
rushing into campaigns from every possible direction was a sign of 
political vigor. Well, let us see what the results are. Let us take a 
look at what has happened to American participation as the expenditures 
have exploded.
  When we were spending the least, we had the highest percentage of 
votes. In the 1960s, we were getting as high as 63 percent of the 
American people participating in the political process. As we spend 
billions today, we are under 50 percent participation in this political 
process. It is just simply wrong to argue that increased funding has 
somehow invigorated this political process.
  There is a difference between the two parties. I think the Republican 
history on this issue has been consistent with their fundamental 
beliefs. They have tried at every opportunity to rig this system so 
wealthy, powerful people in this country get additional advantage.
  If you hear their debates, I followed two down the hall the other day 
where one said, Can we have real reform and increase the amount people 
can give? That sure helps the average citizen, being able to contribute 
more money. Fifty thousand is not enough. What do you want to raise it 
to?
  I think the problem with the political system is these large dollars 
intimidate the average citizen and send them a message that they do not 
count in the political process and that is why they are not showing up 
at the polls.
  What is the question here? The question is, what is reform? Sometimes 
I think we should, like the French, have

[[Page H3776]]

language police, although not striking words from other countries, 
prevent people from misusing or at least abusing the English language.
  The other side would tell us that reform is increasing the amount of 
money that really rich people can give. If there is anybody in this 
Chamber who believes that the rich, the wealthy and the powerful do not 
have enough access to this institution, they have been on some other 
planet recently.
  Our job here is to make sure that average citizens feel like this 
democracy is theirs. I would hope we can do better than even the bills 
before us, but the legislative process is about choices. McCain-
Feingold in this House, under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) is the only bill that really sends that message, the only one 
that will put pressure on the Senate. It is not the bill I would choose 
in perfection, but that is the easy game politically.
  You can walk in here and pick everything but the prayer and say, 
well, I liked it, but you know there is always something better out 
there. Let us try to do something better, but let us do this first.
  Let me tell you where we are today. The Republicans' proposals send 
this great Nation in the wrong direction. We have taken a country based 
on the principles in the Magna Carta that gave power to nobility 
against the king. When our Founding Fathers founded this country, they 
gave power to white men who own property, not to women; blacks had to 
own twice as much property to be able to vote. Now we just want to make 
it the wealthy.
  I love this institution. I do not like to see charges of corruption 
against it. I could read a list for an hour here about illegal 
contributions by the Republicans. The Republicans have spent all their 
time damning the President for the last campaign.
  Let us stop the rhetoric. Let us do something about it. Vote for the 
proposal that will go to the Senate that already has a majority of the 
Senate votes behind it, and our vote here can push for those several 
votes we need to break the Senate filibuster. Let us pass McCain-
Feingold here in the House. Let us pass that bill and begin the process 
of rebuilding confidence in the American political system.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Last evening we began one of the most important debates of this 
session. We often gather in this Chamber to promote democracy and free 
elections around the world, yet our own constituents are very concerned 
about how democracy works in this country, and I share their concerns.
  My work on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has 
further convinced me of the need for campaign finance reform. While 
many of the abuses we are investigating are illegal, many are legal 
because of the soft money loophole. We must enact reform to prevent 
such abuses in the future.
  Attorney General Janet Reno's responses to my questions during a 
hearing on December 9, 1997, confirmed that the soft money loophole has 
weakened the campaign finance laws that prohibit contributions from 
business corporations and labor unions, prohibit contributions made by 
foreign nationals in connection with an election to any political 
office and that require disclosure.
  At that hearing, the Attorney General expressed her desire to work 
with the Congress to reform campaign finance laws. It is past time to 
make that happen.
  Campaign finance abuse is a bipartisan problem that requires a 
bipartisan solution. For reformers, getting to this point has been a 
victory in and of itself. We would not be here without the drive of the 
bipartisan group of pro-reform Members, the pleas of our constituents 
and the discharge petition.
  But our work has just begun. Until we pass real reform to eliminate 
the scourge of unregulated soft money and the influence of special 
interests, our constituents will continue to believe that money has 
more influence on the electoral and legislative process than their own 
votes and views.
  When I say we must pass real reform I am referring to the Shays-
Meehan bill. I feel that the many substitutes before us will allow some 
Members to hide behind phony reforms. The Shays-Meehan bill is our best 
opportunity.
  During the debate, we are going to hear many arguments for and 
against many bills, but to support true reform, I encourage all of us 
to stand up and be counted in support of Shays-Meehan.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise to some degree to lament and to another degree to 
urge us to come to grips with this issue.
  I rise to lament this procedure which I think does not do what 
ultimately we must do. And what ultimately we must do is to restore the 
confidence of the American public in their system of electing public 
officials, whether at the Federal level, at the State level or at the 
local level.
  Like some of my colleagues, I have been involved in politics for a 
long time, having first been elected to the Maryland State Senate in 
1966. During that period of time that I served the State Senate 12 
years, I voted on a number of campaign finance reforms. I was not here 
in Congress in 1974 when we adopted the far-reaching campaign finance 
reform regime and which, as the gentleman from California said, 
essentially exists today.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arkansas, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr), and the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for the untiring and long-term work that 
they have undertaken on behalf of campaign finance reform.
  I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) 
for his leadership on this issue. It was his focus, his discharge 
petition, and the disciplined approach that he took that, frankly, got 
us to this place.
  I will make a much more detailed, expansive discussion of campaign 
finance reform and my views of the specifics of those reforms when we 
return. It is, however, my hope that we will not add to the cynicism of 
our citizens by the course of this debate. Because if we do so, we will 
have served them poorly.
  If what we do is a political game, if what we do is beat our chests 
and say, on the one hand, the first amendment demands that we do not 
intrude in trying to make our elections more honest, more fair, more 
open, we will have not served the public well, nor will we have served 
our democracy well. If, on the other hand, what we do is play a 
political game where amendments fly across the field of battle and 
ultimately we pass no reform, we will have undermined the confidence of 
the public.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us be real, let us do 
our duty, and let us restore the confidence of the American public in 
their democracy.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle), someone who has had a refreshing approach 
to campaign reform. And anyone who is concerned about foreign 
contributions, they know all we really need to do is enforce current 
law.
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Madam Chairman, make no mistake about it, at the heart 
of this debate on campaign reform is our right as American citizens to 
freely engage in political speech, a right which is guaranteed to us 
under the first amendment of the Constitution.
  Throughout the course of this debate the big government campaign 
reformers will be trying to tell us that unconstitutional government 
regulations are needed because they believe money is evil and that it 
is corrupting our political system. These people look at America as a 
seething cauldron of unseemly interests who debase the political 
process.
  Many colleagues, on the other hand, take the approach that James 
Madison

[[Page H3777]]

did. James Madison, the author of the first amendment, understood that 
America would be a cauldron of special interests, but special 
interests, in Madison's view, would be people who would be guaranteed a 
right to have some influence. Madison anticipated, expected and deemed 
it necessary that in a republic people must have influence.
  The campaign finance regulators would like us to believe political 
giving is inherently corrupt. But, in fact, participating in the 
political process is not merely desirable, it is guaranteed by the 
Constitution. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the 
Constitution allows political parties or any group of Americans to 
spend unlimited amounts on political speech.
  What the Court has said is that the constitutional right to free 
speech is moot unless we have the right to amplify our voice above the 
din, particularly in a country of 270 million people.
  The Court correctly declared, in the landmark Buckley decision of 
1976, that political spending is speech. Listen closely to the Court's 
words in Buckley:

       The first amendment denies government the power to 
     determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
     wasteful, excessive or unwise. In a free society ordained by 
     the Constitution it is not the government, but the people, 
     individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as 
     associations and political committees, who must retain 
     control over the quantity and range of debate on public 
     issues in a political campaign.

  This decision means that the first amendment does not allow the 
government through some statute we pass here to be put in charge of 
regulating either the quality or the quantity of political speech.
  The Supreme Court made it clear that the government does not have the 
authority to decide between worthy and unworthy speech. The first 
amendment does not allow Congress the latitude to categorize certain 
kinds of speech as offensive and other kinds as laudable. That issue, 
Madam Chairman, is at the core of this debate.
  Another Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, understood that in a free 
society the people should be empowered to make decisions without 
interference from the State.
  Madam Chairman, I believe we do need to change our flawed campaign 
finance laws. The problems we endure today are due primarily to 
government regulation of campaign financing. True campaign reform 
should honor the first amendment by expanding participation in our 
republic and by enhancing political discourse. Unfortunately, most of 
the measures we will be debating advocate greater government regulation 
which will continue to worsen the current problem.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, as a member of the committee, Madam 
Chairman, who heard much of the testimony on the campaign finance 
reform legislation we are discussing today, I am very happy that we 
have finally come to this point where we can have some debate and open 
the process so that everyone who feels very strongly about this topic 
can have their opportunity to speak.
  Real campaign finance reform has to speak to the needs of the 
American citizens. What we have heard from some of our speakers 
already, and what we know from the tallies that have come in from 
across America, is that American citizens are not voting. And they are 
not voting for a number of reasons, one of which I contend is they feel 
their vote does not count; that there is too much money in the system, 
and that their $20, $30, $50 donations will not be accepted in a way 
where their votes can be heard.
  So I am happy today that we are discussing campaign finance reform 
and that real campaign finance reform has three elements: It bans soft 
money, it requires full disclosure from those who give money, and 
cleans up third-party expenditures so that special interest groups do 
not control the political process.
  I hope as we continue this debate today that we will keep that in 
mind. American citizens want to participate in their government. It is 
our responsibility to see that we make it possible that they do that. 
Banning soft money, requiring full disclosure and cleaning up third-
party interests that control and dominate our politics will make 
Americans feel that this government is theirs again.
  The House Oversight Committee has heard testimony from over 40 
members of Congress, and listened to over 20 hours of earnest, bi-
partisan testimony on an issue that affects all of us: campaign finance 
reform. While we might disagree over the shape, form, or function that 
much-needed campaign finance reform must take, we all agree that this 
effort should not be done in such a manner as to be unfair, unjust, or 
unwise. Along with a majority of my colleagues, we rejected earlier, 
bogus attempts that brought up this most worthy debate under the most 
unworthy of circumstances. While I am glad to say that we are having 
debate on campaign finance reform, it is still a skewed debate. We will 
not have any votes on campaign finance reform before the end of May, as 
the Speaker promised. We will debate eleven separate bills, all with 
amendments. This is onerous, burdensome and illogical, and is a 
significant and severe disservice to the American people.
  As a Member of the House Oversight Committee, I specifically did not 
co-sponsor any campaign finance reform bill, with the exception of the 
bill that would establish a commission to decide what shape and form 
campaign finance reform should take. During this debate, it is vital 
that we remember one important aspect: we are considering campaign 
finance reform, not campaign reform. This debate should not denigrate 
into a discussion of non-germane or ballot integrity issues. We dealt 
with many of these issues during the discussion of Congresswoman 
Loretta Sanchez's election earlier this year.
  Real campaign finance reform does three things: it bans soft money; 
it requires full disclosure of contributors, and it cleans up 
expenditures from special interest groups. We need to restore the faith 
of the American people in our system of government. We need to ensure 
the accountability of those who participate in and contribute to 
candidates. We need campaign finance reform. Real campaign finance 
reform limits the amount of money in elections. Real campaign finance 
reform reduces the role of special interests in campaigns. Real 
campaign finance reform restores the faith of the American people in 
our system of government.
  Real campaign finance reform does not limit the rights of workers to 
participate in our political process. Real campaign finance reform does 
not limit the hard-won voting rights of minorities. Real campaign 
finance reform does not make it more difficult for citizens to register 
to vote, find out who is funding a campaign or cut fiscal support for 
the Federal Elections Commission.
  Before I was elected to this august body, I served as a Michigan 
State Representative. As such, I fought, and still fight, for the right 
of everyday citizens, the disenfranchised, and the powerless to 
participate in our process of government. By limiting the ability of 
people, through fostering mistrust in our system of government, people 
will not vote. We hinder, not help, the Constitution that we have all 
sworn to defend and protect.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services.
  Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, campaign reform is the most pressing 
democratic issue facing the Nation. In politics as in sports, how the 
game is played matters. A government of the people, by the people, and 
for the people cannot be a government where influence is 
disproportionately wrought by those with large campaign war chests.
  Lord Acton once wrote that power corrupts and absolute power tends to 
corrupt absolutely. A fitting corollary to the Acton dictum is the 
precept that even more bedeviling than aspiring to power is fear of 
losing it.
  The current system is an incumbent-based political monopoly that 
rewards those who accommodate rather than stand up to interest groups. 
Campaign reform is about empowering citizens rather than influence 
peddlers. It is the equivalent of applying the antitrust laws to the 
political parties. It should be advanced.
  In this regard, there are a number of thoughtful approaches that will 
be brought to the floor in this debate. My preference is for the Shays-
Meehan bill, but I acknowledge that it has flaws, the biggest of which 
is it does

[[Page H3778]]

not go far enough. I would have preferred it to be accompanied by 
spending limits and greater restraints on political action committees, 
the so-called PACs.
  Nevertheless, I think Shays-Meehan is probably the most that can be 
achieved this year, and I am hopeful it, or something near it, will be 
the final product.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Baesler).
  Mr. BAESLER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that the Blue Dog discharge 
petition had something to do with us getting to this point, and I am 
pleased we are now beginning to discuss campaign finance reform.
  I think the debate boils down to a couple of things: Will we ban soft 
money? And will we make sure that everybody in America, and in all 
elections, know where all money involved in campaigns comes from?

                              {time}  1245

  I believe the soft money sets the agenda for Congress, and I think 
that is wrong. I believe when people participate in the election 
process by independent expenditures and other expenditures, it is 
important that everybody in the country involved knows where that money 
comes from. There is no justification for people participating in the 
election process with money and nobody knows who the source is or what 
they represent.
  I am not the first Kentuckian to speak on this. In fact, the person 
who held my seat 150 years ago, Henry Clay, said, ``Government is a 
trust, and the officers of the government are trustees.''
  By contrast, some of my Kentucky colleagues and other nonreformers 
believe they are trustees of the soft money system. They are using the 
tactics that we have seen all along: delay, distract, distort, and do 
little.
  As a Kentuckian, I feel obliged to answer these distortions. First, 
the Kentucky anti-reformers claim a soft money ban violates the First 
Amendment and is unconstitutional. I urge them to reread Buckley v. 
Valeo, where the Supreme Court said, ``. . . limiting corruption 
provides a constitutionally sufficient justification for contribution 
limits. The integrity of democracy is undermined to the extent that 
contributions are quid pro quos . . .''
  They should also reread the Colorado decision, where the court said, 
``Congress might decide to change the contribution limits to parties if 
it concludes the potential for evasion of contribution limits was a 
serious matter.'' And I think we all know it is a serious matter.
  The First Amendment protects speech. It does not protect corruption.
  Next, the Kentucky anti-reformers say we do not need new laws, we 
just need to enforce the ones we have. But that ignores the fact there 
are no laws to enforce on illegal soft money here to our parties. Soft 
money fund-raising by Democrats and by Republicans is legal. And soft 
money contributions, including the soft money contributions made by 
Loral Space Communications and others throughout the past several 
months, are legal. There are no laws on the books to enforce this.
  The Kentucky anti-reformers will say that the Supreme Court says that 
money is speech, that that is their direct quote. I defy any anti-
reformer to show me in Buckley v. Valeo where it says money is speech. 
They will not be able to because the Supreme Court never made that 
exact quote.
  Next, the Kentucky anti-reformers will try to change the subject with 
non sequiturs like, ``Americans spend more on junk food than they do on 
campaigns.'' That is ridiculous and totally irrelevant.
  The point is that the President of any party, whoever might be 
President, the chairmen of the finance committees of both parties of 
the Senate and the House, congressional campaign committees and all ask 
for much money. And the question is, are there political favors given 
in return? If there are, it is wrong.
  I do not think it is any coincidence that after we pass the 
telecommunications bill, hundreds of thousands of dollars are given to 
both parties by telecommunications folks. I do not think it is any 
coincidence that after we deregulate cable, hundreds of thousands of 
dollars are given to both parties by cable interests.
  One Kentucky anti-reformer even said recently that soft money is not 
evil, to which I said, what about the tobacco-manufactured tax credit 
that slipped into the budget last year, the hue and cry that came, and 
we had to take it out? What did actually kill the drunk driving 
amendment?
  We have to do something. To do nothing is irresponsible.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) who is one of the principal sponsors, along 
with a number of other freshmen, including the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen) of the underlying legislation upon which we will be 
conducting our examination of campaign reform.
  (Mr. Hutchinson asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me the time and for his 
outstanding leadership on this issue and also for his personal guidance 
to me as I have gone through this process.
  Madam Chairman, campaign finance reform can be a complex and 
confusing issue. But the public always has a way of making common sense 
out of nonsense in Washington. To the public, this issue boils down to 
the meaning of democracy. To them, democracy is being changed in 
Washington from the people rule to big money governs.
  Last night, and even earlier today, we heard from the gentleman from 
California that the First Amendment has something to do with this; and 
certainly it does. But the public can see through the misinformation 
campaign about the Constitution and the First Amendment.
  Just a few moments ago the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 
referred to the Buckley v. Valeo decision that provides that political 
spending is free speech. But that same decision says, by the United 
States Supreme Court, that contribution limits are in accordance with 
the First Amendment and do not violate the First Amendment.
  By claiming to argue for free speech, the opponents of reform are 
cynically attempting to make sure that big money not only talks but it 
screams. The opponents pretend to use free speech to protect the 
millions of dollars in soft money that have become literally an 
addiction in Washington, and they wanted to give the multinational 
corporations a voice in our democracy that so dominates the political 
system that the individual voter is reduced to a lonely cry in the 
wilderness. What about their free speech?
  Despite the smoke and mirrors, Madam Chairman, the debate today is a 
clear one. Are we in Congress going to represent individual Americans, 
or are we going to represent big money? Are we going to empower 
individuals and return politics to the people, or are we going to 
create more cynicism?
  I believe that we should fight for the individual, and that is why I 
support the freshman bill. I believe the freshman bill empowers 
individuals so that their voices can be heard in Washington even above 
the din of special interests. And most importantly, the freshman bill 
protects the Constitution and free speech but it gives a greater voice 
to the individuals in our political process and it does this in three 
ways.
  First of all, the freshman bill restrains the uncontrolled excesses 
of big-money interests and labor unions by banning soft money, the 
millions of dollars that flow from these groups into our national 
parties. As we can see from this chart, the 1996 election cycle, $138 
million, $123 million in soft money going to our national parties, such 
a dramatic increase from what it was previously. And it will only go 
up.
  Secondly, the bill strengthens individuals' voices by increasing the 
amount that individuals and PACs can give and by indexing contribution 
limits to inflation. Ours is the only bill that does that among all of 
them, that empowers the individuals in that way.
  Thirdly, it provides information to the public by giving individuals 
and the media information about who is spending money and who is trying 
to influence the campaigns.
  Madam Chairman, the freshman bill has been criticized by extremists 
on both sides of this debate. On the one hand, there are those who 
claim that

[[Page H3779]]

this bill goes too far and should not ban soft money. On the other 
hand, there are those who claim this bill does not go far enough and is 
not real reform.
  I am not sure we could have asked for a better compliment. The 
opposition from both extremes suggests that the freshman task force has 
succeeded in producing a balanced and fair bill that does not tip the 
scales in favor of one faction or another or one party or another.
  When the freshman task force got together 13 months ago at the 
beginning of this Congress, we laid out a few goals that we tried to 
stick with. First of all, we tried to remove the extremes, the poison 
pills from the bill so that we do not scuttle it. We wanted to have a 
rose garden strategy that legislation could actually get and be signed 
by the President.
  After five months we came up with a proposal and we have stuck with 
it. Despite the pressure of special interest groups to change this 
bipartisan product, we have stuck with it. It has not been tinkered 
with by different factions that would destroy the balance in the bill. 
And it is growing.
  As my colleagues can see, the campaign finance bill is the best, 
experts agree, because it does not violate the Constitution and it 
represents substantial reform. And that is what we need. We have 78 
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It is truly bipartisan in 
nature, and it is growing.
  Teddy Roosevelt, one of the great reform presidents in America, said 
that he would rather work with individuals who take two steps forward 
today rather than theorize about taking 200 steps forward in the 
indeterminate future. And he had a distinguished record of achieving 
reform. He had the right idea. And we have had more than 20 years of 
chest beating about campaign finance reform that has led nowhere, no 
real reform. We need a bill that can pass.
  Besides having a strategy that the bill would pass, we also had a 
Supreme Court strategy. It is not good enough to get a bill passed by 
this House and signed by the President, it has got to survive 
constitutional scrutiny.
  We set out with the express purpose of drafting a bill that would 
protect the First Amendment while empowering individuals. We consulted 
legal scholars and experts and other Members of Congress, and the 
result is a bill that will survive that scrutiny. It is constitutional. 
It is substantive. It is real reform. The freshman bill meets the 
concerns of constitutional scholars by avoiding the traps of other 
reform bills.
  There are some groups out there, the third groups, that say that our 
bill does something harmful to keep third parties from getting their 
message out. We should be concerned about that. But let me tell my 
colleagues what our bill does and, more importantly, let me tell my 
colleagues what it does not.
  Our bill does not restrict the amount of money that can be spent by 
third parties. It does not restrict the source of the money or require 
disclosure of individual donors. Is that not important? That sticks 
with the Constitution, and that is the freshman bill. It does not 
restrict the tradition of anonymous pamphleteering. It does federalize 
state elections. In short, it does not trample upon the Constitution.
  The freshman bill is simple, and in this town, being simple and 
straightforward confuses a lot of people. But let me explain this bill 
bans soft money, it requires disclosure and information to the people, 
and it empowers individuals. That is simple but it is significant and 
it is substantial.
  Finally, let my say to all my colleagues in Congress, the scripture 
says the sons of Samuel who governed Israel did not walk in their 
father's ways. But instead, they turned aside after money and in doing 
so perverted justice. And because they perverted justice in the name of 
money, the people of Israel looked for new leaders.
  And clearly the American people perceive that justice and democracy 
in America is being perverted in the name of big money. If we do not 
change that system in this body, then the people will look for new 
leaders. Let us not fail the American people. Let us take advantage of 
this opportunity and pass the freshman bill, the bipartisan campaign 
integrity act.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) who has one of the most popular bills 
and certainly a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, late last night the House embarked on 
what will prove to be a historic debate on campaign finance reform.
  Over the next few weeks, we will have the opportunity to truly 
strengthen our democracy and respond to the 72 percent of Americans who 
say that there is too much money in American politics. Most 
importantly, this debate will clearly identify those Members who 
support real bipartisan reform by a vote for the Shays/Meehan bill from 
those who are tied to the status quo.
  It is a fact that undisclosed money is overwhelming our current 
election system. The most effective way to solve the problem is to ban 
soft money, the huge sums given by corporations, interest groups and 
labor unions. These unregulated contributions are at the heart of 
nearly every single investigation that the majority party has focused 
on this year.
  The other problem with our current system is the proliferation of 
campaign ads masquerading as issue ads in congressional races all 
across the country. According to a report published by the Annenberg 
Public Policy Center and the Pew Charitable Trust, more than two dozen 
organizations engaged in campaign advertising during the 1995-1996 
election cycle, but because they called their campaign ads issue 
advocacy, they did not play by our campaign rules. As a result, nearly 
$150 million worth of these ads, a third of what all candidates 
nationwide spent themselves, went undisclosed. Nobody knew where the 
money came from.
  The Shays/Meehan bill addresses both of these issues. Some of my 
colleagues have suggested that in order to pass campaign finance 
reform, that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I should 
modify our original legislation to garner additional support. However, 
it is important to remember that this legislation is already a product 
of compromise.

                              {time}  1300

  Unlike our original bill, H.R. 3526 does not have voluntary spending 
limits, nor does it include incentives to abide by such limits like 
low-cost TV time or free mailings. Moreover, it does not include any 
change in PAC limits.
  At the same time, the bill does include new provisions to deal with 
the recent abuses of our campaign system, including a clarification of 
the law forbidding fund-raising on government property and a 
strengthened foreign money ban.
  Our legislation has six primary components: first is a ban, a 
complete ban on soft money; second, a clarification of what constitutes 
campaign advertisement; third, increased disclosure and enforcement; 
fourth, a ban on all fund-raising on government property; fifth, a 
personal wealth option; sixth, codification of the Beck decision.
  In short, the Shays-Meehan bill will end the soft money system, and 
address the growing problem of sham issue ads in Federal elections. It 
will increase disclosure of political contributions and expenditures, 
because, frankly, the public has a right to know.
  Finally, our measure will give the Federal Election Commission the 
teeth it needs to enforce existing law.
  In closing, I would like to take a moment to address the First 
Amendment implications of this legislation. In the coming weeks, I look 
forward to engaging in a constructive debate over the nature of the 
First Amendment doctrine in Federal election laws. Such a debate is 
important.
  But there are some Members who raise this issue in good faith, but I 
want to warn the American people that there are Members who are falsely 
raising constitutional concerns, because they oppose reform and support 
the status quo.
  The bottom line is clear, next month the Congress will have a 
historic opportunity to make a real difference in the way this 
institution is perceived by the people who have elected us. We will 
have a chance to take a step away from the well-heeled special interest 
and take a step towards restoring the one voice/one vote principle upon 
which this country was founded. I urge all of my colleagues to take a 
stand for reform and support the Shays-Meehan bill.

[[Page H3780]]

  Let me address a couple of other issues, Madam Chairman, if I may. It 
has been raised that somehow this bill lacks the constitutional basis 
because there is spending limits. It does not include spending limits. 
There is some who say that we cannot outlaw PAC spending. It does not 
outlaw PAC spending. Shays-Meehan does not ban bundling. There is no 
free air time in this legislation. I think it is important as we 
discuss the facts to keep that in mind.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), my colleague who has been fighting for reform 
since he arrived in this institution.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan) will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I am proud to be a 
cosponsor of the Shays-Meehan bill, because I think it addresses one of 
the most important issues we face as a Nation and an issue that is 
important for the future of this Nation.
  Each year, the Pew Research Center does an analysis and a survey of 
young people in our country, and it asks young people 18, 19 years old 
what they are interested in for their future. It talked about their job 
aspirations, their education aspirations, their dreams.
  Each year, it has a question asking how interested they are in our 
political process and in government. Each year, we have seen different 
results. But this year, we have the lowest interest among 18 and 19-
year-old people in this country in government, in politics, and in 
public policy than we have had in the last 30 years.
  There is a reason for that. The reason for that is that young people, 
in particular, feel disconnected from the system. They feel that this 
is a pay-as-you-go system. Unless they have money to get involved in 
this political process, they cannot be part of it.
  For a democracy, that is the worst possible thing that can happen. We 
have to have young people who believe in the system. If the young 
people in this country feel that the only people who can get involved 
in government are people who have a lot of money, that is bad for 
democracy. That is bad for this country.
  This bill, although not perfect, tries to take a serious attempt at 
correcting some of the problems. It tries to get rid of the soft money. 
It tries to make sure that the issue advocacy ads that are so prevalent 
have at least some responsibility.
  There has been a lot of talk in this Chamber the last couple of days 
about foreign influence, about money coming into this country. But one 
of the things that we have not heard is that this bill actually deals 
with that problem, because we cannot have foreign influence coming and 
buying issue advocacy ads under this bill. But under the current law, 
we can.
  I think, if we are concerned about the integrity of the system, we 
have to ensure that we do not allow any type of foreign influence to 
come in and buy issue advocacy ads.
  So I think that this bill is even more important today than it was 3 
weeks ago. What we should be doing is we should be moving forward with 
this bill, not only for the people who vote now, but for the young 
people in this country.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), my colleague who has been our partner in this 
effort to find bipartisan, bicameral campaign finance reform.
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Madam Chairman, we have heard it said, the love of money is the root 
of evil. I will tell my colleagues what Tennesseans say to me when I go 
back home; and that is, the political parties seem to be addicted to 
money, both political parties. Too many mailings. Some constituents 
tell me they have five or six pieces of mail in a single day in their 
mailbox. They cannot even find the legitimate mail in all the 
solicitations. It is out of control. Too much money. Not that we can 
restrict it or that we should restrict it, but that they are too driven 
by the love of money, and money is power.
  Unlimited, unregulated soft money must be contained. I particularly 
find egregious the influences of tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. 
Tobacco soft money, $30 million over the last several years to the 
political parties, including $100,000 this month in a single payment to 
one of the political parties.
  Alcohol, $26 million over the last several years to the political 
parties. We know what that money is for.
  Gambling is the new kid on the block, but they are catching up quick. 
It is a growing industry. They are going to try to buy influence in the 
United States Congress.
  I do not want my children's future to be dictated on the influences 
of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling soft money which is unregulated and 
unlimited to the political parties.
  This open debate is good. I commend our leadership for bringing it 
up, for even extending the debate so that we can use this House to 
debate this issue. We are going to have two options, all the way from 
the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) to go 
back to the way things were before Watergate, and, frankly, there is an 
intellectual argument that needs to be made about how much better 
things were before this system came into being, or we can try to fix 
this system, which I think is practical.
  We have got some good options, the freshman bill, Shays-Meehan. But 
we can fix this system, and I appreciate the debate.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps), a new Member of this institution who took 
the House seat of her husband, who signed onto the Shays-Meehan bill as 
the first bill that she signed onto.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairman, I commend my colleagues in the freshman 
class, especially the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), for their hard work on their 
bill.
  My husband, Walter Capps, cosponsored this bill. Without the freshman 
effort, I do not believe we would be here today.
  But I am fresh off the campaign trail, and I have seen how our 
elections today are being manipulated by outside groups who flood the 
airwaves with unregulated air ads that are clearly aimed at defeating 
or electing Federal candidates.
  These ads feature a candidate's face, name, and record. They air just 
before the election. Who are we fooling? They are just like other 
campaign ads and should be funded with fully disclosed, limited 
contributions from legitimate sources.
  These single issues are all across the political spectrum. They 
affect everyone in the contested race, Democrat and Republican.
  I stand in strong support of the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill because 
it contains the cornerstone of serious campaign reform. The bill will 
ensure that these phony issue ads are brought under the same 
restrictions as any other campaign ads.
  Let us plug the giant issue advocacy loophole. Let us pay attention 
to our constituents who are frustrated and disillusioned by the 
onslaught of ads in our campaigns which are funded by outside interest 
groups, undisclosed, unlimited.
  Pass real reform. Support the Shays-Meehan bill. It is in the 
interest of all of us, of everyone.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been fighting for 
campaign finance reform over the last few years and has been a real 
leader in this institution in fighting for campaign finance reform.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, how much time does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the

[[Page H3781]]

gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, as I was listening to this debate and 
looking out and hearing the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) speak about 
campaign finance reform, I think of how hard a leader he has been over 
so many years.
  This is not a new issue. We have been debating it for a long time. I 
think of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and what a leader 
he has been on campaign finance reform. So we have been fighting for 
reform on this side of the aisle.
  I turn and think of all the people on the Democrat side of the aisle 
as well who have been fighting for campaign finance reform.
  Together, we passed congressional accountability. We have gotten 
Congress under all the laws that we impose on the rest of the Nation. 
We did that together. Together we passed gift ban legislation, 
Republicans and Democrats. Together we passed lobby disclosure 
legislation. But we have left one act not taken care of, and that is 
dealing with campaign finance reform.
  Fortunately, we have freshmen from both sides of the aisle who have 
worked hard to draft legislation that they feel will deal with this 
issue. I believe that they have made an important step, and I believe 
that they are truly for reform. I am hopeful, that at the end of the 
day, we can all come together.
  I would argue to everyone in this Chamber that the legislation we 
need to pass is the Shays-Meehan bill. I believe that we need to pass 
this legislation because it deals with the important elements that none 
of the other proposals do.
  We need to ban soft money; and with all due respect to other bills, 
we need to ban it on the State level as it relates to Federal 
elections. We need to recognize and have the courage to confront the 
sham issue ads by corporations, by labor unions, by other interest 
groups, and call them what they are, campaign ads.
  Campaign ads come under the campaign laws. It would mean, and I say 
this particularly to my side of the aisle, that labor money cannot be 
used in sham issue ads, not the dues. We deal with it whether it is 
Republican money or Democrat money. I think we also need to codify Beck 
to let workers know that they have a right to not have their money used 
for campaign ads.
  The bill also strengthens the Federal Election Commission. We have 
stronger enforcement, and we have stronger disclosure. We also make it 
very clear that foreign money cannot be used in campaigns, because, 
right now, soft money is not viewed as campaign money, and so it is 
legal. You can even make calls from the White House, because it is soft 
money. It is not campaign money.
  My biggest complaint with my side of the aisle is they are willing to 
investigate corruption and not reform the system. With all due respect, 
on the other side of the aisle, they are willing to reform, but not 
expose wrongdoing, I think, when it needs to be.
  We need to do both. We need to investigate wrongdoing and hold people 
accountable. We also need to reform the system.
  I am so grateful to be part of this Congress today and in the weeks 
to come because we are debating an issue we feel strongly about on a 
bipartisan basis.

                              {time}  1315

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen), one of the sponsors of the freshman bipartisan 
bill.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, last February, freshmen Democrats and freshmen 
Republicans agreed to create a task force on campaign finance reform. 
We were all veterans of targeted races in 1996. We saw firsthand the 
explosion of soft money in issue advocacy. We know that if soft money 
can be used for TV ads, and it can, the existing law on contribution 
limits has become a sham.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and I cochaired that 
task force of six Democrats and six Republicans. H.R. 2183, the base 
bill for this debate, is the product of our freshman task force. It is 
substantial reform, it is bipartisan reform, and it ought to be passed.
  Madam Chairman, I am now going to yield to members of the task force 
and members of the Democratic class officers.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chairman, the current Congress can be broken into 
two groups: Those who think there is too much money in politics, and 
those who think there is not enough. I am of the former belief.
  During the 1996 election cycle, candidates running for Federal office 
spent over $1.6 billion to get elected. Whether we want to admit it or 
not, the fact is that our campaign finance system is jeopardizing our 
credibility. We should not fool ourselves into believing that the 
problem is only the illegal activities that occur during the campaigns.
  Soft money is unregulated and is not subject to any of the 
contribution limits. Democrats and Republicans combined to raise more 
than $260 million in soft money, a 206 percent increase, in 1992. If 
this trend is allowed to continue, we can expect the soft money figure 
to reach almost $1 billion in the year 2000. It is the abuse of soft 
money that has so badly tainted our system. It is soft money abuses 
that are the source of the investigations of the 1996 campaign.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, it is time for Congress to get 
its head out of the sand. Just how out of touch is this place? Will we 
look real campaign finance reform right in the eye and blink? I hope 
not, because the American people have lost trust in the system. They 
firmly believe that elections are bought and sold.
  We all know that soft, unregulated money plays an enormous role in 
this disillusionment of the problem. This campaign financial loophole 
allows virtually unlimited contributions from wealthy special 
interests, and almost every dollar garnered from this is raised at the 
Federal level.
  Madam Chairman, let us be clear: Soft money can lead to the threat of 
corruption, the appearance of corruption, or real corruption. Let us 
ban it.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Madam Chairman, from the most recent records of the FEC 
in the last few months, a $200,000 donation from an individual 
impacting on the work of the Capitol; a $250,000 donation from a 
construction company; a $100,000 donation from a union; a total of 
$650,000 in donations from a bank; and I could go on and on, $100,000 
from an individual; $450,000 in donations from a tobacco company.
  Madam Chairman, Lady Freedom is about to be covered up. As the debate 
was continuing last night, I was impressed with how much we were 
playing ``gotcha'' and how much we were playing politics. Let us go 
home on this recess, and come back prepared to deal with this problem. 
Before Lady Freedom gets completely covered up, let us recover our 
democracy.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
  Mr. WEYGAND. Madam Chairman, the centerpiece of the freshman bill is 
a very strong ban on soft money. It prohibits national officeholders, 
candidates, their agents, from raising, directing and coordinating soft 
money. The freshman bipartisan Democratic-Republican bill incorporated 
the ideas of campaign finance experts; Thomas Mann of the Brookings 
Institute, Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, Herb 
Alexander of the Citizens Research Foundation, we took their ideas and 
put it into the bill. This was not a partisan ship, this was an idea of 
experts.
  But what does all this do? What is the real issue before us with soft 
money?
  Soft money really restricts the average American from running for 
office. It puts tens of thousands, even millions of dollars, into 
campaigns, and forms great obstacles for the average American from 
running from office. Jefferson and Madison wanted this to be the

[[Page H3782]]

House of the people, not the House of the elite and the special 
interests. Soft money does that.
  Let us renew those Founding Fathers' ideas. Let us renew the House of 
the people. Let us ban soft money. That is what the freshman bill does. 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise today also in support of 
the freshman bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. One of the issues 
that we address in our bill, as well as is addressed in the Meehan-
Shays bill, is the third party ads that are typically run by groups 
outside of Congressional districts. Our bill provides if you are going 
to attempt to influence the outcome of an election, you have to 
associate yourself with that ad.
  We have had groups here in Washington D.C. that have told us if you 
force us to put our names on our ads, we will not run them. They 
further said the courts have ruled they have a right to run anonymous 
political advertising.
  This is crazy. What is at stake here is not a right like that; it is 
the right of the voters not to be deceived, but to be informed. One of 
the purposes of this provision is to stop the type of misleading and 
inflammatory ads that people will refuse to run when their names have 
to go on the ad.
  We have carefully written this freshman bill in a way that is 
constitutional. It preserves the rights of groups to speak. But if you 
are going to stand up and say something about a candidate and attempt 
to influence the outcome of an election, you are going to put your name 
on the ad. That is going to assure that the rights that are really at 
stake here are protected, and that is the rights of the voters to make 
informed judgments and to understand who is trying to influence the 
outcome of the elections that determine their elected representatives.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, I am a proud member of the freshman 
bipartisan task force on finance reform. If we are truly interested in 
passing finance reform that is going to pass and withstand 
constitutional challenges, the freshman bill is the bill to support.
  But the opponents of reform would have us believe that large money 
contributions are essential to freedom, liberty and free speech in this 
country. I do not know any rational person who believes the ability of 
a wealthy individual or organization to contribute hundreds of 
thousands of dollars, just as my friend the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Snyder) so aptly demonstrated, is essential to freedom and liberty 
in this country. But that is exactly what is going on right now, and it 
is perfectly legal.
  The freshman bill prohibits soft money contributions, and it will 
limit the corruption and the appearance of corruption resulting from 
those large contributions.
  We can prohibit the soft money contributions under current 
constitutional case law. So our soft money ban withstands any 
constitutional challenge, and, yes, it does uphold liberty and free 
speech in this country.
  I urge my colleagues, if they are interested in true finance reform 
that upholds the tenets of our Constitution in this country, to support 
the freshman bill.
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, these freshmen Members 
of Congress have helped bring real campaign finance reform to the 
floor. H.R. 2183 should now be debated and passed in this Congress. But 
we are going to hear some objections. We are going to hear the phrase 
``big money.'' I ask you to remember it. We are going to hear the 
phrase ``free speech.'' Because when some Members of Congress argue 
that campaign reform stifles free speech, they are really saying that 
it shuts down big money, and they like big money. They want to keep big 
money.
  The Supreme Court has said preventing the appearance and reality of 
corruption justifies limits on contributions to candidates and parties. 
To be sure, the First Amendment is a factor. But a soft money ban is 
constitutional. Issue advocacy can be regulated.
  Do not be fooled by those who use the rhetoric of free speech to keep 
campaigns fueled with big money from corporations, unions and wealthy 
individuals. Support the freshman bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure now to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon), a retiring Member of 
Congress, but someone who certainly is not himself retiring.
  Mr. PAXON. Madam Chairman, for years the two-party system has served 
this Nation well and has helped to make America the strongest democracy 
in the history of the world.
  Today we have really seen on this floor the beginning of a direct 
assault on the two-party system in the guise of so-called reform. I 
warn my colleagues, as you well know, because someone walks to the well 
of the House and says something is reform does not make it so.
  As a matter of fact, I believe that if these measures pass, we can 
predict three things: First, the diminishing of our two-party system; 
secondly, a diminishing of the ability of candidates to be responsible 
for the messages in their campaigns to the electorate; and, third, 
because so-called reform will actually move dollars from the Federal 
system that we have today of disclosure, those dollars will end up in 
issue advocacy campaigns, and that will mean no disclosure of where the 
dollars come from, no disclosure of where the dollars are going to or 
being spent, and, undoubtedly, more of what we are seeing today, 
negative and attack commercials that are not controlled by anyone.
  Now, there is much talk though on this floor about controlling one 
thing, and that is these very issue advocacy campaigns. But that is a 
fantasy. The courts will not allow it, and that is clear.
  What this talk is is a Trojan horse, good talk about controlling 
issue advocacy and all those negative campaigns, and, once the courts 
strip it away, we are only left with controls on the two-party system 
and controls on the candidates who are, therefore, not responsible to 
the electorate because of the kind of messages that will come out in 
those issue advocacy campaigns.
  Therefore, the bottom line is simply this: The real question when it 
comes to campaign abuses is not about more laws. There are laws galore 
on the books. What we need is the real choice before us today: Will we 
enforce the laws that are on the books, or will we irreparably harm the 
two-party system and the ability of candidates to be responsible to the 
electorate and control their messages?
  As this debate goes on in the coming weeks and months, I cannot help 
but come back to the adage that my dear grandmother gave me time and 
time and time again, and that is simply this: Be careful what you wish 
for; it might come true.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), one of the authors of a 
major substitute that we will be looking at later in the process.
  Mr. WHITE. Madam Chairman, we are embarking today on a long process 
to debate campaign finance reform. It is an open process, and that is a 
good thing. But it is also a process that, if we judge from the past, 
is likely to end in failure, in partisanship and in embarrassment to 
this House. Because the fact is if we look at what we have done in the 
past, we are likely to spend our time fighting with each other, arguing 
over our pet projects, and, ultimately, not getting anything done.
  The fact is, we do not agree on the details, and what most of this 
campaign finance debate will turn out to be is one party trying to 
stick it to the other party and trying to see if they can do that in 
one way or another. The fact is, it is very likely that we will end up 
at the end of the day in a situation where no bill has the votes that 
is necessary to pass.
  I would submit to you, Madam Chairman, if there is a lesson to be 
learned from the history we have seen, it is we cannot do this job 
ourselves. The last people in the world who should be making decisions 
on campaign finance reform are the people whose individual personal 
self-interest depends on campaign finance.

                              {time}  1330

  That is all of us in this House.
  So I would submit to my colleagues that there is really only one way 
to get

[[Page H3783]]

a neutral, good government campaign finance reform bill, and that is to 
appoint a group of neutral experts to come back to us with a proposal 
after debating for a period of time. That is the Commission bill.
  It is one of the first bills we will be debating, and I would implore 
my colleagues to give it careful consideration. We will have plenty of 
time to debate the merits of it, to explain what the Commission is all 
about. But I would say to my colleagues, go ahead and have the fights, 
go ahead and try to stick it to the other party, go ahead and try to 
win on your terms, but do not forget to vote for the Commission bill, 
which is the one chance we really have for real, fair and neutral 
campaign finance reform.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a Member who has been involved in this for 
some time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, the Buckley decision was obviously the 
most important campaign finance decision made by the Supreme Court. 
Justice Thurgood Marshall in that opinion wrote, ``One of the points on 
which all members of the Court agree is that money is essential for 
effective communication.''
  Now, in Federal campaigns we have two kinds of money. We have soft 
money, which is money spent by any organization, any individual, or a 
political party to talk about issues.
  Now, in my campaign in 1996, the labor union spent $866,000 against 
me in TV ads, and it said, paid for by the AFL-CIO. That is soft money. 
I did not like it, but I think they have the right to run them. The 
Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled they have that right.
  Hard money is money spent by candidates for Federal office. It is 
used specifically to elect or defeat a candidate and is, therefore, 
regulated by the Federal Government.
  Now, the Shays-Meehan bill, not only does it place a cap on the 
amount that a person can spend of their own money, but it also 
prohibits any organization, any individuals and political parties of 
any political philosophy from spending money to educate people about 
issues within 60 days of the election. So in Federal elections, where 
does that leave us? Those that spend hard money, the candidates, and 
then, of course, members of the news media will be able to express 
their views. They will be the only ones.
  But individuals around the country, organizations around the country 
will not be able to spend any money. And I, for one, do not like to see 
the last 60 days of an election having the news media being the only 
ones that can talk about the candidates, because they are not regulated 
by anyone. So they will exercise their free speech, but the American 
people will not exercise their free speech.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the freshman bipartisan group.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Chairman, new campaign laws will not help 
if we do not first enforce the ones we have, and Congress must enforce 
and must ensure the free expression of speech, and that is why I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of the freshman reform bill.
  Each year, we seem to drift farther and farther away from the 
original intent of Congress as a citizen legislature, electing people 
from all walks of life and stations of life. A citizen Congress is 
disappearing in great part due to horribly expensive campaigns whose 
costs are out of control and getting worse.
  Today, it takes about $1 million. The average cost of winning a 
competitive seat in Congress is $1 million. That means a lot of good 
people in our community will never raise their hands to run for 
Congress because they do not have $1 million and they do not know how 
they would find it, and those costs are doubling every 4 years. For a 
Nation founded on representative government, that is alarming.
  Madam Chairman, I love being part of a Republican Congress that is 
known for challenging business as usual in Washington. Now is the time 
and we are the ones who take on the difficult past of bringing some 
common sense to these campaigns. It will not be easy. Nothing important 
ever is. But it will be worth it to make sure that, someday, our 
children do not wake up in the future to find that our Congress is 
reserved for only the wealthy few.
  When it comes to doing the right thing in America, money is not 
everything. Integrity is more important than a fat wallet. Character 
still counts. If we believe in the citizen Congress, we know that we 
have to make sure the doors are open to families and working Americans 
who are only rich in principle and wealthy in common sense.
  The freshman bill is common sense. It is constitutional, it preserves 
free speech, it protects States' rights, and it avoids the extremes 
without giving advantage to either party.
  As a Republican, I confess that the bills that give my party an 
advantage are awfully tempting. As a Republican and an American, I know 
that the principle of a citizen Congress is a higher principle. That is 
what America's founders envisioned, that is what generations of 
Americans have given their lives for, that is our challenge to 
preserve.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr), who has spent a lot of time on this issue 
and one of the sponsors of one of the bills we will be further 
debating.
  Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  I am pleased that we finally have a chance to debate on 11 measures, 
separate measures to discuss campaign reform, and I join this debate to 
fight for reform, real reform. Reform that stops the money chase, 
reform that restores the integrity to the election process, that allows 
candidates to discuss the issues, not sling mud.
  I support the Shays-Meehan bill, but I also have a bill to be 
discussed in this debate, one that is more comprehensive than Shays-
Meehan and actually is the basis from which Shays-Meehan originally 
developed.
  But as good as Shays-Meehan is, it could be better. If the problem 
with campaign finance today is too much money in the system, then let 
us cap it. No one talks about spending limits anymore. But my bill has 
spending limits; none of the others do.
  If we want to reduce money in the system, do not let it be spent. I 
cap it out at $600,000, which is the average cost of a campaign in the 
United States in the last election.
  No one talks about PAC contributions anymore, but I do. My bill 
reduces individual PAC contributions and caps them in the aggregate. 
Shays-Meehan does not. If we want to reduce special interest money in 
the system, reduce the flow of money, cap it. My bill and my amendment 
has PAC limits.
  No one talks about wealthy candidates anymore, buying a seat in 
Congress, but I do. My bill limits how much personal money a candidate 
can spend on his or her campaign. Shays-Meehan and other bills do not.
  What about bundling reform? What about access to broadcast time? Have 
we forgotten that there is more to campaign finance reform than only 
soft money?
  We need reform. It needs to be bold. It needs to be comprehensive. 
Getting rid of soft money is a good start, but in itself is not enough. 
Getting tough on express advocacy is a good start, but in itself is not 
enough. Getting serious about disclosure is a good start, but it is not 
enough. Shays-Meehan is a good start, but it is not enough.
  I will offer an amendment using the text of my bill, H.R. 600, that 
does that, and more. If we are going to go through the trouble of 
passing campaign finance reform, let us pass comprehensive reform. Let 
us show America we are serious about cleaning up the system. If we are 
truly determined to do something about campaigns that are financed in 
this country, we must attack it from all angles, not just one. 
Incremental reform is reform delayed, and reform delayed is not reform 
at all.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chairman, someone earlier made the statement that they saw an 
educational ad and it did not play by ``our rules.''
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), is obviously sincere in 
offering his package, and we will look at it in more detail later, and 
he is proud to say that it has spending limits in the bill.

[[Page H3784]]

  If my colleagues will recall my opening comments about the concern 
that we have to have in passing legislation in which the Supreme Court 
has already rendered an opinion, my colleagues will recall that in 
Buckley v. Valeo the Court sustained contribution limits that were in 
the 1971 law, but it held unconstitutional the expenditure limits, and 
yet we still continue to try to go down that path.
  The gentleman from California said that, in terms of millionaires 
spending their own money, we ought to tell them that they should not be 
able to do it. I remind my colleagues that the Court has said that that 
is supposed to be a fundamental first amendment right.
  I will also remind my colleagues that the Farr bill has a 
severability clause. That means that if the Court rules one portion of 
it unconstitutional, the rest of it will stand. In other words, if he 
believes he has crafted a careful, comprehensive plan and the Court 
throws out a portion of it, what we wind up having is the same 
situation we are in today.
  What the Congress wanted, if, in fact, that is what Congress wants, 
will be done only in piecemeal, hit-and-miss fashion. As we look at 
these various proposals, look to see whether they have severability. 
Look to see if they address what we should be doing under 
constitutional amendments in a statutory form when we are running 
directly into the face of the Supreme Court saying certain aspects of 
people involved in expressing their own positions politically have a 
guarantee under the first amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis).
  Mr. McINNIS. Madam Chairman, I am sure that all of us are familiar 
from watching the movie Gunsmoke or some of the other westerns, or if 
we have ever studied western history, we have heard of something called 
snake oil. That is just about what is to be sold on this House floor, 
and it is called snake oil.
  How does one sell snake soil? First of all, one goes out there and 
convinces the people, goes into town ahead of time and convinces 
everybody that they are deathly ill, that the consequences of not 
buying the snake oil will be devastating to the community as a whole.
  That is exactly what they are trying to do on this floor. Then, after 
they have convinced them about these horrible consequences, you ride 
into town on a white horse and say, I have the snake oil. I have the 
cure. The solutions are heavenly. Everybody in the community will live 
happily ever after.
  Well, what are we doing here on this so-called campaign finance 
reform? What does it mean? Well, of course, that is all in the eyes of 
the beholder, but let me go over a few buzzwords we have heard this 
morning.
  Just a couple of minutes ago, I heard the good gentleman, a good 
friend of mine, the gentleman from Arkansas, quoting the scriptures on 
campaign finance reform. Then we hear the word ``reform;'' now we hear 
the words ``real reform;'' then we hear about restoring public 
confidence. They are all buzzwords. Convince them there is an illness 
out there. Exaggerate the abuse that goes on out there. Talk about 
corruption. Describe the institution of Congress and what a horrible 
institution it is.
  The previous speaker from California talks about buying a seat in the 
U.S. Congress: Make it corrupt. Make it sick. We have to be able to 
sell this snake oil.
  Use the words, ``special interest.'' Of course, we have to use the 
words ``special interest,'' as if everybody in here does not have a 
special interest. Mine happens to be water, mine happens to be kids, 
abused children, mine happens to be the military, a strong defense. I 
do not deny having a special interest, and none of my colleagues should 
either.
  Use the words ``soft money'' over and over and over again. If we are 
going to convince them of this disease, we better use the word 
``soft,'' ``soft,'' ``soft'' like it is the word ``cancer,'' 
``cancer,'' ``cancer.''
  Talk about the horrors of the two-party system, how horrible, what 
bad shape this country is in because we have the Republican Party and 
the Democratic Party. Never once look back in history to see that 
history proves it is the most successful political system in the 
history of the world. No, no, no, we do not want to look at facts. Do 
not look at the bottom line, talk about how this empowers individuals. 
Then, after we have done all this, sell the snake oil.
  That is about what is going to happen, folks. The average person out 
there is going to get sold some snake oil because, unfortunately, they 
are going to believe a lot of what we say. I hope the people listening 
to me today do something that they should do when the snake oil 
salesman rolls into town and that is, look at the bottom line. Do not 
buy it on what you hear, do not buy it on what you see, buy it on what 
you know to be true.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  First of all, I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle who signed the discharge petition that has brought campaign 
finance to the floor, particularly the Blue Dogs, who initiated the 
petition drive in support of campaign finance reform.
  It has been a long time since the Speaker shook on it, and a great 
deal has happened since then. We have held hearing after hearing on 
alleged campaign finance abuses, but we have taken no concrete action 
to repair the problem.
  We have spent hundreds of taxpayers' dollars and hours of valuable 
time on hearings that have yielded nothing. So if we spend hours and 
days on this floor debating reform, as long as we end up with a strong 
law instead of the usual shell game, where we vote on a bill knowing 
that it will not be enacted into law, I do hope that the ultimate 
outcome will be passage of Shays-Meehan. It is bipartisan, it bans soft 
money, it mandates disclosure, it levels the playing field between 
challengers and incumbents, and it regulates independent third-party 
spending.
  We need to hold elections, not auctions, to select our leaders. I 
hope we move forward as quickly as possible with reform, and that we 
all get behind Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Chairman, I would announce that the Congressional Research 
Service document that I had mentioned at the beginning of the debate is 
now being made available.
  For anyone who is going to be leaving for the break from the floor, 
we have them available. Obviously, they will be available in greater 
numbers as we move through the process, and Members can have them in 
their offices. But if Members want one now, they are beginning to 
arrive.
  Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Campbell], an author of a major substitute who 
will be addressing us at length later.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman, my good friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from California, for yielding me the time. 
I want to commence by complimenting him. There is no more sincere 
friend of campaign finance reform than the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Bill Thomas), and I applaud his work.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to use the minutes I have to speak about 
the first amendment, about ``Can't vote, can't contribute,'' and about 
paycheck protection.
  On the first amendment, I have heard on the floor already expressed 
review that the first amendment will not tolerate any campaign finance 
reform. This is simply not true. First of all, the Constitution gives 
to the Congress and the States the obligation to control the time, 
places, and manner of elections.
  Second, the Supreme Court of the United States has on at least 14 
occasions decided what kind of speech can be restricted. We cannot 
advertise a dangerous product, we cannot announce prices and fix them 
with somebody else, we cannot speak if the speech would pose an 
imminent risk of great danger. All of these, one might say, are 
restrictions on speech under the first amendment, and yet they have 
been permitted by the Supreme Court. Why is this? Because they preserve 
the fundamentals of the First Amendment.

[[Page H3785]]

  The same is true with campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court 
dealt with this most extensively in Buckley versus Valeo, and in 
subsequent opinions as well. What that case said was, if the purpose 
and the effect of the reform is to control the system from the abuses 
so that truly free speech, in honest, legitimate debate can come 
forward, then the reform is permissible. That, I think, fairly 
characterizes almost all of the alternatives we will be debating.
  The alternative on which I have spent my time is called ``Can't vote, 
can't contribute.'' It is exceptionally simple. If you cannot vote for 
me, you should not be contributing to me.
  What my bill say is, a labor union cannot vote for me, so they cannot 
contribute; a company cannot vote for me, so they cannot contribute; 
citizens from the State of Missouri cannot vote for me, so they cannot 
contribute. (I represent the State of California).
  I am saying, let us restrict the ability to give to the very people 
to whom you owe the highest responsibility, your constituents. That 
approach, it seems to me, would solve a huge amount of the problem. No 
PACs, no labor unions, no companies, just the people whom you 
represent, can contribute. ``Can't vote, can't contribute.''
  I have to be a little bit more careful and say that, under Supreme 
Court law, we have to allow some small amount of giving by others, and 
so I have a small amount that can come from other sources, no more than 
$100.
  Lastly, my bill will have an expanded protection for those people who 
give their money to some entity, and that entity goes and uses it 
politically. We have heard how labor unions do this, but I think 
companies do it, too. What I propose is if you give your money to a 
company and the company decides to spend it politically, that company 
ought to get your approval up front. Then they can only spend as much 
money as has been approved by their shareholders. And similarly, if you 
are a member of a labor union, that union should not spend your money 
without getting your approval up front for the amount they wish to 
spend.
  ``Can't vote, can't contribute'' is simple, and it is fair. Most 
importantly, though, it is consistent with the first amendment. I thank 
the leadership of the Republican Party for allowing this debate to take 
place.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, I think this debate has been illuminating. 
The basic issue is really quite clear: Are we basically satisfied with 
the status quo, or are we not?
  Yesterday the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) said, in opening 
the discussion on the rule, I do not believe that major changes are 
necessary to the existing campaign finance laws. Instead, he urged some 
kind of assurance that the current laws we have on the books are going 
to be honored.
  All I can say to him and the gentleman from Colorado, who tried to 
minimize the present problems, is money is swamping democratic politics 
in America. I have been involved in the political process for a long 
time. I am proud of the two-party system. It is the two-party system 
that is being eroded by money.
  The issue advocacy issue is not a Trojan horse for soft money. The 
point is, if we do not address not only soft money but so-called issue 
advocacy ads that are really campaign ads, we have not closed the 
circle and ended the loopholes.
  I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is absolutely 
correct about the first amendment. I hope people will not use it as an 
excuse to do nothing. I want to read just a couple of lines from 
Buckley which indicates that the first amendment has to be looked at in 
the context of the political realities of 1976, in the case of Buckley, 
and 1998 today.
  It says, ``The increasing importance of the communications media and 
sophisticated mass-mailing and polling operations to effective 
campaigning make the raising of large sums of money an ever more 
essential ingredient of an effective candidacy. To the extent that 
large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quos from 
current and potential officeholders, the integrity of our system of 
representative democracy is undermined. . . .''
  Then they go on to say, ``Of almost equal concern as the danger of 
actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of 
corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for 
abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial 
contributions.''
  What Shays-Meehan gets at is not only these huge financial 
contributions, but their unknown source and issue advocacy ads. If 
Members like the present system and they think the public does, go 
ahead and vote for essentially sham proposals. If Members want basic 
change, vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to a 
freshman, the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northrup), someone who 
has just recently been on the front lines.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  In my government class in my junior year of high school, my teacher 
taught my class about civic duty. We studied the Constitution, and I 
learned then that that document represents a contract between the U.S. 
government and us, its citizens; and that as citizens, we are 
guaranteed certain inalienable rights. Those rights include our freedom 
of speech.
  Today we have before us a number of proposals, all addressing the 
issue of campaign reform. The self-proclaimed reformers will talk about 
the problems of public cynicism, corruption in politics, and abuse of 
the system. Their proposed solutions will suggest everything from 
limiting when certain groups did disseminate their message to capping 
campaign spending and using tax dollars to fund campaigns.
  The problem is that at the heart of each of these proposals is a 
muzzle on first amendment rights, the right to freedom of speech. 
Members may ask, what does campaign financing have to do with free 
speech? The answer is, absolutely everything.
  In the landmark Buckley versus Valeo case, the Supreme Court ruled 
that being able to raise and spend money is necessary for speech. 
Restricting the amount of money a person or group can spend in 
campaigns reduces their ability to express themselves.
  In today's society, every means of communicating ideas requires 
spending money. In fact, most campaign spending is used for the purpose 
of communicating with voters. Running an advertisement on television or 
the radio costs money. The ink and paper used in a mail piece costs 
money. An ad in a newspaper costs money.
  While standing on a street corner screaming at the top of your lungs 
may be an exercise in free speech, it does little to disseminate your 
message. In order to share your views with others, whether you are a 
candidate running for office or a group of individuals concerned about 
the environment, you must have the funds and be able to buy air time or 
newspaper space to voice your opinion effectively.
  While the authors of these reform proposals might say their ideas do 
not hamper free speech, most proposals do infringe on the first 
amendment, the right to free speech.
  We must remember that election activity is a healthy sign of a 
vibrant democracy. Just as we encourage citizens to vote, we should 
encourage them to be involved in campaigns. The discussions that swirl 
around campaigns are part of engaging our citizens in campaigns and the 
issues that confront them.
  Limiting our ability to discuss those issues violates our inalienable 
rights. Oppose limiting free speech. Oppose the Shays-Meehan and 
Hutchison bill.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan proposal as the first important step towards reform, the first 
important step. I have listened to these arguments about free speech. 
Well, if money is now equated with free speech, then lack of money is 
equated with

[[Page H3786]]

lack of free speech. It makes sense to me. Let the American people be 
the judge.
  What we really do need is a constitutional amendment that will 
overturn Buckley versus Valeo. It is outdated. Think about this. In 
1994 the average Member sitting here had to spend nearly $1 million 
when they were in competitive House races to hold onto their seats for 
a job that pays one-tenth as much. If they ran for the other body, the 
S-E-N-A-T-E, then they had to spend close to $4.5 million for a job 
that pays about $130,000 to $136,000 a year. Let the American people be 
the judge.
  In 1994, no House challenger won spending less than $100,000 in this 
Chamber for a job that pays $136,000. In 1996, the number of 
congressional candidates financing their campaigns with $100,000 or 
more of their own money was over 109 candidates.
  The American people are voting at all time lows. They know that the 
money changers are in the temple here. I would say to the people of New 
Hampshire and Iowa, they have enormous power to change this system. 
They should not let a single presidential candidate through their 
States until they are willing to agree to limits.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), another one of those 
members of the freshman class.
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HULSHOF. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Madam 
Chairman.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the freshman bill, the 
Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997.
  With great respect for the gentlewoman from Kentucky who just spoke 
recently, and another freshman Member, I am one of those self-
proclaimed reformers. There has been a lot of discussion about the 
Shays-Meehan bill. One part that I happen to agree with the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky is that even with the motive, the good motive that I 
think is underlying the bill, I think it is unconstitutional.

                              {time}  1400

  I think that it is an unconstitutional infringement upon the right of 
free speech. The freshman bill, I think, cuts a swath down the middle. 
As newly elected Members of Congress just off the 1996 campaign trail, 
our class is bringing a fresh look at reforming the way that Federal 
elections are financed in this country. Increasingly the American 
people are losing faith. They are losing confidence in the current 
system of campaign financing which reflects upon those of us who come 
here.
  The freshman bill is truly a bipartisan bill. It was crafted to meet 
the needs of reform without unfairly impacting one side over the other. 
With all due respect, last night we had a very passionate debate on the 
rule and the majority whip, right where I am standing, talked very 
passionately about the First Amendment. But with all due respect, there 
is no constitutional protection to soft money. There is nothing in the 
Constitution that says this unregulated, nondisclosed, big money in 
politics somehow enjoys the protections of the First Amendment of the 
United States Constitution. The freshman bill bans soft money.
  The other area that I think that our bill is actually an improvement 
over other measures that will be fully debated after we get back from 
our recess is on the issue of issue advocacy. Where this bill is an 
improvement over the Shays-Meehan bill is simply we are asking for 
disclosure. It is interesting that when you have a broadcast commercial 
either on the radio or television, the FCC requires that the 
advertisement's sponsor must be disclosed. Should we not at least 
require some disclosure from the FEC when you are engaging in 
broadcast? We are not asking for disclosure of who has contributed to 
these particular third party groups. We simply are asking for full 
disclosure. That is why I think that this freshman bill is the best 
measure. I urge its support.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Poshard).
  Mr. POSHARD. Madam Chairman, I speak to a lot of college students 
around the State of Illinois. Every time I stand in front of those 
students, they look me straight in the eye and they say to me, 
Congressman, we do not trust any of you guys anymore. You are all in it 
for yourselves. You are all in it for the special interests. No one is 
in it for us any longer.
  When I inquire of those students as to why they do not trust their 
government, why they see their government as the enemy rather than 
their friend, they always look me straight in the eye and they say, 
Congressman, just follow the money, just follow the money. You will 
know why we do not trust you.
  They are not wrong. Those students know that money in our government 
today leads to access, and access leads to influence, and influence 
leads to policymaking that is not always in the best interest of all of 
our people. Trust is the glue that holds our democratic system 
together. Without trust, it begins to unravel for all of us. If there 
is anything important in America, it is that every citizen ought to 
enjoy equal access to every door of representation in this government. 
That is our responsibility in this Chamber, to make that happen.
  Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise 
today and add my comments on an issue of deep concern to myself and 
many of my colleagues. At long last, this House is engaging in a 
meaningful debate on one of the most significant, controversial and 
urgent issues facing our nation--the reform of our nation's campaign 
finance laws.
  The overhaul of our campaign finance system is a goal I have 
supported for many years. I strongly believe that we must reduce the 
overwhelming influence of money and return our campaign system to its 
roots of citizen legislators who challenged each other on the issues 
and their vision of the future. During my service in the Illinois 
Legislature and in this body, I have witnessed first-hand the effect 
that special interest money can have on honest debate and the integrity 
of the legislative branch of government.
  In the absence of meaningful progress on this issue on the national 
level, I have sought to reform the financing of my own campaigns by 
refusing all PAC donations and relying instead on small contributions 
from individuals. Although I have often hoped that in this way, a few 
of my colleagues and I were setting an example for others to follow, it 
is not at all difficult to understand why only a handful have done so. 
It is indeed a daunting task to run a campaign without the easy 
donations that flow from special interests. But I would rather rise to 
the challenge and struggle to overcome this obstacle freely and 
honestly than continue to work within a system that has become 
irreversibly corrupted by the Influence of money.
  There are those who will argue that the reforms we are seeking will 
place undue restrictions on the ability of interest groups to publicize 
their views. While I understand this concern, and I certainly do not 
support measures that infringe on First Amendment rights, I feel that 
the damage that money has inflicted on our political system can no 
longer be ignored. I am convinced that if reforms are enacted, 
sufficient opportunity will remain for groups and individuals to 
continue to make the opinions known in a meaningful and effective way.
  The bill which has been brought to the floor today does not encompass 
my vision of campaign finance reform. However, I am grateful that the 
leadership has provided for consideration of many substitutes to this 
legislation, and I am hopeful that as this debate continues, my 
colleagues and the American people will join me in calling for a 
solution to this urgent problem. I believe that the Shays-Meehan bill 
represents the best vehicle for reform, and I will vote for its passage 
as a substitute to H.R. 2183. But regardless of the outcome of the 
votes we will cast as this process continues, the discussion itself 
marks a milestone in the House, and I strongly urge all members to take 
advantage of this historic opportunity to return politics to the 
American people, so that they can take pride in their government and in 
the role they play in the democratic process.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, Americans want fundamental change or a 
complete overhaul of the campaign finance system. They want meaningful 
limits on the out-of-control money in politics, and they want it now. 
We need to end the abuses of the electoral process, ban soft money, 
rein in the exploitation of issue ads and bring elections back home to 
the American people.
  During this debate the Republican leadership will try to change the 
topic

[[Page H3787]]

and, yes, to sell snake oil. It will try to turn attention away from 
all the good ideas that are out there to truly reform our elections 
and, instead, will try to focus debate on proposals specifically 
devised to bury elections deeper in the pockets of big money and of 
their special interests, to silence the voices of working men and 
women, and to kill reform.
  Do not be fooled by the Republican leadership's all smoke and mirrors 
routine. Americans are tired of the games. We have the votes in this 
House to pass real reform. It is the Republican leadership that would 
thwart the will of this House and thwart the will of the American 
public.
  Vote for Shays-Meehan, vote for a victory for the American people. 
Give their voices back to democracy.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), another member of the freshman class.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Chairman, today we have really started what can be a 
great debate in this House. We are often frustrated by how long the 
Senate takes to talk about the ideas that they talk about. We are also 
often frustrated by the fact that we do not have the time to chase 
important ideas to an important conclusion.
  The law of unintended consequences seems to particularly appeal every 
time we try to change our campaign finance laws. In fact, many of the 
things we will talk about in this debate will be why the reforms after 
Watergate have not worked. Many of the things we will talk about is why 
we cannot enforce the laws we have.
  If there is a smoke and mirrors problem, like I just heard that term 
used, in our law today, the smoke and mirrors problem is why we cannot 
enforce the laws we have and how we turn that into a debate about why 
we need more laws. But we do have time for this debate. This is a 
debate that goes to the core of our process. It goes to the core of 
what the next generation of folks who run important public office are 
likely to deal with. We can take the time. We have the time. We are 
going to talk about important things.
  I just heard a moment ago the need to rewrite the First Amendment. I 
am not opposed to revisiting the Constitution. In fact, I was for 
revisiting the Constitution recently when we talked about the need to 
have a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution. But many of my 
colleagues who now want to rewrite the First Amendment said, it is way 
too dangerous to talk about an amendment, a new amendment that would 
protect the way we spend taxpayers money, but we are going to have a 
debate on whether it is too dangerous or not to talk about the way we 
protect the speech of voters and citizens.
  These are big issues. This is a debate that deserves the attention it 
is going to have. I am grateful that we have an opportunity in this 
debate that we seldom have on this side of the Capitol to have a full 
and free exchange of ideas. I am pleased to see it start here today.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining 
time on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) has 
13\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  The most often asked question of me at home, especially with the 
young people that I represent in California's very distinguished 14th 
congressional district, is the following: What got you interested in 
politics, and why do you want to be in it? What do you want to get 
done?
  I was attracted to public service at a very early age when I was in 
high school. We did not vote then. You had to be 21 years old to vote. 
And I became involved in the presidential campaign of John Fitzgerald 
Kennedy When he won, I honestly felt that I had put him over the top 
with the work that I had done. It was a time when public service was 
celebrated. Today in 1998, 38 years later, I am sorry that we cannot 
report the same thing. Why? Because people do not believe that this 
place is on the level.
  And they are right. Why? Because money influences everything that 
takes place here.
  We must step up to the bar and encourage the American people that 
they can indeed have confidence in this institution and their 
representatives by reforming a broken congressional finance campaign 
system. Vote for the Meehan-Shays bill. It is the real one. We should 
pass it, and we should be judged as to whether we have voted for it or 
not.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Metcalf), a member of the freshman class.
  Mr. METCALF. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me the time and congratulate the 
Speaker and the leadership for keeping their commitment and allowing 
this debate today.
  Madam Chairman, I am one of the Members totally committed to a full 
debate on this issue. I would even have signed the discharge petition 
to force a full and open debate. I am gravely concerned about the 
present campaign system because the American people have lost faith in 
the way Congress is elected. It has to be changed. By reforming our 
campaign finance system, we are moving forward on a new course that 
will empower people's faith in the political process. I have looked 
forward to this debate and I sincerely hope that we will enact real and 
honest campaign finance reform.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner), the Lone Star State.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Chairman, I thank my fellow freshmen, Democrats and 
Republicans, who are fighting for campaign finance reform. I also thank 
my fellow blue dog Democrats who worked to bring this issue to the 
floor by pushing the discharge petition calling for a fair and open 
debate.
  Why are we fighting so hard? Because we believe that big money has a 
corrupting influence upon politics. We want votes, not dollars, to 
count in these halls. We want the strength of one's argument, not the 
size of one's pocketbook, to determine public policy. And we want to 
ensure that this government is not for sale to the highest bidder.
  The American people deserve to know that this Congress investigates 
every allegation of campaign finance abuse, not to secure partisan 
advantage but to restore public trust and confidence in government.
  While we investigate allegations surrounding Johnny Chung and 
possible corporate influence on decisions to grant licenses to sell 
technology to China, let us not forget that at the end of the day it is 
about big money in the political process.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I want to take a moment 
to thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] for including a variant of my ``stand 
by your ad'' proposal in their campaign finance reform substitute.
  A little over a year ago, I introduced stand by your ad, based on a 
good North Carolina idea from Lt. Governor Dennis Wicker, to make a 
real change in campaign advertising.
  Stand by your ad is a bipartisan proposal sponsored by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Horn] and myself and 13 others. Our bill would 
require simply that candidates appear in their television ads and say 
that they sponsored the ads. It would require the same for radio 
advertisements. The disclaimer for print advertising would also be 
enhanced.
  Our proposal will not dictate the content of ads. But it will make 
candidates think twice before running a distorted or a mud-slinging 
advertisement, for they will have to take responsibility for what they 
put on the air and the voters will be more likely to hold them 
accountable.
  We must change our electoral system in a real and positive way. I 
believe the Shays-Meehan bill offers us the best opportunity we are 
likely to have to do that. I am grateful that the sponsors have 
included ``stand by your ad'' in their substitute, to strengthen the 
required disclaimer and thereby to improve the tone and content of 
campaign advertising.

[[Page H3788]]

  This year we have a real opportunity to change the rules. We need to 
work across party lines to reform how we conduct campaigns. I urge my 
colleagues to join us and the other cosponsors of the Shays-Meehan bill 
in supporting real campaign reform by voting for the Shays-Meehan 
substitute, including ``stand by your ad.''
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of the Committee on House Oversight.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of our Committee on 
House Oversight for yielding me this time and also for his 
distinguished leadership on this issue.
  My colleagues, we have ourselves in a real pickle here. I have served 
on the Committee on House Oversight, and we have had to tangle with 
this dilemma in committee. The chairman has tried to act and Members 
have tried to act in a very responsible and responsive manner to the 
will of the House.
  We sat for days and days in meeting after meeting. We heard at least 
40 Members of the House with their various proposals as to how to 
revise our campaign laws. I sat through much of that testimony. And 
that is part of the problem.
  No one is trying to deep six campaign reform, as we have heard some 
accounts in the media or some of my colleagues on the other side or 
this side say. I think people want meaningful campaign reform. And our 
committee tangled with this, and we brought out measures, and we gave 
the House an opportunity to vote on it. But now this House is going to 
suffer the same fate that our committee suffered.
  I am not here to speak for or against one measure or the other, but I 
tell my colleagues that the reason we have 500 amendments and dozens of 
bills and proposals and differences of opinion is, in fact, we have 435 
Members.
  My colleague from California (Mr. Horn) summed it up so well when he 
said, we have 435 experts on this issue. And that is our problem.
  But let me tell my colleagues what the American people want, and my 
colleagues have heard at this podium here all the condemnations. 
Actually, that is the side that controlled the White House, this House 
and the other body for several years and had complete power to change 
all the laws that they, in fact, passed and eliminate these abuses, but 
they did not.
  So here we are in an open discussion, and we are going to have to 
sort through this, and we have a great difference of opinion on it 
because we are all experts.
  We have all been abused by the system. I hate soft money. I was 
abused by it. I would love to ban it. The only problem is this little 
thing that gets in the way, the Constitution, which I carry around. And 
if my colleagues can find a way around the Constitution, then go at it.
  But I want to tell my colleagues what the American people are upset 
about, and I am offended by some of the debate here today. The American 
people are disgusted because the laws on the books have been abused and 
misused. We have heard that we are going to investigate to the end, but 
we do not investigate to the end.
  I sit also on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, where 
we have heard a parade of witnesses that go on and on about campaign 
abuses of existing laws. It is illegal for foreign governments to 
contribute. It is illegal for foreign citizens to contribute. It is 
illegal under the laws.
  And I stacked one day in the hearing all the laws that had been 
violated, the statutes of the United States of America. Illegal conduit 
payments. That is illegal. And I heard it is illegal for conduit 
payments.
  And then I heard the testimony and the tape of the President of the 
United States saying, we found a way to take amounts of money in 20s, 
50s and hundred thousands, go get it, play it, to subvert the 
presidential election process that we put in place with some public 
money to avoid these abuses.
  So, yes, the laws are on the books; but, yes, they have been 
violated. And people want, 74 percent of the American people, when 
polled, said their number one priority is enforcing the laws that are 
on the books.
  So we face today this dilemma: Those who say we want to clean up and 
enact new laws; those who want to affront the Constitution. We will 
have to make the choice.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam Chairman, if American citizens are concerned that 
Congress continues to represent the interests of the wealthy and the 
powerful at the expense of the middle-class and working families, then 
the American people must get involved in the fight for real campaign 
finance reform.
  Our Republican friends want to investigate the role that campaign 
contributions might have played on President Clinton's China policy. 
Well, we should investigate that issue fully and fairly, but we should 
also investigate the role that campaign contributions play in our 
tobacco policy, our health care policy, our tax policy, our banking 
policy, and many other policies that we deal with.
  Big money interests are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into 
the political process, and the wealthiest \1/4\ of 1 percent provide 
over 80 percent of campaign contributions. More and more millionaires 
are running for office while the middle class and working families are 
voting less and less and participating in lower numbers.
  Let us have the guts to pass real campaign finance reform, and let us 
do it now.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Madam Chairman, I took this picture off the wall of my 
office. I purchased it several years ago from a high school art 
competition in my district. It was produced by Jeff Vogelsberg, a 
student at that time in a high school in my district.
  As my colleagues can see, or maybe they cannot see, it is a picture 
of a car made out of money that has lassoed and is taking away the 
Capitol of the United States.
  We have a saying in our language, ``out of the mouths of babes,'' 
which really speaks to the sort of pure and perfect insight of 
children, the ability to get to the nub of the issue. And, in fact, 
Madam Chairman, this is how our children see us. And it is, of course, 
these children who will grow up and write the history books of the 
future.
  And what do my colleagues think they will have to say about us? How 
will we be portrayed? Will this Congress be portrayed as supporters of 
a system with integrity and honor, or one of money that is so powerful 
it can pull the Capitol of the United States from its very foundation?
  Support Shays-Meehan.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I want to say that, yes, we are beginning 
this debate on campaign finance reform, but we dare not close our eyes. 
We may not ever end it, and we may not get a chance to vote on real 
campaign finance reform, and that is the Meehan-Shays legislation.
  I hope I can go home and tell the children in my district that they 
are the ones that control and direct our efforts up here in the United 
States Congress and not the special interests. But, my colleagues, I 
have some special insight. Because as we are going through the 
bankruptcy revisions, we now see the impact of special interests who 
want us to eliminate provisions that would allow hard-working 
Americans, who have come upon hard times, who have had catastrophic 
illnesses, to be able to go into bankruptcy court fairly and honestly 
and save themselves and their homes and their children's homes.
  We need to realize that real campaign finance reform is to get rid of 
the special interests. And real campaign finance reform is to vote for 
the Meehan-Shays, and not for the nongermane amendments, 500 of them, 
maybe, that will come up when we come back so we never get a chance to 
vote for Meehan-Shays.
  I hope that does not happen. Vote for Meehan-Shays for real campaign 
finance reform for our children.

[[Page H3789]]

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in strong support of campaign finance reform.
  I will vote for both the Shays-Meehan bill and the bipartisan 
freshman bill, because I think that those bills go a long, long way in 
helping to clear up the problems that we have, although I think we 
still have a long way to go.
  The Buckley-Valeo decision by the Supreme Court, in my opinion, was 
one of the worst decisions that was ever put forth in the Supreme 
Court, equating free speech and money, saying that money, money and 
more money can be spent on campaigns. We have a situation where only 
millionaires can afford to run for office in this country. And that is 
the real threat to our democracy, when the average person can no longer 
run for office because it costs so much to run for office and the 
special interests so dominate it with money, money, and more money.
  Public financing, in my opinion, is the way to go, because that would 
even the playing field and level the playing field. It is obvious we 
are not going to get that, so we need to have some kind of restrictions 
on the obscene amounts of money it takes to run for office in this 
country.
  Are we saying that only wealthy people should serve in the United 
States Congress? We have more and more millionaires here. There is 
nothing wrong with millionaires, I wish I was one of them, but I do not 
think they are the only people that ought to serve in the U.S. 
Congress.
  We need campaign finance reform, and we need it now. It is a threat 
to our democracy to do nothing. Let us move on this. Pass Shays-Meehan 
and the freshman bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who has been involved extensively in the 
area of campaign finance reform.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, not too long ago I spent some time with 
one of the most distinguished journalists in this country, David 
Broeder. He made a very good point that the most popular thing that 
Americans watch and enjoy is probably NFL football or college football.
  They do not focus on the missed pass patterns, the overthrown passes, 
the blocks that go awry. They look at the TDs, a Desmond Howard running 
back, a punt return, a Charles Woodson making a great defensive play in 
the end zone, a Brian Griese getting that touchdown pass in the Rose 
Bowl.
  Sadly, our political system, indeed, focuses on the bad, the 
opposite, the negatives. So-and-so is against the elderly. They are a 
big spender. They are for higher taxes. They are for pornography, even 
kiddie porn. That is what we have come down to with these negatives.
  And, sadly, those negatives are led not by the candidates. The 
candidates are not responsible for that kind of junk, but, instead, the 
independent interest groups that have taken over the system.
  They have discovered a gigantic loophole. They have discovered that 
they can pour unlimited amounts of money into a campaign, hundreds of 
thousands, maybe even a million dollars. It is not reported, it is not 
disclosed, and, in fact, they have no direct responsibility.
  Well, that buying of this House has got to end. It is time to return 
this House to the people's House.
  I can remember not too long Speaker Foley did not really allow an 
open rule on campaign finance reform. A gentleman here by the name of 
Mike Synar, myself, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Bob 
Livingston) worked together on a bipartisan campaign plan, and it was a 
good one, and we were turned down by the Committee on Rules on a vote 
by just a handful of votes, 220 to 213.
  I applaud our bill leadership, and I applaud the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bill Thomas) for working to construct the bipartisan 
vote that we had last night that is an open rule so that Members from 
every stripe in this Chamber can debate the issues for perhaps a couple 
of weeks based on the amendments that were filed, and we can sort this 
thing out and we can end some of these abuses and return this House to 
the people's House.
  Madam Chairman, we need reform. The country wants reform. We want 
reform. Together, we can do it. Let us look at these issues. Let us 
look at all of the amendments and the substitutes. And, at the end of 
the day, let us not fall short and reject what comes out. Let us pass 
something and get it back to the Senate.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington State (Mr. Adam Smith), someone who has been waiting a 
long time this afternoon.
  Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Let me first say that I think it is good that people are interested 
enough in the process to contribute money to a candidate and get 
involved. The key is to have a reasonable contribution limit so that 
some people do not have so much more influence than other people that 
those other people are discouraged from participating. Unfortunately, 
that is the system we have right now.
  Shays-Meehan does a very good job of fixing that problem by banning 
soft money, limiting issue advocacy, and beefing up the enforcement 
mechanisms the FEC has to enforce the existing laws. I think placing 
reasonable limits on contributions makes sense, and Shays-Meehan 
maintains those limits.
  I do want to caution folks about going too far down the road about 
how corrupt we are if we receive campaign money. I do not believe that 
to be the case. However, we do need to keep a ceiling on contributions 
so that certain individuals do not have undue influence. I think a 
limit of $1,000 per individual, $5,000 per PAC makes sense.
  The problem is that between soft money and third-party expenditures, 
those limits have been rendered meaningless. Shays-Meehan takes a first 
step towards fixing that problem, and I urge my colleagues to support 
that bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Madame Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
efforts to create real campaign finance reform. At the end of the day, 
it will not be what we said, what fingers we pointed at each other; it 
will be whether or not we actually got anything done. That is what 
people will judge us on.
  I want to commend my colleagues in the freshman class who have worked 
so hard on both sides of the aisle to bring this issue forward and to 
put a bill in front of us that makes sense. Also, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) who have worked so hard to put together a bipartisan bill.
  We have two opportunities in front of us, either of which moves us in 
the right direction. And I would encourage us not to get bogged down in 
finger pointing, not to get bogged down in 11 substitutes, over 500 
amendments, but to instead, when we have the opportunity to come back 
in another week to vote on whether or not we want less money in the 
system or more, that we vote for less; whether we want more 
accountability, whether we want folks to be able to make up names and 
run ads without any accountability for us or for our constituents to 
know who they are, or whether we want fairness, whether we want 
accountability.
  Let us vote for accountability. Let us vote for real campaign finance 
reform now.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Michigan for yielding me the time.
  Literally, money talks; and when it speaks, it drowns out all other 
political discourse. Money has distorted, corrupted, and perverted our 
political system. It is time to get back to the basics of democracy. We 
are past the time for halfway and halfhearted patches on the system.
  Belief that disclosure alone will remedy the problem is like belief 
in the tooth fairy. Solving the problem by just regulating soft money 
is about as likely to happen as expecting pigs to fly. I believe that 
the basic principles of campaign reform are these:

[[Page H3790]]

  Take seriously some of the money out of the equation. Provide some 
public financing for all Federal campaigns. Set a limit on Federal 
candidates' use of private money. Provide voters with enough 
information, unfiltered, to make serious decisions. Create an 
independent agency that will report on the activities of all paid 
lobbyists, who and when they lobby.
  It is only when we take the money out that democracy will come in.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) has 3\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, let me first say to my colleagues on the 
left and the right who seem so deeply concerned about the 
constitutional ramifications of a campaign finance package, I would 
remind them that next week when we return from our Memorial Day recess 
that one of our colleagues the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) 
will bring a piece of legislation to the floor that seeks to rewrite 
the First Amendment in certainly more egregious ways than perhaps this 
campaign finance legislation will.
  But I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, what is it 
that we are afraid of when it relates to campaign finance reform? What 
is it that we are afraid of when we talk about taking less money? What 
is it that we are afraid of when we talk about less money in this 
entire political system?
  This is the same body that had the courage to say to welfare 
recipients throughout this Nation, and I voted with them, we are going 
to place a 2-year time limit on them. We are going to limit the amount 
of funds. This is the same Congress that said to those in the Dakotas, 
when the floods ravaged those areas, we are going to make them wait for 
disaster aid relief.
  What is it about campaign finance reform that irks and irritates so 
many in this Congress? I would hope that we can find the courage to 
reach down deep inside to find the courage that is needed to not only 
reform these laws and restore the integrity to this system but to do 
what is right for the future of this Nation and the next generation of 
Congresspeople that will occupy our seats.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Schumer).
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Let me say this debate will test this House as it has not been tested 
in a decade. Admittedly, this is not the number one political issue on 
the minds of the public. Probably no one will lose their reelection 
because of it. But clearly, if we care about this Congress and care 
about this democracy, this is the issue that is driving the Government 
further and further and further from the people. Reform it we must. 
Those who love this democracy, those who believe in what the Founding 
Fathers said, should be on the side of this issue.
  And second, I have heard more crocodile tears shed over the First 
Amendment from the very same people who spend a career bashing the 
National Endowment for the Arts and everything else that I am just 
amazed. Methinks that there is too much protest here.
  I do not think the issue is the First Amendment. No amendment is 
absolute. I do not think that these newfound converts to the First 
Amendment fear that that amendment will be infringed. They try to 
infringe on it every week on the floor of this House. I think they are 
afraid of reform, they are afraid of government coming clean.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) has 1\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, if we like our legal system, after this 
debate on campaign finance reform, where we have 10 substitutes and 
over 300 amendments, we are going to love our campaign finance.
  What we need to do is enforce the campaign finance laws that are on 
the books and work together to simplify so that the American people are 
being well-served. Now, a lot of people will say, well, this is a case 
of being able to have free speech. I think so. But simplicity is the 
path to strengthening our system and allowing Americans to finally 
trust their elected Federal officials.
  We can gain a lot of credibility with the American people by actually 
investigating and enforcing the current laws. No one on this side of 
the aisle is talking about enforcing the current law, especially as it 
concerns fund-raising in churches, in Buddhist temples, campaign or 
other financial solicitation from executive office buildings, foreign 
contributions and other illegalities that occurred during the 1996 
campaign cycle.
  I believe we need to preserve the freedom of any individual or group 
to speak out on issues. Some of the proposals being offered clearly 
violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Therefore, some 
of these proposals are clearly unconstitutional.
  Let us pass sensible campaign finance reform that enjoys the 
widespread support of all the American people.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Chairman, the debate here is how to instill 
confidence in the voters of this country and their elected officials. 
There is no place on earth where the connection between the elected and 
the electors is closer. But as the amounts of money rushing into 
campaigns through every possible back door and front door continue to 
grow, the American people's respect for this Government continues to 
diminish.
  There is an advantage on the Republican side. I think their 
constituents are often less bothered by $100,000 contributions. We tend 
to represent blue collar people that are astounded by those numbers.
  The Democratic record is clear. In 1971, we started with the FEC and 
overrode President Nixon's veto. In 1974, we passed campaign finance 
reform. Yes, the court gutted it. But remember, the Supreme Court for 
50 years said separate and equal are okay, until 1954 in Brown v. Board 
of Education when they reversed themselves.
  In 1993, the House, under Democratic leadership, passed the campaign 
finance reform; and in 1994 we put it on George Bush's desk to see him 
veto it. When President Clinton got elected, we got legislation through 
both houses and it was filibustered to death in the Senate. Had that 
gotten past the Senate filibuster, this President would have signed it.
  Let us pass McCain/Feingold in its form in the House, get it to the 
Senate, and get those couple more votes we need to break the 
filibuster. We have more than a majority for reform in the Senate, and 
this President will sign the beginning of real campaign finance reform 
with the leadership of the men and women in this House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2 minutes.
  We have heard the general debate on campaign reform; and true to 
form, it is an attempt to move the discussion to class warfare and 
righteous indignation. I would like to bring some of the fundamentals 
in focus, if I might.
  We have heard a piece of legislation referred to on our side of the 
aisle as Shays/Meehan. We have heard that same legislation referred to 
on the other side of the aisle as Meehan/Shays. I think that pretty 
well sums up how significant the substance is. These people are so 
desperate in terms of the need to package this in a way that, their 
reform, that they actually reverse the name of the legislation.
  In that CRS booklet that I provided my colleagues, I do apologize to 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is listed as Shays. He 
is the principal author. It is Shays/Meehan. But we will hear them 
repeatedly say Meehan/Shays. So much for substance. This is all about 
style on their part. We are concerned about the First Amendment, and we 
guarantee it will be protected.
  For those of my colleagues who do not have the CRS copy, I am pleased 
to announce that by the end of business today, for those on the web, 
the cite is www.house.gov/cho. That is www.house.gov/cho for the 
Internet

[[Page H3791]]

copy of the Congressional Research Service's factual analysis of the 
various substitutes that will be in front of us.
  Madam Chairman, I look forward to a substantive debate over the 
specifics of these issues, especially in regard to the 
constitutionality of the measures that we will be looking at.
  Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). But what difference does it 
make if it is called Meehan/Shays or Shays/Meehan?
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, if it does not make 
any difference, why not call it by its proper name, Shays/Meehan?
  Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, vote 
for Shays/Meehan then.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, Some may think the discussion of campaign 
finance reform is esoteric--not related to the real day to day problems 
and concerns of ordinary people. Wrong. If we are concerned to know why 
this country has the most unfair distribution of wealth in the 
industrialized world, and why the richest person in this country owns 
more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of our population-then you are 
talking about campaign finance reform, and the role that big money 
plays in the political process.
  If you want to know why last year Congress gave huge tax breaks for 
the rich and large Corporations, and then proceeded to cut Medicare by 
115 billion dollars--then you are talking about campaign reform, and 
the role that big money plays in the political process.
  If you want to know why this country spends more money per capita on 
health care than any other industrialized country, and why 40 million 
Americans have no health insurance at the same time as insurance 
companies and pharmaceutical companies make huge profits--then you are 
talking about campaign finance reform and the role that big money plays 
in the political process.
  And on and on it goes. The rich get richer, the middle class shrinks 
and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized 
world-and big money plays a major role in determining the agenda of 
both political parties.
  Mr. Speaker, the current campaign finance system is obscene and the 
situation is becoming worse and worse everyday.
  Our republican friends have recently made allegations against 
President Clinton regarding the influence that campaign contributions 
might have had on the Presidents policy towards China and Chinese 
missiles. This is a very serious allegation that should be fully and 
fairly investigated, but so should the role that campaign contributions 
play in our tobacco policy, in our health care policy, in our banking 
policy, in our environmental policy, and in many other areas.
  Since 1991 the pharmaceutical industry has given more that 18 million 
dollars in political contributions and today we have the highest cost 
of prescription drugs in the world. The oil gas and chemical industries 
have provided over 24 million dollars in campaign contributions, and 
they get away with murder in terms of environmental destruction.
  Some in this body say that the problem is with labor unions and the 
big money that labor spends. In the 1995-1996 election cycle 
corporations and groups and individuals representing business interests 
out spent labor 12 to 1. In fact, the wealthiest one quarter of one 
percent provides 80 percent of the campaign contributions and it is 
incomprehensible that some want to relax restrictions and enable the 
rich to contribute even more.
  Mr. Speaker, this congress must end the obscenity of the current 
system which allows big money to buy and sell politicians like we were 
just another commodity.
  This congress can learn a lot from my own state of Vermont which has 
passes serious campaign finance reform which severely limits the power 
of big money over the political process. Ultimately, what this congress 
must do is eliminate soft money completely; limit the total amount of 
money that can be spent in a campaign by a candidate, and move us in 
the direction of matching public funding with small individual 
contributions.
  The day must come when once more in this country democracy means one 
person one vote, and not the current obscenity in which multinational 
corporations and individuals control the process.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, a diverse coalition of citizens groups 
ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to the National 
Right to Life (NRLC) have demonstrated that the Shays/Meehan and the 
Hutchinson campaign reform bills are nothing short of attacks on 
freedom of speech.
  I hope my colleagues will take some time to read the following 
analysis distributed by National Right to Life Committee. The NRLC 
correctly points out that these two bills contain patently 
unconstitutional government regulations that should not be supported by 
the House of Representatives.

  The Shays-Meehan Bill's Year-Round Restrictions on First Amendment 
                                 Rights

       The most recent version of the Shays-Meehan bill (H.R. 
     3526) is taken from the September 29, 1997 version of the 
     Senate McCain-Feingold bill. This bill contains multiple 
     provisions that blatantly violate the Supreme Court's long-
     established First Amendment rulings. In Buckley v. Valeo 
     (1976) and later cases, the Court has emphatically held that 
     the government may not regulate commentary on politicians 
     except for ``express advocacy,'' a term that the Court has 
     said must be confined to communications that use explicit 
     words to expressly urge a vote for or against an identified 
     candidate.
       As the Court stated in Buckley, ``So long as persons and 
     groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the 
     election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate [i.e., 
     ``express advocacy''], they are free to spend as much as they 
     want to promote the candidate and his views.'' Such 
     constitutionally protected commentary on politicians' 
     positions is referred to by the legal term of art issue 
     advocacy. This memo summarizes multiple provisions of the 
     Shays-Meehan bill that infringe on such constitutionally 
     protected speech.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ For a fuller analysis of this bill, see NRLC's memo, ``An 
     Analysis of the Speech-Restriction Provisions of the Shays-
     Meehan Bill (H.R. 3526).'' For an examination of statements 
     by advocates of the bill, and their implications, see ``Do 
     American Voters Need Speech Nannies?'' by NRLC Legislative 
     Director Douglas Johnson (Sept. 30, 1997), available at 
     www.nrlc.org/dimwit.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


      year-round restrictions on constitutionally protected speech

       1. The bill would redefine illegal corporate campaign 
     activity so broadly that, at any time of any year, a non-PAC 
     incorporated organization would risk being the target of a 
     complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging 
     illegal corporate campaign expenditures, and subsequent 
     costly investigation and litigation, any time it issues a 
     print, broadcast, or other type of communication to the 
     public that mentions the name of a Member of Congress (or 
     other candidate) with any sort of explicit or implicit 
     viewpoint regarding the rightness or wrongness of that 
     politician's position. This is because any such commentary 
     could be viewed by some politician or regulator as 
     constituting ``unmistakable and unambiguous support for or 
     opposition to'' a candidate, which the bill would redefine 
     as ``express advocacy.'' (Section 201) For example, if 
     NRLC distributed a brochure that contained a description 
     of partial-birth abortion, followed by the simple 
     statement, ``On May 20, 1997, Senator Russ Feingold voted 
     against banning the brutal partial-birth abortion 
     procedure,'' NRLC would risk being subjected to 
     investigation and prosecution for engaging in speech that 
     expressed ``unmistakable . . . opposition'' to Senator 
     Feingold.
       2. Moreover, if a non-PAC organization is deemed to have 
     established ``coordination'' with a lawmaker or other 
     ``candidate'' (even by sharing a vendor--see #4 below), it 
     would be banned (at any time of any year) from issuing any 
     communication to the public that names that ``candidate'' and 
     ``is for the purpose of influencing a Federal election.'' 
     This is an extremely vague and sweeping restriction that 
     applies, as the bill says, ``regardless of whether the 
     communication is express advocacy.'' (See Section 201, 
     definition of ``expenditure.'')
       3. In addition, under Section 205, at any time of any year, 
     a non-PAC incorporated citizen group, if it has established 
     ``coordination'' (see #4 below), is prohibited from issuing 
     any communication to the public that is ``of value'' to a 
     candidate, ``regardless of whether the value being provided 
     is a communication that is express advocacy.'' Such a 
     communication is prohibited, as an illegal campaign 
     ``contribution,'' even if the communication contains the name 
     of no candidate. This could apply, for example, to an ad in a 
     newspaper that mentions the name of no politician, but that 
     calls for a ban on partial-birth abortions, if a politician 
     complains that the ad was ``of value'' to a political 
     opponent who opposes partial-birth abortion.


definition of ``coordination'' places unconstitutional restrictions on 
                 lobbying activities and issue advocacy

       4. The restrictions described in items #2 and #3 above 
     apply to any group that is deemed to have established 
     ``coordination'' with a candidate. The bill (Section 205) 
     vastly expands the current definition of ``coordination,'' in 
     10 separate clauses, so that an organization that 
     communicates with members of Congress regarding public policy 
     matters would be at constant risk of falling over these 
     ``coordination'' tripwires. For example:
       Many public policy organizations gather information on the 
     positions of members of Congress on certain issues through 
     use of a written questionnaire, and then disseminate that 
     information in communications to the pubic. But the 
     submission and return of such a questionnaire, with intent to 
     publicize the information obtained, would fall under one of 
     Section 205's multiple definitions of ``coordination''--that 
     is, a communication based on a ``general or particular 
     understanding with a candidate''--and therefore would be an 
     illegal corporate campaign expenditure.

[[Page H3792]]

       Another provision, declaring that an organization is 
     ``coordinated'' if it has engaged in ``policymaking 
     discussions'' with a ``candidate's campaign,'' could apply to 
     routine attempts by public policy groups to persuade 
     lawmakers of the merits of the organization's positions 
     (i.e., lobbying).
       Another provision would define ``coordination'' as the mere 
     sharing of a single professional vendor (a printer, artist, 
     or pollster, for example), during a two-year period, with a 
     congressional candidate.


the first amendment does not allow lawmakers to prohibit non-PAC groups 
                      from mentioning their names

       5. In addition to the restrictions described above, within 
     60 days of a congressional primary election (which occur as 
     early as March 1) or a general election, Section 201 places 
     an absolute ban on any non-PAC group broadcasting a 
     communication that even mentions the name of a ``candidate,'' 
     which includes all incumbent members of Congress. This 
     provision does not only require ``disclosure'' of funding 
     sources for such communications. Rather, it bans the naming 
     of politicians in broadcast communications to the public, 
     unless they are conducted under the entire panoply of 
     restrictions that apply to PACs--in other words, only federal 
     PACs are permitted to sponsor such ``politician-mentioning'' 
     communications. This ban would apply even to ads alerting 
     citizens to upcoming votes in Congress. [For further 
     discussion of the implications of allowing only PACs to 
     sponsor politician-mentioning communications, see the NRLC 
     memorandum, ``An Analysis of the Speech-Restrictive 
     Provisions of the Shays-Meehan Bill (HR 3526).'']


   the first amendment does not permit lawmakers to dictate ``speech 
        specifications'' for discussion of their voting records

       6. Sponsors of the bill make much of a so-called 
     ``exception'' (in Section 201) for printed material about 
     voting records and positions. But legal analysis of the 
     so-called ``exception'' reveals that it actually 
     underscores the sweeping restrictions implicit in the 
     underlying definitions. The ``exception'' would not allow, 
     but rather effectively defines as illegal corporate 
     campaign expenditures and thereby bans (to non-PACs), at 
     any time of any year, any printed materials (such as 
     typical ``scorecards'' and voter guides) that fail to 
     conform to a series of ``speech specifications.''
       For example, to qualify for the ``exception'' a publication 
     must be confined ``solely'' to information regarding votes or 
     positions, and must be presented ``in an educational 
     manner''--in other words, interpretation or commentary would 
     be verboten. Even if these requirements are met, the 
     ``exception'' explicitly excludes publications that discuss 
     the position on only one ``candidate''--for example, a 
     newspaper ad that urges letters and calls to a single local 
     congressman about an upcoming vote in Congress. But under the 
     First Amendment, Congress has no authority whatever to impose 
     such restrictions on the right of citizen groups to 
     disseminate and comment on lawmakers' voting records or 
     upcoming votes.


``soft money'' ban unconstitutionally nullifies the right of political 
             parties to engage in unrationed issue advocacy

       7. The bill (Section 101) completely prohibits organs of 
     the national political parties from receiving so-called 
     ``soft money''--a term that really refers to all funds that 
     are not rationed and controlled by the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act (FECA). This is unconstitutional. Under rulings 
     of the U.S. Supreme Court, the First Amendment protects the 
     right of political parties to sponsor communications that 
     discuss issues, or the positions of officeholders or 
     officeseekers on those issues (``issue advocacy''), without 
     being subjected to the rationing laws that the FECA applies 
     to communications that contain explicit endorsements of 
     candidates (``express advocacy''). The bill would effectively 
     nullify political parties' First Amendment right to engage in 
     issue advocacy, by requiring that all party ads be conducted 
     under the restrictions that currently apply only to express 
     advocacy communications (since the parties would be 
     prohibited from raising any money that did not conform to 
     those restrictions). If ``reform'' advocates successfully 
     obliterate the distinction between issue advocacy and express 
     advocacy with respect to political parties, they will then 
     redouble their attacks on issue advocacy by citizen groups 
     such as NRLC. Those who support free speech about political 
     figures should oppose all restrictions on issue advocacy, 
     whether engaged in by political parties, citizen groups, or 
     others.
                                  ____


The Hutchinson ``Freshman'' Bill (HR 2183) Violates the First Amendment 
  Rights of Citizen Groups, Political Parties, and Members of Congress

       When the House of Representatives soon revisits the issue 
     of ``campaign finance reform,'' the ``base bill'' will be HR 
     2183, sponsored by Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.), sometimes 
     referred to as the ``freshman'' bill. NRLC strongly opposes 
     the Hutchinson bill. This memo summarizes the most 
     objectionable elements of the bill.


 unconstitutional regulation of citizen groups' communications to the 
                                 public

       HR 2183 attempts to assert congressional authority to 
     monitor and regulate citizen groups' broadcast communications 
     to the public, in any month of any year, merely on grounds 
     that a communication mentions a member of Congress or other 
     federal politician. The bill would require that sponsoring 
     organizations report such communications to Congress. This 
     proposed requirement violates both the general constitutional 
     immunity of issue advocacy from governmental regulation, 
     enforced in numerous court decisions, and the specific 
     holdings of the Supreme Court in the 1995 case of McIntyre v. 
     Ohio Elections Commission, a 7-2 affirmation of the First 
     Amendment right to engage in anonymous issue advocacy.
       The Hutchinson requirement would apply whenever a group 
     spends in a year (1) $25,000 on communications ``relating 
     to'' (mentioning) a single politician, or (2) $100,000 on all 
     ``politician-mentioning'' communications nationally. Once a 
     group has spent an aggregate total of $100,000 on broadcast 
     communications that name politicians--even if they pertain 
     solely to upcoming votes on legislation--then EVERY such 
     expenditure must be reported to Congress, even a $100 radio 
     ad.


                 unconstitutional ban on ``soft money''

       The bill completely prohibits organs of the national 
     political parties from receiving so-called ``soft money''--a 
     term that really refers to all funds that are not rationed 
     and controlled by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). 
     This is unconstitutional. Under rulings of the U.S. Supreme 
     Court, the First Amendment protects the right of political 
     parties to sponsor communications that discuss issues, or the 
     positions of officeholders or officeseekers on those issues 
     (called ``issue advocacy''), without being subjected to 
     the rationing laws that FECA applies to communications 
     that contain explicit endorsements of candidates (called 
     ``express advocacy''). The bill would effectively nullify 
     political parties' First Amendment right to engage in 
     issue advocacy, by requiring that all party ads be 
     conducted under the restrictions that currently apply to 
     express advocacy communications (since the parties would 
     be prohibited from raising any money that did not conform 
     to those restrictions).
       If ``reform'' advocates successfully obliterate the 
     distinction between issue advocacy and express advocacy with 
     respect to political parties, they will then redouble their 
     attacks on issue advocacy by citizen groups such as NRLC. 
     Those who support free speech about political figures should 
     oppose all restrictions on issue advocacy, whether engaged in 
     by political parties, citizen groups, or others.


      Unconstitutional Ban on Endorsements by Members of Congress

       The bill would make it unlawful for any Member of Congress 
     to endorse the fundraising or membership-recruitment efforts 
     of a citizen group, such as NRLC, which at any time of any 
     year engages in ``any communication which refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for election for Federal office,'' which 
     includes all incumbents except those who have announced their 
     retirement.
       In other words, an organization becomes ``tainted'' if it 
     issues any communication, at any time of the year, that so 
     much as mentions the name of a member of Congress. For 
     example, if an organization sponsors a single newspaper ad or 
     sends out a single newsletter saying that a lawmaker will be 
     voting or has already voted on a certain bill, this 
     restriction would be triggered. Such a mettlesome 
     organization would no longer be eligible to receive the 
     endorsement of any member of Congress. Communications that 
     mention the names of lawmakers are a pervasive ingredient in 
     NRLC's overall pro-life advocacy, throughout the year, so the 
     bill effectively prohibits lawmakers from endorsing NRLC's 
     fundraising efforts, as Congressman Henry Hyde and others 
     have done in the past.
       The concept underlying this provision--that there is 
     something ``corrupting'' about Members of Congress endorsing 
     the work of issue-oriented organizations with which they 
     agree--is very offensive. This provision in effect applies an 
     unconstitutional penalty to NRLC for exercising its First 
     Amendment right to engage in commentary on a federal 
     politician, and also violates NRLC's constitutional right of 
     association. Moreover, this proposed endorsement ban is an 
     unconstitutional infringement on the rights of association 
     and freedom of speech of each and every Member of Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2183) to 
amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the financing 
of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________