[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.
____________________