[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H4570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform has been a major topic 
for months on the House floor and, I understand, will continue to be a 
major debate. The last time the Congress has passed any major reforms 
dealing with campaigning was in the 1970s, and every problem that we 
had back then we have today, only it is much worse. Today, in order to 
comply with the law, we fill out tens of thousands of pages of forms, 
there is total misunderstanding of what the rules and regulations are, 
there are numerous fines being levied against many Members and many 
candidates, there are many inaccuracies put into the record mainly 
because a lot of people cannot even understand the rules and 
regulations, and I would not be surprised if just about everybody who 
ever filled out a financial reform at one time or the other 
inadvertently had some inaccuracies. All the challenges to these 
records have always been done by opponents and usually politicized, and 
it has not been motivated for the best of reasons.
  New reforms are now being proposed, and I predict they will be no 
more successful than the numerous rules and regulations that we imposed 
on candidates in the 1970s. The reason I say this is that we are 
treating a symptom and not the cause. The symptom, of course, is very 
prevalent. Everybody knows there is a lot of big money that influences 
politics. I understand that there is $100 million a month spent by the 
lobbyists trying to influence our votes on the House floor and hundreds 
of millions of dollars trying to influence our elections. So some would 
conclude, therefore, that is the case, we have to regulate the money, 
the money is the problem.
  But I disagree. Money is not the problem. The basic problem is that 
there is so much to be gained by coming to Washington, lobbying 
Congress and influencing legislation. The problem is not that we have 
too much freedom. The problem is that we have too much government, and 
if we think that just more regulations and more government will get rid 
of the problem, we are kidding ourselves. What we need is smaller 
government, less influence of the government on everything that we do 
in our personal lives as well as our economic lives. The Congress is 
always being involved.
  Not only domestically, but Congress is endlessly involved in many 
affairs overseas. We are involved by passing out foreign aid, getting 
involved in programs like the IMF and World Bank. We are interfering in 
internal affairs militarily in over a hundred countries at the present 
time. So there is a tremendous motivation for people to come here and 
try to influence us. They see it as a good investment.
  More rules and regulations, I believe, will do one thing if the size 
of government is not reduced. What we will do is drive the influence 
under ground. That is a natural consequence as long as there is an 
incentive to invest.
  Under the conditions that we have today the only way we can avoid the 
influence is not ourselves, we, the Members of Congress, being a good 
investment. We should be independent, courageous and do the things that 
are right rather than being influenced by the money. But the rules and 
the regulations will not do very much to help solve this problem. 
Attacking basic fundamental rights would certainly be the wrong thing 
to do, and that is what so much of this legislation is doing. It is 
attacking the fundamental right to speak out to petition the government 
to spend one's money the way he sees fit, and this will only make the 
problems much worse.
  Mr. Speaker, government is too big, our freedoms are being infringed 
upon, and then we come along and say those individuals who might want 
to change even for the better, they will have their rights infringed 
upon.
  There are many groups who come to Washington who do not come to buy 
influence, but they come to try to influence their government, which is 
a very legitimate thing. Think of the groups that come here who want to 
defend the Second Amendment. Think of the groups that want to defend 
right to life. Think of the groups that want to defend the principles 
of the American Civil Liberties Union and the First Amendment. And then 
there are groups who would defend property rights, and there will be 
groups who will come who will be lobbyist types and influential groups, 
and they want to influence elections, and they may be adamantly opposed 
to the United Nations and interference in foreign policies overseas. 
They have a legitimate right to come here.
  Sometimes I wonder if those individuals who are now motivated to put 
more regulations on us might even fear the fact that some of the good 
guys, some of the good groups who are coming here to influence 
Washington to reduce the size of government are no longer able to.

                          ____________________