[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4696-H4697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               SOFT MONEY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I fully expected that we would be debating 
the rule on campaign finance reform at this time, but, unfortunately, 
there has been a delay. I do want to say that I think the debate today 
was enlightening at times, entertaining at other times. There were many 
Members of this body who have done great work on campaign finance 
reform, bipartisan work on campaign finance reform over the last 3 or 4 
years: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), people like the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentlewoman from Maryland 
(Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), new members 
like the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Adam Smith), effective Members who have sat down 
to try to come up with a bill that is fair to both political parties. 
That is all we are trying to do here.
  We do not have the perfect bill. We do not have the special magic 
wand that is going to make the system perfect. But let me tell you what 
we do

[[Page H4697]]

have. We have a bill the Democrats and Republicans have worked on in a 
bipartisan and bicameral way.
  This bill is McCain-Feingold in the United States Senate, where 
Democrats and Republicans have been working together in that body. In 
fact, they, even when it came to a vote, got a majority of the Members 
of the other body to vote for the bill. Unfortunately, under Senate 
rules, they need a 60-vote majority to get by the filibuster.
  In the House of Representatives, we have a golden opportunity. I have 
felt over the period of the last months more and more Members are 
willing to take on a special interest, fight for bipartisan campaign 
finance reform. The number of Members on both sides of the aisle 
committed to the Shays-Meehan bill has been growing every day.
  I might add that it seems that every time the leadership on the other 
side of the aisle puts up another obstacle to passing true meaningful 
bipartisan campaign finance reform, it seems that we get more Members 
supporting our effort.
  So I am not sure that the strategy to complicate the matter, the 
strategy to delay and procrastinate and capitulate, frankly, I do not 
think that it is working. In fact, more Members are supporting the 
Shays-Meehan bill today than have at any point in time over the last 
several years.
  They have joined with editorial boards all across America, the Los 
Angeles Times, New York Times, U.S.A. Today, the Christian Science 
Monitor. They have joined with the League of Women Voters and Common 
Cause and Public Citizen and people in public interest groups who have 
been fighting to find a way to reduce the influence of money in 
American politics.
  Critical to our proposal is making soft money illegal. I do not know 
how we could have spent millions of dollars over the last several 
months conducting investigations and having hearings, politically 
charged hearings about the abuses of soft money in the last 
Presidential election, and now we have an opportunity to have a bill 
that bans soft money, and the leadership is procrastinating, delaying, 
promising a vote, no vote, pulling rules.
  Time and time again, you will hear opponents of reform argue that 
soft money is not a problem. Let us be clear. When they are defending 
soft money, they are really defending big money. That is where the 
American public clearly disagrees.
  The soft money loophole allows corporations and labor unions to 
bypass Federal election laws and tap into their treasury accounts to 
funnel millions of dollars into the parties, money that is then spent 
to influence Federal elections.
  The fact is that, as long as soft money is allowed, our campaign 
finance system will be the type of system that invites corruption. That 
is why we are trying to change this system.
  The sham ads, issue ads, opponents of campaign finance reform tell us 
that we must protect free speech. But when they say free speech, they 
mean big money. The fact is that the Shays-Meehan bill does not ban any 
type of communication. It merely reigns in those campaign 
advertisements that have been masquerading as so-called issue advocacy.
  According to the United States Supreme Court, communications that 
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified 
candidate can be subject to regulation.
  The question is not whether the Federal Government should regulate 
campaign advertisement. It already does. The real question is whether 
or not the current test adequately identifies campaigns advertisements. 
The answer is simple. No, it does not. The Shays-Meehan bill will give 
us an opportunity to make these corrections.

                          ____________________