[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1227-E1228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            CAMPAIGN FINANCE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 24, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I insert my Washington Report for 
Wednesday, June 24, 1998 in the Congressional Record.

                       Limiting Campaign Spending

       Hoosiers will sometimes ask me why Congress doesn't simply 
     change the system for

[[Page E1228]]

     financing congressional races. They are concerned about the 
     rapidly escalating cost of campaigns and the ``money chase'' 
     by candidates, and there is usually a ``Just fix it'' tone to 
     their question. It can obviously be difficult for Members of 
     Congress to change a system under which they were elected, 
     but there are other, more fundamental reasons why campaign 
     finance reform is so difficult--reasons arising out of a 
     Supreme Court decision made more than two decades ago.
       The Buckley case: The debate over campaign finance reform 
     has become closely linked to the First Amendment rights of 
     speech, expression, and association. In a famous 1976 
     decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that the 
     giving and spending of campaign contributions were forms of 
     political speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. The 
     Court, however, distinguished between the constitutional 
     protection afforded campaign contributions to a candidate by 
     individuals, political action committees (PACs), or other 
     groups and the protection afforded campaign spending by the 
     candidate or others for direct communications with voters. 
     Congress, the Court concluded, could place reasonable limits 
     on campaign contributions to candidates because those 
     contributions pose the possibility of corruption, or at least 
     the appearance of corruption. Campaign spending by candidates 
     or others, on the other hand, could not be so limited because 
     the risk of corruption was less apparent and did not justify 
     restrictions on the free speech rights of candidates.
       The Buckley case has been a very large obstacle to 
     meaningful campaign finance reform. The upshot of the 
     decision is that Congress can properly limit the amount an 
     individual or PAC can give to a candidate, but not the 
     overall amount spent by any given candidate. Congress has the 
     authority to limit campaign spending indirectly through a 
     voluntary system of public financing, as is used in 
     Presidential campaigns, but resistance to public financing 
     makes that alternative unlikely. Buckley has helped spawn a 
     campaign finance system where hundreds of millions of dollars 
     are spent each year on federal elections.
       Need for reform: I believe it is time for the Supreme Court 
     to revisit the Buckley decision. I agree that campaign 
     spending deserves some protection as free speech, but also 
     believe spending can be restricted consistent with the 
     Constitution. As the Court in Buckley acknowledged, campaign 
     spending limits could be upheld if there were compelling 
     governmental interests to justify such limits. The Court did 
     not find those compelling interests existed in 1976. I 
     believe they exist today with over 20 years of documented 
     evidence.
       Time fundraising: First, spending caps can be justified as 
     a way to limit the harmful effects of fundraising on the 
     legislative process and our system of representative 
     government. Candidates today are engaged in an ever-
     escalating effort to raise money. In 1976 my campaign cost 
     about $100,000; in the last election it cost $1 million. The 
     practical effect of the money chase is that candidates spend 
     more time raising money and less time meeting with 
     constituents and doing their legislative work. They are not 
     gathering information, analyzing policy, or debating the 
     issues with their fellow Members. They are not learning what 
     questions and problems most trouble the voters or going to 
     public forums to hold their views up to public scrutiny. 
     Consequently, the legislative process suffers.
       Money wins: Second, spending caps can be justified as a way 
     to reduce anti-competitive electoral practices. The simple 
     fact is that the candidates who spend the most usually, but 
     not always, win. Wealthy or well-funded candidates have a 
     decided advantage in seeking office. Too many talented and 
     energetic people simply choose not to run because they don't 
     have the stomach to get into the money chase or because they 
     are dismissed as not being viable candidates without the 
     money. Incumbents are fully aware of this dynamic and they 
     exploit it. They amass large war chests to scare away the 
     competition, and as a result many incumbents today run 
     unopposed. The upshot is that political debate is curtailed, 
     and people with large amounts of money drown out everybody 
     else's speech.
       Corruption: Third, spending limits can be justified as a 
     way to go after the threat of corruption. Most voters today 
     believe their elected representatives are beholden to people 
     and interests with money, not to them. Many campaign 
     contributions may come from the candidate's natural political 
     base, but if he has to seek an unlimited amount of money he 
     will have to tap money from outside his natural supporters. 
     And that puts a lot of pressure on him to take positions he 
     does not favor and do things he does not want to do. Every 
     act an elected official takes, whether to vote one way or the 
     other, to introduce a bill or not, to deliver a speech, to 
     conduct a committee hearing, has to be assessed in terms of 
     its potential to attract or repel campaign funds. This 
     situation feeds voter cynicism and disillusionment with 
     elected officials and with government.
       Conclusion: A host of legislative proposals to address 
     these problems are being shot down by references to the 
     Buckley decision and the First Amendment. I have never 
     understood the different treatment of contributions and 
     expenditures in Buckley. My view is that if government is 
     justified in restricting contributions it is justified in 
     limiting spending as well. Democracy can be threatened by 
     excessive activity on either the spending or the contribution 
     side of campaign finance.
       It is time for the Supreme Court to review and modify the 
     Buckley decision. The government has a strong interest in 
     restoring the health of our democracy. The very essence of 
     representative government is challenged by the present regime 
     of money raising. Money has produced a crisis in our 
     democratic system. Voters perceive that money too often 
     controls who runs and who wins and that candidates spend too 
     much time chasing money rather than listening to them. They 
     become disillusioned and their disillusionment leads to 
     disengagement.
       Surely the Court can find a way under our Constitution to 
     prevent money from skewing electoral results or from 
     disproportionately influencing the priorities, the 
     activities, and the decisions of our elected representatives. 
     We simply have to find a way to preserve democracy without 
     sacrificing free speech. If we are to find a way to 
     reinvigorate our democracy, we must reexamine the Buckley 
     case.

     

                          ____________________