[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 111 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1611]]
               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. LOUIS STOKES

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 5, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2183) to 
     amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the 
     financing of campaign for elections for Federal office, and 
     for other purposes:

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3526, the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1998, the Shays-Meehan substitute. 
This important measure will remove the element of ``soft money'' raised 
at the Federal level, while curbing its influence on Federal elections 
through State parties.
  By weighing in on such unlimited contributions, we can overwhelmingly 
reduce the appearance of wealthy individuals placing a stranglehold on 
our Nation's party system. It is our responsibility to close these 
loopholes which encourage the endless quest for funds in our election 
system.
  While strengthening the laws governing campaign finance, Shay-Meehan 
seeks to weed out the special interests who attempt to influence 
elections with unregulated sham advertisements. This measure expands 
the definition of what constitutes ``express advocacy'' advertisements 
by third party groups who circumvent current campaign finance 
regulations. Such advertisements, while purporting to be issue 
advocacy, have created a negative and costly environment for candidates 
to debate issues during the campaign season.
  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have weighed the merits of 
measures that seek to improve our political system against those that 
have an adverse influence on it. Unfortunately, there have been 
attempts by our colleagues to weaken the Shays-Meehan substitute by 
imposing ``poison pill'' amendments to the measure. Some of these would 
not only limit the effectiveness of Shays-Meehan, but would hinder 
specific rights provided for all voting Americans.
  For example, I strongly oppose efforts allowing States to require 
picture identification in order to vote. This affront To Federal anti-
discrimination requirements has no place in a debate over campaign 
finance. Additionally, I take exception to amendments requiring 
candidates to raise a specific percentage of campaign funds from within 
their home State and the elimination of particular fundraising 
mechanisms, such as ``bundling.'' I have voted against these amendments 
because such limitations place far too many candidates at a 
disadvantage, especially minorities and females, while still not 
remedying the core problems relating to our current campaign financing 
system.
  It has become clear that the financing of Federal elections has 
become too large a concern for both congressional candidates and 
incumbents alike. During the 1996 election cycle, candidates for both 
the House and Senate reported spending over $765 million, a 72 percent 
increase over 1990. As campaign costs continue to outpace the rate of 
inflation, particularly media expenses, candidates are forced to spend 
disproportionate amounts of time raising funds just to remain 
competitive.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support final passage of the 
Shays-Meehan substitute. I believe now is the time to restore the 
American people's faith in the electoral process by reining in on the 
unsavory special interests who pollute our political system. Support 
the Shays-Meehan substitute. Our democracy deserves nothing less.

                          ____________________