[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 111 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. JIM KOLBE

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 6, 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 campaigns for elections for Federal office, and 
     for other purposes:

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, talk about ``deja vu all over again.'' It 
seems I have been here many times before, speaking out on Campaign 
Finance Reform. By now, I hope all my colleagues believe that after all 
the hours of debate in the past several weeks that we have fully 
explored this issue in the House of Representatives.
  My concerns with reforming the system remain as they were the 
previous times I stated my views. Our campaign financing laws need 
improvement, but I do not agree with taxpayer financing of campaigns 
nor limits on political speech. Increased disclosure will cure many 
ills in the system; and there are other reforms needed also.
  During consideration of Campaign Finance Reform over the past several 
weeks, I have again to require at least half of a federal candidate's 
campaign funds come from the state in which he runs. I have voted to 
make individual's contributions as important as those of political 
action committees. I have voted to make sure that only citizens vote 
and that only citizens can make campaign contributions. I have voted to 
ban soft money in federal campaigns. I have voted for increased and 
more timely disclosure of campaign contributions. I have voted to 
ensure that a wealthy candidate cannot use his personal funds to buy an 
election in a contest with a candidate with limited personal funds. And 
I have voted against any attempt to limit citizens' right to political 
speech. None of this is new to my constituents in Southern Arizona; 
I've made these same points numerous times.
  In the final analysis, it is up to the integrity of the candidates 
and to the vigilance of our citizens to ensure fair and honest 
elections. No matter how many laws we pass, there is always a weak spot 
that can be exploited by those who will.
  Today, I cast my vote both for the ``freshman bill'' and for the 
Doolittle bill because, those two most closely reflect the changes I 
believe will improve our system. Neither is the total answer, but 
voting for the Shays-Meehan Bill goes against everything I believe in 
terms of preserving freedom of political speech. I may not like the 
fact that groups can ``attack'' me any more than I like having people 
burn the flag. But freedom to band together to criticize elected 
officials is a right that should not be taken away. The Supreme Court 
has already ruled on where the limits lie and I do not think we need to 
further limit speech. Nor can the advocates of Shays-Meehan expect the 
public to take seriously their effort when, in order to keep their 
coalition intact, they rejected all efforts to include in their reforms 
the largest single player on the political scene--labor unions.
  In retrospect, we should probably look to creating a Commission with 
the powers given the Military Base Closing Commission. Since Congress 
has 535 ``experts'' in running campaigns, it may take something like 
that to enact reasonable, constitutional reforms.

                          ____________________