[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12015-S12018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, now that it seems the debate on 
campaign finance is over for this session, I wanted to make a few 
comments concerning the current approach to reform and what I believe 
would be the best approach. I agree that something needs to be done in 
fixing the system, but the problem is that the approaches debated this 
year raise constitutional issues.
  I have supported Congressional reform since entering Congress in 
1990, especially term limits. If we want to end the so-called money 
chase, then lets end the life terms in Congress. Many outside groups 
who favor campaign finance reform are against term limits for they 
believe it to be undemocratic. I find quieting peoples voices and 
stopping them from participating in the electoral process to be even 
more undemocratic, and probably unconstitutional.
  We have heard that people have become disenchanted with the process. 
I believe this disenchantment has less to do with the fact that 
campaigns have become expensive, than they are tired of campaign laws 
being broken. Let's enforce the laws on the books before we pass more 
laws and make it even more difficult for citizens to participate. Let's 
not penalize law abiding citizens because some elected officials will 
not follow current laws.
  Regarding expensive campaigns, lets take a look at some numbers. When 
I first came to Congress in 1990, there were 1,759 federal election 
candidates in the U.S., who raised 471.7 million dollars and spent 
446.3 million dollars. This roughly averages to 268,168 dollars raised 
and 253,753 dollars spent by each federal candidate in the U.S.
  By comparison, in 1996 there were 2,605 federal election candidates 
which raised 790.5 million dollars and spent 765.3 million dollars. 
This means that each candidate raised 303,454 dollars and spent 293,781 
dollars.
  We can see that spending on campaigns has increased but so has the 
number of candidates. This influx of new candidates could make some 
incumbents nervous. But, I say that competition is a positive thing for 
the electoral system. So, when we hear that there are fewer people who 
want to run because of the cost of campaigns, we know that this is 
incorrect according to the Federal Election Commission.
  Yes, fewer incumbents are running for reelection, but more people are 
trying to replace them in representing their states or districts.
  With overall campaign spending going up, I can understand how some in 
this body and around the United States find that the cost of campaigns 
are just too high. However, during my 63 town meetings in 1998, this 
topic has come up only a few times. But, more and more people are 
complaining abut taxes being too high.
  Last year, as a percentage of GDP, federal tax revenue reached its 
highest level since World War II to 19.8% and rising to 19.9% this 
year. I am much more worried about the working man and woman who must 
work long hard hours to make ends meet only to find that nearly 40% of 
their hard earned money must be given to the local, state, and federal 
government. I think we should give the American people a tax cut.
  My town meetings also indicated that Coloradans are concerned about

[[Page S12016]]

the national debt and the interest their children and grandchildren 
will pay. I don't see this getting much attention by the so-called 
``good government'' groups. I am more concerned about the abusive 5.5 
trillion dollar debt that we have levied on this nation. Let's pass my 
bill, S. 1608, the American Debt Repayment Act, and get this burden off 
the American people's back.
  In regards to campaign finance reform, I believe that reform should 
pass three tests. First, it should be voluntary; Second, it should be 
inclusive, not exclusive; And third, it should be constitutional.
  The United States is based on freedom and we have become the model 
for freedom around the world. However, with freedom comes rights and 
responsibilities. One of these rights is the ability to join or not to 
join, to participate or not to participate, to speak or not to speak. 
The decision to participate should be made by the individual and 
Congress has the responsibility to preserve this right for all 
Americans.
  When I ran for the Senate, people participated in my campaign only if 
they wanted to. They could give either their time or their money. I had 
to assume that if they did, they did so because they believed in me and 
the ideas that I stressed. I never forced any person to put out a sign, 
wear a button, or give a contribution to my campaign, it was always 
voluntary.
  We need to ensure that any campaign finance reform makes 
participation a voluntary activity for all individuals. If someone 
doesn't want to give, they have the right to say no or at least should 
be able to provide their consent.
  That is why it is important to include the Paycheck Protection Act in 
any campaign finance reform. I find it confusing at best that we allow 
labor unions to take money out of a paycheck and use it on political 
matters without their members expressed written consent.
  According to the Department of Labor, 80 percent, or 8.1 million, of 
all private sector workers covered by a union contract are required 
under that contract to pay union dues as a condition of employment, 
American workers should not have to choose between their jobs which 
provide the food and clothing or political activity with which they may 
disagree. I have yet to hear a solid reason how asking people to give 
their consent to use their required dues for political purposes would 
hinder a group's ability to participate.
  When I was a small business owner, I was a member of a few groups, 
but I joined each one voluntarily. I could have removed my name at any 
time without any threat to my job or well being. Whenever a person is 
forced to join a group, like those in a closed shop, their dues should 
never be used for political purposes unless they first state that it is 
OK to do so. To do less would be deceptive.
  Another problem area is the possibility that the FCC may require free 
TV time to be provided to federal candidates.
  First, I have never believed that a regulatory agency should act 
without the authorization of Congress. The Constitution states that 
``all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress 
of the United States * * * .'' Regulatory agencies only enforce the 
laws as set by Congress, not make them.
  Second, the American media is a large, vast enterprise. I understand 
that the broadcasting medium is unique, but I am afraid that this may 
take us down a slippery slope. How long will it take before we order 
free space in newspapers and magazines, or free time on cable, or free 
web sites on the Internet, or free postage for our mailings, just in 
the name of clean campaigns?
  Lastly, for the states without any major media outlets, such as New 
Jersey and Delaware, their neighboring states which supply the 
broadcasting signal will be subsidizing not only their own federal 
candidates but also the federal candidates of the states that depend on 
them for the broadcast. Not only do I believe it is wrong for the FCC 
to implement this without Congressional authorization, but it would 
force the media to be unwitting volunteers for candidates.
  Freedom must be preserved for all individuals to choose the ideas 
that they support or oppose. Thomas Jefferson said it best, ``To compel 
a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions 
which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.''
  The Supreme Court has been very clear in its decisions regarding the 
First Amendment and campaign finance laws. Since the post-Watergate 
changes to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, twenty-four 
Congressional actions have been declared unconstitutional, with nine 
rejections based on the First Amendment. Out of those nine, four dealt 
directly with campaign finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme 
Court has ruled that political spending equals political speech. This 
Senate attempted to change this through a constitutional amendment 
limiting the amount one can spend in a campaign, which only tells me 
that this fact is undeniably recognized by this body.
  The First Amendment is not there to hinder Americans from speaking 
their ideas, but to ensure that their ideas can be spoken. One way 
Congress and outside groups speak is through political campaigns, and 
it is a fact of life that it takes money. After deciding the Valeo vs. 
Buckley case, former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated 
that, ``One of the points of which all Members of the Court agree is 
that money is essential for effective communication in a political 
campaign.''
  When we pull the rug out from underneath people who want to speak 
their mind, whether they have little or lots of money, we pull the rug 
out from underneath their basic right to freedom of speech.
  From the much quoted Buckley case, this fact is placed into its 
proper context. It states, ``A restriction on the amount of money a 
person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign 
necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the 
number of issues discussed, the depth of exploration, and the size of 
audience reached. This is because virtually every means of 
communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of 
money.'' This encompasses the ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' 
to the more ``expensive modes of communication'' such as radio and 
television.
  The Court ensures that ``a major purpose of the [First] Amendment was 
to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs'' and that any 
limitations of contributions and/or expenditures ``operate in an area 
of the most fundamental First Amendment activities.'' While, the Court 
found that contribution limits were constitutional up to a certain 
point, expenditure limits were not.
  The Buckley decision also stated that ``* * * the mere growth in the 
cost of federal election campaigns in and of itself provides no basis 
for government restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending.'' 
They went further to say, ``the First Amendment denies government the 
power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our 
Constitution, it is not the government, but the people--individually as 
citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political 
committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of 
debate on public issues in a political campaign.''
  Simply stated, the government can not ration or regulate the 
political speech of a citizen through spending limits or limit its 
quantity any more than it can regulate what newspapers publishes, its 
circulation, or when it can be printed.
  Which brings me to another point concerning who and how one can spend 
their money. Our system should not exclude people from expressing their 
ideas. In the much debated McCain-Feingold bill, there is a provision 
which would not allow groups to issue ads 60 days before an election. A 
person or a group's speech is just as valid the day before an election 
as it is 61 days before. We all have experienced attack ads during a 
campaign and many times they are very difficult to take. But to quiet 
them so that a candidate can have an easier time during an election is 
just flat wrong. Every American should have the opportunity to speak in 
favor or against any elected official whenever they choose.
  So how can I support legislation which I believe would make our 
system exclusive, when our political process

[[Page S12017]]

should be inclusive for all citizens who want to speak their minds? I 
truly do believe it is wrong for me to try and silence people who want 
to criticize my voting record. That is their right and they should be 
able to do so whenever they choose and I should be able to defend it 
whenever I choose and groups that support positions I take should be 
able to support my position whenever they choose.

  From the beginning, I have believed the 60 day blackout provision to 
be unconstitutional and a recent case in Michigan shows this to be 
right. In August, a federal court struck down, on First Amendment 
grounds, a Michigan election rule prohibited incorporated groups and 
labor unions from using the names and likeness of political candidates 
for 45 days before the election. The state argued that the ban should 
be allowed because it applied ``only'' to a limited time period and did 
not apply to PACs and that ``the rule does not suffer from 
constitutional overbreadth because it is content neutral, and is 
narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in the integrity 
of the electoral process.'' However, the U.S. District Judge Robert 
Holmes Bell ruled that the ban violated the First Amendment.
  Judge Bell ruled that ``[I]n this case the censorial effect of the 
Rule on issue advocacy is neither speculative nor insubstantial.'' He 
also stated that ``[W]hile the time period is short, it could involve a 
critical time period for communications. . . . A 45-day blackout on 
using names would protect incumbents seeking re-election from 
grassroots lobbying efforts on pending legislation, and incumbents 
would soon learn to schedule votes on controversial legislation during 
this time period and thus avoid unwanted publicity and attention. . . . 
The ban on the use of candidates' names is a heavy burden on highly 
protected First Amendment expression. Voters have an interest in 
knowing what legislators are associated with pending litigation, an 
organization's ability to educate the public on pending legislation is 
unduly hampered if they are unable to name the legislators involved.''
  In conclusion, Judge Bell said, ``The mere fact that we are dealing 
with a corporation rather than an individual does not remove its speech 
from the ambit of the First Amendment. . . . Because the rule not only 
prohibits expenditures in support of or in opposition to a candidate, 
but also prohibits the use of corporate treasury funds for 
communications containing the name or likeness of a candidate, without 
regard to whether the communication can be understood as supporting or 
opposing the candidate, there is a realistic danger that the Rule will 
significantly compromise the First Amendment protections of not only 
the Plaintiff, but many other organizations which seek to have a voice 
in political issue advocacy.''
  I believe Judge Bell's ruling will stand the test of appeal for he 
stated that any decision regarding the ``constitutionality of campaign 
finance must begin with and usually ends'' with the Buckley case. And 
again, the Buckley decision clearly states that, ``. . . the 
distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and advocacy of 
election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in practical 
application. Candidates, especially incumbents, are intimately tied to 
public issues involving legislative proposals and governmental actions. 
Not only do candidates campaign on the basis of their positions on 
various public issues, but campaigns themselves generate issues of 
public interest.''
  This clearly states that it is a constitutional right to criticize an 
elected official and their record, and that no citizen needs to ask 
permission from the government when and how this can be done. Believe 
me, I can understand wanting to control the debate of a campaign and 
silence some of the critics, but I cannot constitutionally, or in good 
conscience, do that. For every citizen has the right to be a part of 
the debate. I believe that placing a road block to the First Amendment 
only closes doors to the system not opens them.
  We will always hear that money is the reason why people don't run or 
get involved. I can say that I am not a wealthy man. I started a 
veterinarian hospital with sweat and hard work. When I decided to run 
for Congress, I didn't have a lot of money, but worked hard to make 
myself known. When I ran for the Senate, I still wasn't wealthy, but I 
did run against a wealthy man. When the campaign was over, I had more 
votes and no campaign debt despite the fact that I was outspent by 
750,000 dollars, three-quarter of a million dollars. You don't have to 
have a lot of money to win a race, just the right message. I will not 
vote for legislation that I believe would stop someone from speaking 
their message, even if it's my opponent.
  While I do not believe closing the door on the First Amendment is the 
right approach, I do believe that opening up the system to fuller and 
more timely disclosure would provide for a much more robust campaign 
system.
  This is why I introduced my own bill, the Campaign Finance Integrity 
Act, S. 1190. My bill does not restrict one from exercising their 
political speech rights, but asks for complete and honest disclosure of 
all campaign spending. While this statement is not one of endorsement 
concerning my legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union did state 
in a review of the McCain-Feingold bill that, ``Disclosure, rather than 
limitation, of large soft money contributions to political parties, is 
the more appropriate and less restrictive alternative.'' My bill does 
just that. As a matter of fact, I believe my bill has some of the 
strongest disclosure requirements of any bill introduced.
  My bill also:
  Requires candidates to raise at least 50 percent of their 
contributions from individuals in the state or district in which they 
are running.
  Equalize contributions from individuals and political action 
committees (PACs) by raising the individual limit from $1000 to $2500 
and reducing the PAC limit from $5000 to $2500.
  Indexes individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation.
  Reduces the influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing 
political party committees to match dollar for dollar the personal 
contribution of a candidate above $5000, by using only hard money.

  Requires organizations, groups, and political party committees to 
disclose within 24 hours the amount and type of independent 
expenditures over $1,000 in support of or against a candidate. Only the 
organization discloses it expenditures, not the names of the individual 
donors.
  Requires corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, 
voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiation fees or 
payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and 
requires annual full disclosure of those activities to union members 
and shareholders.
  Prohibits depositing of an individual contribution by a campaign 
unless the individual's profession and employer are reported.
  Encourages the Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports 
by computers and other emerging technologies and to make that 
information accessible to the public on the Internet less than 24 hours 
of receipt.
  Completely bans the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings.
  Lastly, S. 1190 creates a tax deduction for political contributions 
up to $100 for individuals and $200 for a joint return to encourage 
small donations.
  Another way to ``clean up'' the campaign finance system and reduce 
the so-called special interest money is to reduce the size and scope of 
the Federal Government and I am not alone in believing this. Last year, 
Rasmussen Research did a survey showing that 62% of Americans think 
that reducing government spending would reduce corruption in 
government. The same survey showed that 44% think that cutting 
government spending would do more to reduce corruption than campaign 
finance reform, while 42% think campaign finance reform would reduce 
corruption more than cutting government spending. I have said many 
times, if the government rids itself of special interest funding and 
corporate welfare, then there would be little influence left for these 
large donors.
  I know that no one in this chamber takes the first amendment lightly. 
It is the cornerstone by which many of the rights we enjoy today are 
set. It is there to ensure that the Government does not control us, but 
that the Government is under control. In 1808, Thomas Jefferson stated 
what the first

[[Page S12018]]

amendment should and would mean to each of us--``The liberty of 
speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And again in 1828, 
he said, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when 
permitted to freely be expressed. The agitation it produces must be 
submitted to.'' This is why any campaign finance reform should be 
reform that preserves the right of free speech and which allows all 
Americans to voice their opinion.

                          ____________________