[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 25, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1091-E1092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTION OF THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE AND POLITICAL FREEDOM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 25, 1999

  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, today Majority Whip Tom DeLay and I are 
joining the chorus of calls in Congress for campaign finance reform 
because we agree that the current system is broken. There is something 
fundamentally wrong with the way political campaigns in America today 
are financed.
  However, the reforms encompassed in the bill we are introducing today 
take a very different direction than most bills that have been 
introduced on campaign finance thus far. These bills share a common 
thread--they call for more government regulation into federal 
campaigns.
  I believe that the proposals that call for greater regulation of our 
campaign finance system misdiagnose the problem. I submit that what has 
caused our failed campaign finance system is the regulation itself. If 
we want to deal with the real, underlying problem, we need to undo the 
regulations.
  The Doolittle-DeLay approach is the proper remedy to what ails our 
campaign finance system in that it removes the regulations. Moreover, 
and no less important, is that this approach is consistent with the 
Constitution because it restores our first amendment right to engage in 
political speech.
  In 1974, in the wake of Watergate, Congress threw a regulatory web 
over the campaign finance system, a system that had gone largely 
unregulated throughout our nation's history.
  Within two years of the reform's passage, the Supreme Court, in 
Buckley versus Valeo, struck down major parts of the new regulatory 
scheme on first amendment grounds.
  Since that time, the campaign finance regulators have blamed every 
problem involving campaign financing on the Court's decision. There are 
those of us, however, who believe the problem is not that which the 
Court struck down, but rather that which was left intact, the present 
campaign finance law.
  The regulators would do well to remember that it was not the Supreme 
Court that put unreasonably low limits on how much individuals and 
groups could contribute to campaigns

[[Page E1092]]

while failing to index those limits for inflation. It was not the 
Supreme Court that ran roughshod over the first amendment rights of 
office-seekers and other citizens. And it was not the Supreme Court 
that stacked the deck against challengers, locking in incumbents at an 
unprecedented rate. No, the problem is not that the Court invalidated 
part of the regulators; grand scheme; the problem is that too much of 
their scheme remains intact.
  I believe it is time we declare ``the emperor has no clothes.'' It's 
time to dispel the myths perpetuated by the architects of today's 
failed campaign finance scheme. And while the regulators devise new 
such schemes on how to limit participation in elections and eliminate 
money from campaigns, we should look at the real problems that have 
been caused by their regulatory approach to reform.

  Today's campaign finance system requires current and prospective 
office-holders to spend too much time raising money and not enough time 
governing and debating issues. The present system has also failed to 
make elections more competitive and allows millionaires to purchase 
congressional seats. While a millionaire can write a check for whatever 
amount he or she wants to their election campaign, everyone else is 
forced to live under the same hard dollar limits that were put in place 
in 1974, which have not even been adjusted for inflation.
  Today's system hurts voters in our republic by forcing more 
contributors and political activists to operate outside of the system 
where they are unaccountable and, consequently, less responsible. The 
big government reformers agree with me on this point, but their 
solution, of course, is more regulation. Beyond being unconstitutional, 
more regulation, such as banning soft money and limiting issue ads (ala 
Shays-Meehan), will only make the system worse. I don't often agree 
with my hometown newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, but last year they put 
out an editorial on CFR which I agreed with on many points. Speaking 
about the Shays-Meehan bill they said: ``It centers on two big wrong-
headed reforms: prohibiting national political parties from collecting 
or using ``soft-money'' contributions, and outlawing independent 
political advertising that identifies candidates within 60 days of a 
federal election. That means the law would prohibit issue campaigning 
at precisely the time when voters are finally interested in listening--
hardly congruent with free speech. Since that kind of restriction is 
likely to be tossed by the courts as a violation of constitutional free 
speech guarantees, the net effect of the changes will be to weaken 
political parties while making the less accountable ``independent 
expenditure groups'' kings of the campaign landscape.
  I couldn't agree more. Because as long as we have a shred of a 
Constitution left, individuals will have the ability to act 
independently and spend as much as they have want on political causes. 
So, the net result of a Shays-Meehan bill would be to push political 
spending even farther away from the responsible candidate-centered 
campaign.
  These are the problems we face today. And before we decide which 
reforms should be implemented, we need to decide where we want to go, 
and what kind of new system we wish to create.
  To me, the answer is simple. Our goal should be a system that 
encourages political speech, and promotes freedom and a more informed 
electorate. We should strive for a system in which any American citizen 
can compete for and win elective office; a system that is consistent 
with the Constitution by allowing voters to contribute freely to the 
candidate of their choice.
  By removing the limits on contributions, scrapping the failed 
presidential finance system, and providing full and immediate 
disclosure, the Citizen Legislature and Political Freedom Act would 
dramatically move us toward a desirable, constitutional, and workable 
campaign finance system.

                          ____________________