[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM DeLAY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 20, 1999

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers recognized that 
restricting the free exchange of ideas in the political arena is the 
tool of tyranny. The First Amendment ensures that a free exchange of 
ideas, not the forceful will of the government, will always dominate 
the political landscape.
  Currently, there are those who would obliterate the First Amendment 
in the name of ``campaign finance reform.'' Reforming our campaign 
finance system by limiting the ability of individuals and groups to 
express their views on issues and candidates is like trying to make a 
car run better by removing the engine.
  Time and time again, the Courts have held that the First Amendment 
protects the right of individuals and groups to speak freely about 
issues and candidates, free from the heavy hand of government 
regulation and restrictions.
  The American people do not need government speech police dictating 
what, where, when and how they can speak about issues that are 
important to them. the ``big brother'' reforms that are being proposed 
will trample on the fundamental rights of individuals in order to 
protect the interests of incumbent politicians.
  I commend the following piece by Mr. James Bopp, published by the 
Heritage Foundation, to my colleagues' attention. Mr. Bopp clearly 
explains the need for true reform that is constitutional and 
strengthens, rather than destroys, the ability of the American people 
to have a voice in their government.

             [From the Heritage Foundation, July 19, 1999]

        Campaign Finance ``Reform'': The Good, the Bad, and the 
                            Unconstitutional

                          (By James Bopp, Jr.)

       Campaign finance reform soon will be debated in the U.S. 
     Senate. The problems with the current campaign financing 
     system that are identified by the most vocal reformers, 
     however, are not real problems for Americans who want more of 
     a say in who is elected and what policies public officials 
     pursue. And although incumbent officeholders in Washington, 
     D.C., may feel threatened by negative advertising and want to 
     manipulate the campaign rules to their advantage, this does 
     not justify imposing further restrictions on the freedom of 
     speech and association. The U.S. Supreme Court already has 
     addressed the remedies proposed by the ``reformers'' and 
     found them unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
       The Supreme Court and numerous federal courts following it 
     have struck down almost all laws that attempt to restrict 
     campaign spending or campaign advertising by individuals or 
     organizations (including corporations, unions, political 
     action committees [PACs], and political parties). Pursuant to 
     the First Amendment, the Supreme Court limits the regulation 
     of political expression to a very narrow class of speech: 
     explicit or express words advocating the election or defeat 
     of clearly identified candidates--such as ``vote for'' or 
     ``elect.'' But not every type of express or explicit appeal 
     for votes is subject to regulation. For example, the Supreme 
     Court has held that:
       A political candidate has an absolute First Amendment right 
     to spend an unlimited amount of his own money expressly 
     advocating his own election (unless he voluntarily waives 
     that right in order to receive public financing).
       Individuals and organizations also have an absolute First 
     Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of their own 
     money expressly advocating the election or defeat of 
     particular candidates so long as there is no coordination 
     between the individual or organization and the candidates. 
     And governments may not presume that there is coordination 
     under certain scenarios--unless there really is some.
       In addition, all other election-related speech that 
     discusses candidates and issues (including their voting 
     records or positions) but does not explicitly call for the 
     election or defeat of particular candidates is protected as 
     ``issue advocacy.'' Although it undoubtedly influences 
     elections, issue advocacy is absolutely protected from 
     regulation by the First Amendment. Consequently, ``reforms'' 
     that attempt to redefine ``express advocacy'' to include 
     types of issue advocacy, or to create new categories of 
     speech subject to regulation, or that effectively would ban 
     issue advocacy by corporations and labor unions are doomed to 
     a court-ordered funeral. So is legislation that effectively 
     would require any group engaging in issue advocacy to 
     register and report as a PAC or that would impose burdensome 
     disclosure requirements on issue advocacy.
       Political parties enjoy the same unfettered right to 
     receive contributions for and to engage in issue advocacy. 
     And there are even fewer reasons to fear their exercise of 
     this important right because political parties have an 
     interest in a broader array of issues than narrow interest 
     groups do, and their donors know they exist to advance those 
     issues. The Supreme Court also has found that proposed bans 
     on political parties receiving and spending soft money cannot 
     be justified on the ground that it might prevent corruption. 
     Instead, the Supreme Court has determined such a goal is 
     insufficient to restrict the discussion of candidates and 
     their positions on issues.
       To adopt true reform, Congress first needs to recognize 
     that today's perceived abuses are simply the predictable 
     result of past ``reforms'' in which the suppression of free 
     speech was the principal focus. Today's complex laws cause 
     wasteful distortions in the electoral process and lessen 
     transparency and public accountability. There are, however, 
     constitutional measures that would correct these flaws. 
     Specifically, raising or eliminating contribution limits, 
     which have been eroded by inflation, would allow elected 
     officials to concentrate more on their public duties than on 
     raising funds, make the flow of campaign money more 
     transparent, and improve public accountability. And removing 
     barriers that prevent political parties from exercising a 
     moderating influence on political campaigns would serve to 
     reduce the weight of narrow interests.
       These reforms would encourage more direct citizen 
     participation in campaigns, thereby reducing the incentive 
     for indirect involvement through independent expenditures and 
     issue advocacy. Such true reforms not only are 
     constitutional, but they also reinforce the sovereignty of 
     the people over government officials and decrease the threat 
     of corruption by making it more likely that any influence 
     will be exposed. Bearing this in mind,
       Congress should not rush to pass measures that would cause 
     uncertainty in the short run and inevitably be struck down as 
     unconstitutional. Because Members of Congress take an oath to 
     support and defend the Constitution, they should pay special 
     attention in the legislative process to any constitutional 
     defects in pending legislation.
       Congress should not try to challenge the Supreme Court's 
     rulings on the First Amendment, especially when the people's 
     freedom to speak is at stake and Members self-interest in 
     retaining office conflicts with those rulings.
       Instead, to enhance political participation and improve 
     transparency and accountability in the process, Congress 
     should:
       1. Raise the individual contribution limit to at least 
     $2,500, indexing it for inflation; raise the aggregate 
     individual contribution limit; and raise the individual and 
     PAC contribution limits to political parties from $20,000 and 
     $15,000, respectively, to at least $50,000.
       2. Remove the limits on coordinated expenditures by 
     political parties with their own candidates.