[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 130 (Thursday, September 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11728-S11729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 1671. A bill to reform the financing of Federal elections; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.


                 Campaign Finance Integrity Act of 1999

 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senate is again considering 
campaign finance reform. The problem is that almost every Senator has a 
different definition of--and goal for--reform. Today I am introducing 
the ``Campaign Finance Integrity Act.'' I believe this bill can 
actually be agreed upon by a majority of this body that would want to 
ensure that we improve the campaign finance system (a nearly 
universally acknowledged goal) without being unconstitutional and 
attempting measures that fly in the face of the First Amendment.
  Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire 
for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict, 
and that you can't have both. But fortunately for those of us who 
believe in the First Amendment rights of all American citizens, the 
founding fathers and the Supreme Court are on our side. They believe, 
and I believe, that we can have both.
  I would hope that celebrating the value of the First Amendment on the 
floor of the United States Senate is preaching to the choir, as the 
expression goes, but let me go ahead and do it anyway. Thomas Jefferson 
repeatedly stated the importance of the First Amendment and how it 
allows the people and the press the right to speak their minds freely. 
Jefferson clearly described its significance back in 1798 with, ``One 
of the amendments to the Constitution * * * expressly declares that 
`Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of 
speech or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and 
under the same words, the freedom of religion, speech, and of the 
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary 
which covers the others.'' Again in 1808, he stated that ``The liberty 
of speaking and writing guards our other liberties.'' And in 1823, 
Jefferson stated, ``The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when 
permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be 
submitted to.'' Jefferson knew and believed that if we begin 
restricting what people say, how they say it, and how much they can 
say, then we deny the first and fundamental freedom given to all 
Citizens.
  The Supreme Court has also been very clear in its rulings concerning 
campaign finance and the First Amendment. Since the post-Watergate 
changes to the campaign finance system began, 24 Congressional actions 
have been declared unconstitutional, with 9 rejections based on the 
First Amendment. Out of those nine, 4 dealt directly with campaign 
finance reform laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that 
political spending is equal to political speech.
  In the now famous decision, or infamous to some, Buckley vs. Valeo, 
the Court states that, ``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 cannot ration or regulate political 
speech of an American through campaign spending limits any more than it 
can tell the local newspaper how many papers it can print or what it 
can print. This reinforces Jefferson's statement that to impede one of 
these rights is to impede all First Amendment rights.
  Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills believe 
that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force giveaways of 
public and private resources then all will be fine with the campaign 
finance system. The Supreme Court agrees and is again very clear in its 
intent on campaign spending. The Buckley decision says, ``. . . the 
mere growth in the cost of federal election campaigns in and of

[[Page S11729]]

itself provides no basis for governmental restrictions on the quantity 
of campaign spending. . . .''
  Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how 
great or small the means. The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' 
to the ``expensive modes of communication'' are both indispensable 
instruments of effective political speech. We should not force one 
sector to freely distribute our political ideas just because it is more 
expensive than all the other sectors. So no matter how objectionable 
the cost of campaigns are, the Supreme Court has stated that this is 
not reason enough to restrict the speech of candidates or any other 
groups involved in political speech.
  We need a campaign finance bill that does not violate the First 
Amendment, while providing important provisions to open the campaign 
finances of candidates up to the scrutiny of the American people. I 
believe the Campaign Finance Integrity Act does that.
  My bill would:
  Require 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.
  Index individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation.
  Reduce 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.
  Require corporations and labor organizations to seek separate, 
voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, initiative fees or 
payment as a condition of employment for political activity, and 
requires annual full disclosure of those activities to members and 
shareholders.
  Prohibit depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless 
the individual's profession and employer are reported.
  Encourage 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.
  Ban the use of taxpayer financed mass mailings.
  This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate 
back into his district or state to raise money from individual 
contributions. It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure 
requirements of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or 
the House of Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the 
best disinfectant.
  The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what 
they want in a political campaign is preserved by the right of the 
public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is 
also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own 
decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely 
information.
  Many of the proponents of other campaign finance bills try to reduce 
the influence of interests by suppressing their speech. I believe the 
best ways to reduce the special interests influence is to suppress and 
reduce the size of government. If the government rids itself of special 
interest funding and corporate subsidies, then there would be less 
reason for influence-buying donations.
  Objecting to the popular quest of the moment is very difficult for 
any politician, but turning your back on the First Amendment is more 
difficult for me. I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense 
of the First Amendment. My legislation does this. Not everyone will 
agree with the Campaign Finance Integrity Act, and many of us still 
disagree on this issue, but the First Amendment is the reason we can 
disagree and it must be honored here rather than just the 
Courts.
                                 ______