[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E74-E75]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TERMINATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN FUND

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. BOB STUMP

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 31, 2001

  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, on January 3, 2001, I introduced H.R. 191, 
legislation to terminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.
  Campaign finance reform will surely be part of the agenda for 107th 
Congress. I believe that one of the most important campaign reforms we 
can advance is to end taxpayer funded presidential elections. As many 
in this body know, the current system offers partial public financing 
to eligible candidates running in presidential primaries and completely 
subsidizes the campaigns of major party nominees in the general 
election. The fund also supports political party conventions. The 
program essentially combines public refunding with limitations on 
contributions and expenditures. To receive funds, candidates must meet 
fundraising requirements and agree to limit campaign spending. The 
funds are derived from a voluntary tax checkoff.
  A post-Watergate reform, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, was 
intended to respond to the cynical effects of money on the political 
process and restore public confidence in our elections. More 
specifically, supporters of public financing believed it would correct 
perceived problems in the presidential election process, such as the 
disproportionate influence of wealthy contributors and the demands of 
fundraising that can keep candidates from conveying their views to the 
public.
  Beyond my basic philosophical objections to publicly-financed 
elections, which forces taxpayers to finance candidates whom they 
oppose, I believe the fund has not achieved its goal. Clearly, public 
funding has not stemmed the decline in confidence in the political 
system. Moreover, the public has overwhelmingly rejected the campaign 
funds as is illustrated by declining participation rates. The most 
recent figures available show that rates have gone from a high of 28.7% 
on 1980 tax returns to 12.5% on 1997 returns. In fact, public 
participation has decreased so dramatically

[[Page E75]]

that in 1993, Congress trebled the checkoff amount from $1 to $3 to 
counter a shortfall in the system.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to note that modern-day 
campaigns and financing tend to render the checkoff-funding system 
somewhat ineffective. As it was conceived, the fund's creators believed 
that the program's spending limits would be an asset to campaigns. 
However, the statute does not limit independent spending, which can 
supplement a candidate's campaign treasury. As a result, the program is 
essentially restricting the speech of some elements of our society. In 
addition, the fund was created to alleviate the fundraising burden for 
primary candidates. While well intentioned, this components has had the 
opposite effect because primary candidates must try to raise funds in 
matchable $250 increments and may not accept more than $1,000 from an 
individual contributor. Consequently, fundraising requires more time 
and more resources.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, in six elections--1976 through 1996--$887 
million was distributed under the fund. Some of the recipients of these 
precious tax dollars clearly lacked electoral credibility and appeal. 
For example, Lyndon LaRouch, who served a prison term for fraud and tax 
law violations, received more than $2.5 million. Given the public's 
overwhelming rejection of the system and the fact that tax dollars 
should be directed to more worthy government programs, I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in this effort to terminate the presidential 
Election Campaign Fund by cosponsoring H.R. 191.

                          ____________________