[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H302-H303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Americans are upset about what they view is 
a compromised, bought-out Congress. They hear of favors passing hands, 
deals being made, arms being twisted, while votes are held open to the 
wee hours of the night. They are sick of it, and they should be.
  Minor procedural forms are being proposed within this Congress and 
are being touted as answers. But truly these proposals are window 
dressing, and they totally ignore the massive iceberg of campaign money 
that infects every single officeholder at the Federal level. The old 
expression goes, ``If you really want to know what is going on, follow 
the money.'' Thank goodness for Political Moneyline and other Web sites 
that help reveal what is really going on in Washington.
  The reforms being proposed in this Congress do not get at the real 
problem. Each party is afraid of disarmament and certainly unilateral 
disarmament to get the money out. Ross Perot had it right a few years 
ago when he said, Those people in Congress, they are really good people 
caught in a very bad system.
  Congress has nibbled around the edges of reform, and there are some 
congressional rule changes that may do the same. But to help move 
toward real reform, I am introducing a package of four bills dealing 
with the need for real limits on campaign spending as well as slamming 
shut the revolving door on lobbyists that allows too much foreign-
generated influence and money inside this legislative branch.
  My proposals are as follows: First, a sense of Congress resolution 
that recognizes that the Supreme Court erred and was not complete when, 
in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, they stated that free speech equaled 
money, that no matter how much you spent was okay because money was 
equated with free speech. Well, if that is true, the converse is true. 
If you do not have the money, you lack free speech. And more and more 
Americans are being shut out of the highest levels of lawmaking in this 
country because they simply do not have the money to compete.
  My second bill is the constitutional amendment itself that would give 
Congress and the States the power to limit the contributions and 
expenditures made by, in support of, candidates for Federal, State, or 
local office. That is a tough proposal, but it is one that I think our 
children and grandchildren will thanks us for.

                              {time}  1900

  The third measure is the Ethics in Foreign Lobbying Act of 2006, 
which would prohibit contribution expenditures by foreign-owned 
corporations and would establish within the Federal Elections 
Commission a clearinghouse of public information regarding political 
activities of foreign principals and agents of foreign principals.
  It was interesting that some major Russian interests were involved 
with Mr. Abramoff. As this scandal unravels, we are going to find some 
very interesting characters sitting at the bottom of that heap.
  Finally, the fourth bill is the Foreign Agents Compulsory Ethics and 
Trade Act of 2006, which would impose a lifetime ban on high-level 
government officials from representing, aiding, or advising foreign 
governments and foreign political parties. It imposes a 5-year

[[Page H303]]

prohibition on representing, aiding or advising foreign interests, 
including commercial interests, before the Government of the United 
States. It is not enough just to shut the gym to former Members who are 
lobbyists. You have to get at the heart of the problem.
  Campaign finance authority Herbert Alexander estimated that $540 
million was spent during the 1976 period on all elections in the United 
States. By 2000, that figure had risen to over $4 billion. To run for 
this job in the House in 1976 cost on average $87,000. Today, the 
average Member has to spend nearly $1 million, and some $2 million, 10 
times what was spent just 30 years ago, and the population hasn't gone 
up by 10 times.
  A winning Senate race back in 1976, you could spend about half a 
million dollars, which is a lot of money where I come from. Today, the 
average amount spent is over $5 million; and in places like New York, 
that is chicken feed.
  Mr. Speaker, we have become a plutocracy. America, wake up. Please 
support real reform for our children and grandchildren.

                          ____________________