[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21763-21764]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. ROBERT A. BORSKI

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 14, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 417) to 
     amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the 
     financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and 
     for other purposes:


  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act and urge my colleagues to vote 
against all ``poison pill'' amendments that will be offered today. I am 
proud to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation, which represents the 
best, real opportunity to reform our broken campaign finance system.
  The issue of campaign finance reform cuts to the essence of 
democracy. Our unique American political system will not survive 
without the participation of the average American citizen. 
Unfortunately, more and more Americans are dropping out--with each 
election, fewer Americans are voting. They are doing so because they no 
longer believe that their vote matters. As they see more and more money 
pouring into campaigns, they believe that their voice is being drowned 
out by wealthy special interests.
  Despite the cynicism of the American public, Congress has failed to 
enact significant campaign finance reform legislation since 1974. In 
that year, in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, Congress imposed tough 
spending limits on direct, ``hard money'' contributions to candidates. 
Unfortunately, no one at that time forsaw how two loopholes in the law 
would lead to a gross corruption of our political system.
  The first loophole is ``soft'' money--the unregulated and unlimited 
contributions to the political parties from corporations, labor unions, 
or wealthy individuals. ``Soft'' money allows wealthy special interests 
to skirt around ``hard'' money limits and dump unlimited sums of money 
into a campaign.

[[Page 21764]]

  During the 1996 election cycle, approximately 30 percent of all large 
federal contributions came in the form of soft money to political 
parties. Both parties raised soft money at a 75 percent higher rate 
than four years ago. For the 2000 elections, it is estimated that soft 
money spending will exceed $500 million--more than double the total for 
the 1996 elections.
  Soft money is used to finance the second loophole in campaign finance 
law: sham issue advertisements. This loophole allows special interests 
to spend huge sums of money on campaign ads advocating either the 
defeat or election of a candidate. As long as these ads do not use the 
magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' they are deemed ``issue 
advocacy'' under current law and therefore not subject to campaign 
spending limits or disclosure requirements.
  During the 1996 elections, the television and radio airwaves were 
flooded with these sham issue ads--many of which were negative attack 
ads. Americans who see or here these ads have no idea who pays for them 
because no disclosure is required. They drown out the voice of the 
average American citizen, and even sometimes of the candidates 
themselves. Without reform, we can certain expect a huge increase in 
these sham issue ads.
  The Shays-Meehan bill begins to restore public confidence in our 
electoral system by closing these two egregious loopholes. The bill 
bans all contributions of soft money to federal campaigns. 
Specifically, it bans national party committees from soliciting, 
receiving, directing or spending soft money. The bill also prohibits 
state and local parties from spending soft money on federal election 
activity.
  In an effort to ban campaign advertisements that masquerade is 
``issue advocacy,'' Shays-Meehan tightens the definition of ``express 
advocacy'' communications. Under the bill, any ad that is clearly 
designed to influence an election is deemed ``express advocacy'' and 
must therefore abide by federal contribution and expenditure limits and 
disclosure requirements. Shays-Meehan includes well crafted language 
that specifically exempts legitimate voter guides from the definition 
of ``express advocacy.''
  The Shays-Meehan bill would not prevent public organizations from 
running advertisements, but it would ensure that ads clearly designed 
to influence an election are regulated under federal law. We have laws 
clearly designed to regulate and disclose campaign donations and 
expenditures, and no one should be allowed to evade them. Shays-Meehan 
would ensure that everyone involved in influencing elections plays by 
the same rules.
  Opponents have argued that the Shays-Meehan bill undermines the First 
Amendment right of free speech. However, the Supreme Court has ruled 
that Congress has a broad ability to protect the political process from 
corruption and the appearance of corruption. It has upheld as 
constitutional the ability to limit contributions by individuals and 
political committees to candidates. The Supreme Court has also clearly 
permitted Congress to distinguish between issue advocacy on the one 
hand, and electioneering or ``express advocacy'' on the other.
  The Meehan-Shays proposal will not cure our campaign finance system 
of all its evils--and I certainly support more far reaching 
restrictions on campaign contributions and expenditures. However, the 
bill will take a modest but significant first step toward restoring 
integrity in our political system. It will limit the influence of 
wealthy special interests and help to restore the voice of average 
American citizens in our political process. In short, enactment of this 
legislation is essential to the survival of American democracy.

                          ____________________