[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12716-12718]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reynolds). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is once again being 
painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, 
that is a problem, but today's reformers hardly offer a solution. The 
real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy 
and lives, creating tremendous incentive to protect one's own interest 
by investing in politicians.
  The problem is not a lack of Federal laws or rules regulating 
campaign spending. Therefore, more laws will not help. We hardly suffer 
from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem 
with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the 
principles of liberty and private property ownership.
  There is tremendous incentive for every special interest group to 
influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does 
business with government invests plenty in influencing government. 
Lobbyists spend over $100 million per month trying to influence 
Congress. Taxpayers' dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in 
their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. 
Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial 
markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans 
and grants. Corporations and others are forced to participate in the 
process out of greed, as well as self defense, since that is the way 
the system works.
  Equalizing competition and balancing powers such as between labor and 
business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, 
the incentive to buy influence will continue.
  The reformers argue only that the fault is those who are trying to 
influence government and not the fault of the members who yield to the 
pressure of the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of 
Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and 
instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress 
through the political process, which is a basic right bestowed on all 
Americans.
  The reformers' argument is to stop us before we capitulate and before 
we capitulate to the special interest groups. Politicians unable to 
accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need 
for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to 
their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers 
to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups 
that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making

[[Page 12717]]

their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats 
dictate how political campaigns will be financed and run.
  Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over 
elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly incumbents will 
greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending, a benefit to 
which the reformers will never admit.
  The quasi two-party system will become more entrenched by limiting 
the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative 
choices and third party candidates will be further handicapped if all 
the reforms proposed are passed. The media become a big winner. Their 
influence grows as the private money is regulated. It becomes more 
difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when 
directed against a candidate if funds are limited. The wealthy gain a 
significant edge since it is clear candidates can spend unlimited 
personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for the independently 
wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and 
spend large funds to compete.
  Celebrities will gain an even greater benefit than they already 
enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank, and by limiting the 
resources to counterbalance this advantage works against the 
noncelebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger. The current 
reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action 
Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any 
special benefit from government.
  More regulation of political speech through control of private money 
without addressing the subject of influential government only drives 
the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over 
the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
  True, reform probably is not possible without changing the role of 
government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize and show 
preferential treatment.
  Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for 
so many to invest so much in the political process, but we should not 
make a bad situation worse by passing more laws. We should demand 
disclosure so voters can decide if their representatives in Congress 
are duly influenced or unduly influenced, but the best thing we could 
do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if the 
reformers have their way.
  The majority of Americans are turned off with the system and do not 
vote because they do not believe they have a real choice. Signature 
requirements, filing fees and rules written by the two major parties 
make it virtually impossible for alternative parties to compete if not 
independently rich or a celebrity. We should change these obstructive 
rules to encourage the majority of Americans who now sit out the 
elections to participate in the electoral process.
  Campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution 
to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but 
today's reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that 
government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating 
a tremendous incentive to protect one's own interests by ``investing'' 
in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules 
regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won't help. We hardly 
suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance 
problem with more laws will only make things worse by further 
undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.
  The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest 
influence on government, but his cannot be done while ignoring the 
control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current 
reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem 
is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech 
through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. 
Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence 
underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by 
exerting influence over government--legal or not. The more open and 
legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for 
voters to know who's buying influence from whom.
  There's tremendous incentive for every special interest group to 
influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does 
business with government invests plenty in influencing government. 
Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to 
influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by 
bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own 
empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and 
financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, 
regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are ``forced'' 
to participate in the process out of greed as well as self defense--
since that's the way the system works. Equalizing competition and 
balancing power such as between labor and business is a common 
practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy 
influence will continue.
  Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe 
that it's futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing 
influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising 
political speech through regulating political money.
  It's naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If 
enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the 
temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course 
this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to 
the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating 
political speech will solve the problem.
  The reformers argue that it's only the fault of those trying to 
influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the 
pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of 
Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and 
instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress 
through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all 
Americans. The reformer's argument is ``stop us before we capitulate to 
the special interest groups.''
  Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system 
that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and 
groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they 
endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the 
special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of 
voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, 
politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be 
financed.
  Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over 
elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will 
greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending--a benefit to 
which the reformers will never admit.
  The quasi-two party system will become more entrenched by limiting 
the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative 
choices and third-party candidates will be further handicapped if all 
the reforms proposed are passed. They will never qualify for equal 
treatment since all campaign laws are written by Republicans and 
Democrats. The same will be true when it comes to divvying up 
taxpayer's money for elections.
  The media becomes a big winner. Their influence grows as private 
money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media 
propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a 
candidate if funds are limited. Campaigns are more likely to reflect 
the conventional wisdom and candidates will strive to avoid media 
attacks by accommodating their views.
  The wealthy gain a significant edge since it's clear candidates can 
spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boast for 
the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who 
needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.
  Celebrities will gain even a greater benefit than they already enjoy. 
Celebrity status is money in the bank and by limiting the resources to 
counter-balance this advantage, works against the non-celebrity who 
might be an issue-oriented challenger.
  This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political 
Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for 
any special benefit from government. The immoral Political Action 
Committees that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits 
from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of 
government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The 
reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate 
all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn't address the basic 
problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups 
deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world 
can't prevent Members from yielding to political pressure of

[[Page 12718]]

the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill 
character.
  More regulation of political speech through control of private money, 
without addressing the subject of influential government only drives 
the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over 
the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
  True reform probably is not possible without changing the role of 
government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show 
preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will 
eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political 
process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more 
bad laws.
  We should demand disclosure so voters can decide if their 
Representatives in Congress are unduly influenced. But the best thing 
we could do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if 
the reformers have their way. The majority of Americans are turned off 
with the system and don't vote because they don't believe they have a 
real choice. Signature requirements, filing fees, and rules written by 
the two major parties make it virtually impossible for alternative 
parties to compete if not independently rich or a celebrity. We should 
change these obstructive rules to encourage the majority of Americans, 
who now sit out the elections, to participate in the electoral process. 
Restricting political money and speech will only further hamper 
competition and discourage citizens from voting.

                          ____________________