[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18235-18236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on campaign finance 
reform.
  This is a topic that this Chamber is quite familiar with, and a topic 
which seeks to prohibit the abuse of soft money campaign donations to 
national political parties. Though the current campaign finance system 
is in need of reform, the proposal the House passed, the Shays-Meehan 
bill, did not improve or strengthen our campaign finance system.
  The road towards campaign finance reform has been a long one with 
many constitutional roadblocks. The Supreme Court took a dim view of 
our efforts to curtail first amendment rights. Through such rulings of 
Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, and other cases, the court has declared that 
the government may not regulate political commentaries ``to promote a 
candidate and his views.'' The court made an exception for ads that use 
explicit language to ``advocate the election or defeat of a clearly 
identifiable candidate.''
  The Congress recently took a step in the right direction reforming 
campaign finance flaws by ending the secret fund-raising and spending 
by political groups under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. 
Section 527 groups receive a large degree of anonymity under the law so 
long as their television ads, opinion polling and other political 
activities do not recommend the election or defeat of a specific 
candidate. This new law requires them to identify themselves to the 
public, then file periodic reports with the IRS that identify 
contributors and disclose how they spend their money in the political 
arena.
  About a year ago, the House passed its own campaign finance reform, 
the Shays-Meehan bill. It was aimed at reforming abuses in modern day 
campaign fund-raising. Though I believe campaign finance reform is 
needed, the Shays-Meehan bill was not the right approach. It has been 
over 20 years since we last overhauled our campaign finance laws, but I 
believe many of the bill's provisions would have been ruled 
unconstitutional before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I could not support proposals placing restrictions on issue ads, 
thereby effectively regulating campaign expenditures by individuals, 
interest groups and organizations loosely allied to the parties. That 
legislation attempts to alter the constitutional distinction between 
express advocacy and issue advocacy by mere statutory definitions. The 
goal of this bill was to expand the category of speech that can be 
regulated by the Federal Government, thereby making speech no longer 
free.
  Under current law, all individuals, political parties, businesses and 
other organizations are free to refer to candidates and their records 
on issues without regulation by the Federal Government. But under the 
Shays-Meehan bill, the mere reference to a candidate's name on radio or 
television during election campaigns would transform issue advocacy 
into regulated express advocacy.
  Additionally, the legislation bans soft money for political parties. 
The Shays-Meehan bill would regulate, limit or even prohibit 
individuals, organizations, and corporations from receiving or spending 
soft money for national political parties or political committees. The 
attempt to limit the free rights of political parties would clearly be 
unconstitutional, and the courts of course, most likely would strike 
down these restrictions.
  Since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, strong majorities have 
supported protections for the expenditures of money for political 
communications. I do not believe government restrictions on issue ads 
can be reconciled with the first amendment. No matter how they are 
dressed up, such restrictions will still involve government regulation 
of political speech, which we do not want.
  Furthermore, such a concept of campaign finance reform is both 
counterproductive and, as I mentioned earlier, unconstitutional. 
Moreover, the bill's relative impact on the two major parties is 
decidedly out of balance, in my opinion. That is why I voted for the 
bipartisan Hutchinson-Allen substitute, which unfortunately failed on 
the House floor.
  This bill is simple in its path towards strengthening our system and 
increasing public trust in the elected Federal officials. Congress 
would implement full disclosure laws, treat soft money and hard money 
the same, and make all campaign reports filed with the Federal Election 
Commission available to the public electronically through the Internet 
and through other electronic sources within 48 hours after those 
reports are filed. That is what the Hutchinson-Allen substitute would 
do. That is the proposal I supported.
  I also believe that strong bipartisan support exits for an array of 
the reforms that could pass if Shays-Meehan were set aside. These 
include technological improvements in disclosure,

[[Page 18236]]

strengthening enforcement, greater safeguards against the entry of 
foreign money, and possibly tax deductions to encourage small in-State 
donations.
  While any effective and feasible solution to campaign fundraising may 
be out of reach in this Congress, I am confident that next year, after 
the Presidential election and congressional races, this body can once 
again focus its attention on reforming our campaign finance laws.

                          ____________________