[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[House]
[Page 1051]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on campaign finance 
reform, legislation once again before this Chamber. I, like most of my 
colleagues, support some type of campaign reform. I know that 
reasonable and balanced reforms to our current campaign finance system 
is necessary. Unfortunately, the Democrat bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, 
does not strengthen or improve our campaign finance system as well as I 
think the Ney-Wynn bill does, which is a Republican alternative.
  In fact, I think the Democrat bill does more to harm than help both 
the political process and the Constitution by hurting the ability of 
political parties to increase citizen involvement and participation, 
unconstitutionally limits free speech, and tilts the playing field 
towards one party or another. For this reason, I applaud the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) in their 
bipartisan bill for their efforts at sensible reform for our current 
system.
  Proponents of the Shays-Meehan bill, which is support by the minority 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), claim their 
legislation puts an end to soft money. That is false. None of the 
proposals before this body ban a complete ban of soft money. Even the 
most cursory of glances indicates there is no soft money ban in the 
Shays-Meehan campaign finance legislation.
  In reality, this bill bans the national parties from raising or 
spending soft money, but it does nothing to prevent unions, 
corporations, and other special interests from spending as much soft 
money as they want on election activity. As a result, corporations or 
unions are allowed to give tens of thousands of dollars to each State 
and local party committee. With over 3,000 counties in the United 
States, this means corporations and unions will still be permitted to 
inject millions of dollars of soft money into the political process. As 
such, the soft money debate amounts to nothing more than a shell game 
with dollars being shuffled and moved from one part of the table to 
another, and the American people losing out.
  Furthermore, the Democrat plan does not ban soft money advocacy, it 
only bans it on the eve of an election. Through such rulings as Buckley 
v. Valeo in 1976 and other cases, the Supreme Court has declared that 
the government may not regulate political commentaries ``to promote a 
candidate and his views.'' Since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, 
strong majorities have supported protections for the expenditure of 
money for political communications. The first amendment cannot be 
sacrificed by government restrictions on issue ads and free speech. No 
matter how they are dressed up, such restrictions still involve 
government regulation of political speech.
  Mr. Speaker, the proposal to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), supported by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), is aimed at reforming our 
current system of laws, but does so in a manner that is rational, 
balanced, and, most importantly, constitutional. Their legislation bans 
the use of soft money by national parties for Federal election 
activities. It does not, however, impose new burdensome Federal laws 
and rules on State parties. It restores and enhances grassroots 
politics by allowing State and local parties to continue to assist 
State and local candidates with funds permissible under applicable 
State law.
  Most importantly, their proposal does not violate constitutional 
rights to free speech, nor destroy the ability to participate in the 
political process. So I support fair and balanced solutions to 
improving our campaign finance system. As such, I have voted 
accordingly and supported the Hutchinson-Allen bill, which was 
patterned after the Ney-Wynn bill when it was considered on the House 
floor in the last Congress. Unfortunately, it failed.
  Mr. Speaker, had the rules governing the amendment process not been 
limited for this upcoming debate, I would have also supported 
amendments to allow tax credits for up to $200 for individuals for 
Federal political contributions, thereby creating an incentive for 
persons of all financial means to participate in the political process.
  Additionally, I support allowing permanent resident aliens serving in 
the Armed Forces to make campaign contributions. And if we really want 
to clean up the current system, I support prohibiting labor 
organizations from fund-raising on Federal property through the use of 
payroll deductions.
  If advocates of misguided campaign finance reform are successful in 
passing this legislation, they will have done nothing to prevent future 
campaign abuses. Instead, they will be successful in eroding and 
handicapping Americans' right to free speech and the right to political 
expression. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Ney-
Wynn bill.

                          ____________________