[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 2347-2348]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 24, 2004

  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, during the lengthy debate over campaign 
finance reform, some of us warned that appearances can be deceiving. 
The McCain-Feingold bill was supposed to empower ordinary voters, who 
were evidently thought incapable of exercising their own reason during 
election campaigns. The power shift has actually been to the unelected 
media and unaccountable special interest groups, mostly liberal, who 
have concentrated their control over what voters see and hear. Other 
voices have been muzzled, which is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice 
Antonin Scalia called the failure to strike down the law ``a sad day 
for freedom of speech.''
  I commend to your attention this George Will column published in the 
Washington Post on February 22.

                     Rendering Politics Speechless

                          (By George F. Will)

       Two years ago President Bush, who had called it 
     unconstitutional, signed the McCain-Feingold bill--furtively, 
     at 8 a.m. in the Oval Office. The law expanded government 
     restrictions on political speech, ostensibly to combat 
     corruption or the ``appearance'' thereof. Bush probably 
     signed it partly because the White House, thinking corruptly 
     or appearing to do so, saw reelection advantage in this 
     fiddling with the First Amendment.
       And partly because the nation's newspaper editorial writers 
     nearly unanimous in praise of McCain-Feingold. The 
     editorialists' advocacy of McCain-Feingold could appear 
     corrupt: The bill increases the political influence of 
     unregulated newspaper editorializing relative to increasingly 
     restricted rival voices (parties, candidates and their 
     financial supporters).
       Last December the Supreme Court found no serious 
     constitutional infirmity in the law because, although the 
     Constitution says Congress shall make ``no law'' abridging 
     freedom of speech, Congress has broad latitude to combat 
     corruption or its appearance. There is the appearance of 
     corruption when a legislator's views attract contributions 
     from like-minded people, and then he acts in accordance with 
     his and their views.
       Today McCain-Feingold itself does not just appear to be 
     corrupting. It is demonstrably and comprehensively so.
       Most campaign money is spent on speech--disseminating 
     ideas, primarily by broadcasting. McCain-Feingold's stated 
     premise was that there is ``too much'' money in politics--
     hence, it follows, too much speech. McCain-Feingold's 
     prudently unstated premise was that legislators know--and 
     should legislate--the correct quantity of speech about 
     themselves, the proper times for it and certain restrictions 
     on the content of it.
       Such legislating may not be corrupt, but it might appear 
     so. And appearances are the essence of ethics, as understood 
     by Washington's ethics industry.
       Perhaps the White House embraced McCain-Feingold because it 
     doubled to $2,000 the permissible ceiling on ``hard money'' 
     contributions crucial to the president's reelection campaign. 
     Also, Republican national committees do better than their 
     Democratic counterparts at raising smaller hard-dollar 
     contributions.
       Supposedly, the principal purpose of McCain-Feingold was to 
     ban large ``soft money'' contributions to the parties 
     ostensibly for ``party-building'' purposes. The delusional 
     assumption of many McCain-Feingold enthusiasts was that when 
     such contributions were banned, the people who had been eager 
     to exert political influence by such contributions would say 
     ``Oh, well'' and spend their money instead on high-definition 
     televisions. Or something.
       Actually, McCain-Feingold was moral grandstanding by many 
     liberals who had no intention of abiding by its spirit--or 
     its letter, for that matter--any more than they

[[Page 2348]]

     had abided by existing campaign finance law. To compensate 
     for Republican advantages in raising strictly limited hard 
     dollars, Democrats quickly formed a slew of committees 
     technically disconnected from the party but allowed to 
     receive unlimited soft dollars.
       Allowed, that is, as long as the committees do not spend 
     money ``for the purpose of influencing any election for 
     federal office.'' Under McCain-Feingold, and for 30 years 
     before it, entities that raise and spend money for that 
     purpose are subject to hard-dollar limits.
       McCain-Feingold's ban on large soft-money contributions to 
     political parties has spawned many groups, mostly liberal 
     ones, to receive and spend such contributions as surrogates 
     for the parties--groups such as America Coming Together. 
     Ellen Malcolm, ACT's president, says her group aims to 
     increase voter turnout in 17 states crucial to the 
     presidential election in order ``to beat George Bush.''
       It appears that she intends to influence a federal 
     election. Nothing wrong with that. Citizens are supposed to 
     do that. But liberals have been the prime movers in enacting 
     laws against doing so with soft money, which organizations 
     such as ACT exist to receive.
       ACT says it ``will coordinate with progressive 
     organizations.'' But it had better not coordinate with the 
     Democratic Party or candidates. There would be nothing 
     morally wrong with such coordination. It should be a 
     fundamental right--indeed, a civic virtue--for groups such as 
     ACT to coordinate with like-minded political parties. But 
     ``coordination'' is criminal under McCain-Feingold.
       House Republicans are now trying to subpoena records of 
     these Democratic groups, clearly hoping to have a chilling 
     effect on them. This is disgusting--but Democrats deserve it 
     because they have entangled America's core liberty, political 
     speech, in an ever-thickening web of regulations they now are 
     evading.
       On Wednesday the Federal Election Commission, which is now 
     in charge of deciding what speech is legal under McCain-
     Feingold and Supreme Court ambiguities, issued a ruling--many 
     more to follow--of exquisite opacity. The chairman of the 
     Republican National Committee said it ``effectively shuts 
     down'' groups such as ACT and others. A spokesman for ACT 
     cheerily said the group would continue ``to operate robustly 
     and effectively.'' It is a constitutional obscenity that no 
     one now knows--or, pending many more FEC and court rulings, 
     can know--what political speech is legal in this nation where 
     the First Amendment is no longer even pertinent to protecting 
     such speech.

                          ____________________