[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1751]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  H.R. 359, TO REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE DEFICIT BY TERMINATING 
    TAXPAYER FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND PARTY 
                              CONVENTIONS

                                  _____
                                 

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, February 14, 2011

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of H.R. 359, House 
Republicans voted today to give corporations and other special 
interests even more power to influence America's elections. I strongly 
oppose this legislation and will continue working to restore 
transparency and balance to our country's broken campaign finance 
system.
  H.R. 359 terminates the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which 
was created in response to the campaign corruption exposed by the 
Watergate Scandal. The voluntary PECF allows taxpayers to set aside 
$3.00 of their federal taxes so that eligible candidates spend less 
time fundraising from special interests. H.R. 359 eliminates an 
important option citizens now have to support fair federal elections 
and takes another, worrisome toward corporate control of U.S. 
elections.
  Many non-partisan organizations strongly oppose H.R. 359 and are 
raising alarm about the consequences of its passage. The League of 
Women Voters said the Presidential Election Campaign Fund ``has 
substantially reduced corruption and the appearance of corruption in 
the executive branch'' since its creation, and ``has given average 
citizens and small donors a critically important role to play in 
funding presidential campaigns and provided more meaningful choices to 
voters.'' Minnesotans agree. My home state has one of the most 
successful public campaign finance models in the nation, one that has 
provided real incentives toward limiting campaign spending. The bill 
before us today is a direct contradiction of Minnesota values, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  H.R. 359 is the second major assault on free and fair elections in 
the past year. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. 
Federal Election Commission declared corporations have the same free 
speech protections granted to individuals. I completely disagree with 
the Court's decision, but the result of this decision is now clear--the 
floodgates are open to waves of special interest money in federal 
elections. The few protections that existed in law have been removed. 
In response, Democrats in Congress introduced the DISCLOSE Act to 
ensure Americans knew who was paying to influence their vote and to 
prevent foreign corporations and governments from funding U.S. 
elections. I voted for the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175) when it passed the 
Democratic-led House in 2010. Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate 
blocked the DISCLOSE Act from passage.
  America's elections are for the American people. Unregulated 
corporate spending and new barriers to citizen-contributions will lead 
to more of the negative campaign ads and less citizen inspired 
democracy. I strongly disagree with the drive to corporatize America's 
elections which is an obvious priority for my Republican colleagues. It 
is fundamentally anti-democratic to fight to protect corporations' 
right to free speech while voting to prevent citizens from making their 
voices heard in the political process.

                          ____________________