Senate and House of Representatives Proposed Legislation on Campaign Finance Reform
[S. 27 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001; H. Res. 188; H.R. 2356 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001]
Monday, January 22, 2001
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Levin, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Stabenow, and Ms. Cantwell): S. 27. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
campaign reform legislation
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, today we confront yet again a very serious challenge to our political system, as dangerous in its debasing effect on our democracy as war and depression have been in the past. And it will take the best efforts of every public-spirited American to defeat it. We must overcome the cynicism that is growing rampant in our society. We must pass campaign reform legislation.
That is why first I want to thank our cosponsors for being here today. They are proof that momentum is on our side and that we will pass campaign reform legislation and finally follow the American people's will. Action on this issue is long overdue and I am hopeful that this year will present us with our best opportunity yet to achieve passage of meaningful campaign reform.
Our legislation is simple, bi-partisan, and achieves three primary objectives that will go far to reform our electoral system.
The bill: Bans soft money for usage in federal elections; Requires increased disclosure of electioneering communications by so-called independent organizations in a constitutional and clear manner (the Snowe-Jeffords language); and Codifies the Supreme Court's Beck decision, a court decision effectively ignored by the previous Clinton Administration and now, under this Act, a decision which would be strictly enforced.
After one of the closest elections in our nation's history, there's one thing the American people are unanimous about--they want their government back. We can to that by ridding politics of large, unregulated contributions that give special interests a seat at the table while average Americans are stuck in the back of the room. The Senate needs to act early on campaign finance reform so we can achieve meaningful reform and restore the public's faith in their government.
This is not a perfect bill. It does not attempt to solve all the evils that plague our campaign system. But we will not let perfect be the enemy of progress. We expect amendments to be offered to this legislation and we fully expect that many of those amendments will be constructive and add to our efforts. We look forward to that kind of positive debate.
Second, whatever bill passes, it must treat our corporate and union constituencies alike. We must resist any measures that skew this bill in favor of any one group. The soft money ban in this bill affects both corporations and unions.
And for my Republican friends, I want to emphasize again, if this bill passes, the $100,000-plus union soft money checks to the Democratic Party will no longer exist. According to the Washington Post, the "biggest donor of soft money in the (last) campaign was the American Federal of State, County, and Municipal Employees (which) gave the Democratic National Committee $1.27 million in last October and early November. AFSCME's soft money total for the election cycle was $6.3 million." Passage of this bill will end this practice once and for all.
The key to our success now lies with a fair and open debate on this subject. In the past, we have been denied any constructive debate on this matter. I am hopeful that Senators Lott and Daschle and the co- sponsors of the bill can construct a fair unanimous consent agreement that will allow the Senate to take up and consider numerous amendments, work its will, and craft legislation that can and will be signed into law by the President. That is now our singular goal. And I am confident it can be achieved.
Mr. President, I hope we can soon take up and pass this crucial legislation.
Mr. FEINGOLD: Mr. President, I am very pleased to once again introduce a campaign reform bill with my friend and colleague, the Senator from Arizona. This year we have an important new cosponsor, the senior Senator from Mississippi, Senator Thad Cochran, so this bill will be known as the McCain-Feingold-Cochran campaign reform bill.
This is the fourth Congress in which Senator McCain and I have introduced a bill. We have made progress each year, and now we are closer than ever to finishing the job for the American people. The time for campaign finance reform to pass the Congress and become law has now come Mr. President. And Senator McCain and I are going to dedicate ourselves to this issue like never before to make it happen.
The bill we are introducing today is broader than S. 1593, the bill we took to the floor in October 1999, but narrower than S. 26, the McCain-Feingold bill that was introduced in the beginning of the last Congress. Our bill this year consists of a soft money ban, the Snowe- Jeffords language on issue ads, the Beck provision on union dues, and a few other provisions that will provide credibility to this reform bill as it's passed into law. Very significant in my mind is a clear prohibition on political fundraising in federal office buildings. This is a strong base bill for reform, but we are ready and willing to entertain the suggestions and proposals of all 98 other Senators. Each of us in this body is an expert on this issue, and I know that many of my colleagues have innovative ideas on how to improve our election laws. Any amendment that adds to this bill in a positive way and and doesn't undercut its basic principles will be given every consideration.
One provision on which we will not compromise is the ban on soft money. The bill here is as tough and comprehensive as possible, leaving no room for the soft money abuses we have seen in the last decade. Obviously, loopholes will develop over time, but I am satisfied that this bill closes the soft money system down and anticipates at least some of the clever schemes that might be developed to avoid the ban. In the last election cycle, we saw over $500 million in soft money raised by the political parties. This system is a scandal that we must eliminate now.
The bill includes the Snowe-Jeffords language on issue ads. This provision will have a major impact on labor union ads, but it is fair and balanced between unions and corporations. It will have minimal impact on established advocacy groups like National Right to Life and the Sierra Club because they have a significant small donor base, but it will prevent corporations and unions from laundering money through such groups. It allows groups to continue to run these ads as long as they use only individual money and disclose the large donors to the effort. The provision covers only phony issue ads on radio and TV, not direct mail, phone banks, or newspapers, or the Internet, but we are open to working with all sides to work out a fair and balanced way to broaden its coverage if that is what the Senate wants to do.
Similarly, we are open to proposals that will require additional disclosure of election related spending by unions, corporations, and advocacy groups. But they must treat all players in this system evenly and fairly.
That brings me to the issue that has received a lot of attention in recent weeks, so called "paycheck protection." In the past, this has been a poison pill to reform, but with the changes in the Senate, we clearly have the votes to defeat the extreme and one-sided "paycheck protection proposals that have been offered in the past. We will hold the President and those working with him to the standard that he himself has enunciated any proposal has to be fair and balanced. Our bill is currently fair and balanced. It treats unions and corporations equally. The paycheck protection proposals we have seen in the past are not fair and balanced. They attack only one player in the election system labor unions.
Mr. President, I look forward to a real debate early this year, not only on our bill but on amendments that my colleagues want to offer. I am happy to meet with any Senator who wants to discuss a reform proposal. If we all work together, this process can yield a campaign reform bill that we will be proud of, and we can start out this new Congress by cleaning up our elections and ridding our system of the corrupting of soft money.
Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, Senator Feingold and I and others--a bipartisan group of Senators and friends from the House, Congressman Shays and Congressman Meehan--just had a press conference announcing our intentions. I don't intend to make a statement, except to express my deep and sincere appreciation for my partner, Senator Feingold, who someday will be written about in another book called profiles in courage for his willingness to stand up to the special interests at a time when his own candidacy was at risk if he did not do so.
I thank Senator Feingold, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this issue. I believe we see a light at the end of the tunnel, which is an old phrase from the Vietnam war, uttered by one of our civilian leaders during that war. I remind Senator Feingold that when told of that, a soldier in the field said, "Yes, the light at the end of the tunnel is a train." We hope that is not the case in this particular scenario.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his kind remarks. I am happy to be back with him on this effort. As John McCain has said many times, we know that every Member of the Senate is an expert on this issue. Every Member has ideas about how we should reform the campaign finance system. What we want out of this is an opportunity for an open amending process so the Senate as a whole can fashion a bill to send to the President.
Mr. McCAIN: I ask unanimous consent that the bill be left open for further cosponsors throughout the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD: I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN: Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends from Arizona and from Wisconsin in introducing the McCain-Feingold-Cochran bill today. They have worked very hard and very effectively to bring the attention of not only the Senate but the American people to bear on this issue and this important need for reform. I am convinced that we are well advised to take this legislation up at an early date in this session of the Congress.
The impressions of the last election are fresh on everybody's mind. One that sticks with me very strongly is that candidates were overwhelmed in this process by the expenditures of soft money by groups buying ads, some attacking candidates, supporting others, without the American public knowing who these groups were, what their goals and intentions were, where the money was coming from, or how it was being spent. That has to be corrected, and it ought to be corrected.
The purpose of the campaign finance laws was to let the American people know from where the money was coming, how it was being used, how much money was being raised by the candidates and spent by the candidates. We have now lost the right to know because of the loopholes that have been developed and perfected by those who are involving themselves in the election process.
I am not against freedom of speech. We want everybody to be able to have their say, but we have a right to know how much they are spending and from where the money is coming. I think that is a fundamental part of this legislation, and I hope the Senate will take it up and pass it in the near future.
Ms. COLLINS: Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain-Feingold bipartisan campaign finance reform bill of 2001. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation which goes a long way towards reforming our campaign system.
I have long supported campaign finance reform. When I ran for the Senate from Maine in 1996 I promised my constituents that I would be a strong advocate for campaign finance reform. That pledge led to my decision to cosponsor the campaign finance reform that was introduced in 1997 by Senators McCain and Feingold.
Unfortunately, comprehensive campaign finance reform efforts have been thwarted in the past two Congresses. This time, though, we have reason for optimism due to new and renewed support.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 takes a number of important steps towards fixing a broken system. First and foremost, the bill closes the most glaring loophole in our campaign finance laws by banning the unlimited, unregulated contributions known as "soft money." "Soft money" has made the current law's restrictions and contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions essentially meaningless. Second, the bill requires disclosure by the sponsors of certain issue ads that corporations and labor unions run in the period leading up to an election. Third, the bill codifies the Supreme Court's decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck to ensure that nonunion members are not obligated to subsidize the political activities of labor unions. And finally, the bill makes it clear that foreign nationals may not contribute any funds--hard or soft--to federal, state, or local elections.
My home State of Maine has a deep commitment to preserving the integrity of the electoral system and ensuring that all Mainers have an equal political voice. Mainers have backed their commitment to an open political process in both word and deed. In many regions of Maine, town meetings in which all citizens are invited to debate issues and make decisions are still prevalent. This is unvarnished, direct democracy. Maine's tradition of town meetings and equal participation rejects the notion that wealth dictates political discourse. Maine citizens feel strongly about reforming our federal campaign laws, as do I.
The problem with soft money was painfully evident during the 1997 hearings by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired by my good friend, Senator Thompson. During those investigations, we heard from one individual who gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of the United States. We also heard from the infamous Roger Tamraz who testified that the $300,000 he spend to gain access to the White House was not enough and that, next time, he would spend $600,000. And we heard of individuals, such as Chinese cigarette magnate Ted Sioeng, who orchestrated nearly $600,000 in political contributions during the 1996 election cycle. Sioeng, we later discovered, was a self-described agent of the Chinese government.
Soft money donations soared in the 2000 presidential election cycle, nearly doubling from $262 million in 1996 to $488 million in 2000. At the same time, regulated, hard money donations increased a little more than 10-percent. Soft money, then, is the crest of the wave that has swamped our campaign finance system and shaken public confidence in our government. I applaud the bipartisan efforts of Senators McCain and Feingold and pledge my continued support to see this legislation become law this year.
Mr. JEFFORDS: Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 to discuss my thoughts and hopes on the actions the Senate will hopefully be taking in the coming months on this important issue.
First, let me thank the sponsors of the legislation, Senators McCain and Feingold, for their tireless perseverance to enact campaign finance reform. Without their hard work and vast knowledge, we would not be at this important point. The time has come to schedule a full and open debate on this important issue. I look forward to hearing and debating the many ideas of my colleagues and believe the Senate should strive to show why we are considered the greatest deliberative body in the world by fully debating this important topic.
Mr. President, I was first elected to Congress following the Watergate scandal, right around the time Congress last enacted comprehensive reform of our campaign finance system. I have watched with growing dismay during my over twenty-five years in Congress as the number of troubling examples of problems in our current campaign finance system have increased. These problems have led to a perception by the public that a disconnect exists between themselves and the people that they have elected. I believe that this perception is a pivotal factor behind the disturbingly low voter turnouts that have plagued national elections.
While some may point to surveys that list campaign finance reform as a low priority for the electorate, I believe that the public actually strongly supports Congress debating and enacting comprehensive reform. It is important to reverse the trend of shrinking voter turnout by re- establishing the connection between the public and us, their elected representatives, by passing comprehensive campaign finance reform.
It is time to restore the public's confidence in our political system. It is time to increase disclosure requirements and ban soft money. It is time to work together to pass meaningful campaign finance reform.
As I said earlier, I look forward to a full and open debate on the issue of campaign finance reform including the amendments that will be offered. At the end of this debate, the Senate should be able to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. That to me is the most important aspect of any bill the Senate may pass, it must be comprehensive. If we fail to address the problems facing our campaign finance system with a comprehensive balanced package we will ultimately fail in our mission of reforming the system. Closing one loophole, without addressing the others in a systematic way, will not do enough to correct the current deficiencies, and may in fact create new and unintended consequences.
Mr. President, we have all seen first-hand the problems with the current state of the law as it relates to sham issue advertisements. I have focused much time and effort on developing a legislative solution on this topic with my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe, and was pleased that this solution was adopted by the Senate during the 1998 debate on campaign finance reform. I was also proud to cosponsor the comprehensive campaign finance bill Senators McCain and Feingold introduced last Congress that included this legislative solution.
I feel strongly that the legislation the Senate must ultimately vote on include some kind of changes to the current law concerning sham issue advertisements. I feel that we have crafted a reasonable, constitutional approach to this problem and am extremely pleased that this legislative solution is again included in the bill we introduce today.
That does not mean, though, that we will stop working with our colleagues to craft additional, and perhaps different, ideas to address the problems with the current law on sham issue advertisements. My ultimate goal is to create a comprehensive campaign finance bill that will garner the support of at least 60 Senators, and hopefully more.
Mr. President, I look forward to a full and open debate on this important issue, and pledge to continue working with my colleagues to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform into law this year.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 27
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide
bipartisan campaign reform.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 22, 2001
Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kohl,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Harkin, and Ms. Stabenow) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide
bipartisan campaign reform.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE
Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for State committees of
political parties and aggregate
contribution limit for individuals.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.
TITLE II--NON-CANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications
Sec. 201. Disclosure of electioneering communications.
Sec. 202. Coordinated communications as contributions.
Sec. 203. Prohibition of corporate and labor disbursements for
electioneering communications.
Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures
Sec. 211. Definition of independent expenditure.
Sec. 212. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 213. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 214. Coordination with candidates.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 303. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 304. Codification of Beck decision.
TITLE IV--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 401. Severability.
Sec. 402. Effective date.
TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE
SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.
``(a) National Committees.--
``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political
party (including a national congressional campaign committee of
a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to
another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds
or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not
subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting
requirements of this Act.
``(2) Applicability.-- The prohibition established by
paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any
officer or agent of such a national committee, and any entity
that is directly or indirectly established, financed,
maintained, or controlled by such a national committee.
``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--An amount that is
expended or disbursed for Federal election activity by a State,
district, or local committee of a political party (including an entity
that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or
controlled by a State, district, or local committee of a political
party and an officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or
entity), or by an entity directly or indirectly established, financed,
maintained, or controlled by or acting on behalf of 1 or more
candidates for State or local office, or individuals holding State or
local office, shall be made from funds subject to the limitations,
prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act. Nothing in this
subsection shall prevent a principal campaign committee of a candidate
for State or local office from raising and spending funds permitted
under applicable State law other than for a Federal election activity
that refers to another clearly identified candidate for election to
Federal office.
``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a person described in
subsection (a) or (b) to raise funds that are used, in whole or in
part, to pay the costs of a Federal election activity shall be made
from funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting
requirements of this Act.
``(d) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--A national, State, district, or
local committee of a political party (including a national
congressional campaign committee of a political party), an entity that
is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or
controlled by any such national, State, district, or local committee or
its agent, and an officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party
committee or entity, shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct
any donations to--
(1) an organization that is described in section 501(c) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation
under section 501(a) of such Code (or has submitted an application for
determination of tax exempt status under such section); or
(2) an organization described in section 527 of such Code
(other than a political committee).
``(e) Candidates.--
``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal
office, agent of a candidate or an individual holding Federal
office, or an entity directly or indirectly established,
financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 1
or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, shall
not--
``(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend
funds in connection with an election for Federal
office, including funds for any Federal election
activity, unless the funds are subject to the
limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements
of this Act; or
``(B) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend
funds in connection with any election other than an
election for Federal office or disburse funds in
connection with such an election unless the funds--
``(i) are not in excess of the amounts
permitted with respect to contributions to
candidates and political committees under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 315(a); and
``(ii) are not from sources prohibited by
this Act from making contributions in
connection with an election for Federal office.
``(2) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the
solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds by an individual
who is a candidate for a State or local office in connection with such
election for State or local office if the solicitation, receipt, or
spending of funds is permitted under State law for any activity other
than for a Federal election activity that refers to another clearly
identified candidate for election to Federal office.
``(3) Fundraising events.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a
candidate or an individual holding Federal office may attend,
speak, or be a featured guest at a fundraising event for a
State, district, or local committee of a political party.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
``(20) Federal election activity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election
activity' means--
``(i) voter registration activity during
the period that begins on the date that is 120
days before the date a regularly scheduled
Federal election is held and ends on the date
of the election;
``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-
vote activity, or generic campaign activity
conducted in connection with an election in
which a candidate for Federal office appears on
the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate
for State or local office also appears on the
ballot);
``(iii) a public communication that refers
to a clearly identified candidate for Federal
office (regardless of whether a candidate for
State or local office is also mentioned or
identified) and that promotes or supports a
candidate for that office, or attacks or
opposes a candidate for that office (regardless
of whether the communication expressly
advocates a vote for or against a candidate);
and
``(iv) services provided during any month
by an employee of a State, district, or local
committee of a political party who spends more
than 25 percent of that individual's
compensated time during that month on
activities in connection with a Federal
election.
``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal
election activity' does not include an amount expended
or disbursed by a State, district, or local committee
of a political party for--
``(i) a public communication that refers
solely to a clearly identified candidate for
State or local office, if the communication is
not a Federal election activity described in
subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for
State or local office, provided the
contribution is not designated or used to pay
for a Federal election activity described in
subparagraph (A);
``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or
local political convention;
``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign
materials, including buttons, bumper stickers,
and yard signs, that name or depict only a
candidate for State or local office; and
``(v) the cost of constructing or
purchasing an office facility or equipment for
a State, district, or local committee.
``(21) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic
campaign activity' means an activity that promotes a political
party and does not promote a candidate or non-Federal
candidate.
``(22) Public communication.--The term `public
communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast,
cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the
general public, or any other form of general public political
advertising.
``(23) Mass mailing.--The term `mass mailing' means a
mailing of more than 500 pieces of mail matter of an identical
or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period.
``(24) Telephone bank.--The term `telephone bank' means
more than 500 telephone calls within any 30-day period of an
identical or substantially similar nature.''.
SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES OF
POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT FOR
INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political Parties.--
Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by inserting ``(other than a committee
described in subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee'';
and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) to a political committee established and maintained
by a State committee of a political party in any calendar year
which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.
(b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section 315(a)(3)
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is
amended by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$30,000''.
SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Political Committees.--
``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The
national committee of a political party, any national
congressional campaign committee of a political party, and any
subordinate committee of either, shall report all receipts and
disbursements during the reporting period.
``(2) Other political committees to which section 323
applies.--In addition to any other reporting requirements
applicable under this Act, a political committee (not described
in paragraph (1)) to which section 323(b)(1) applies shall
report all receipts and disbursements made for activities
described in section 301(20)(A).
``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts
or disbursements to which this subsection applies from any
person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year, the
political committee shall separately itemize its reporting for
such person in the same manner as required in paragraphs
(3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed
under this subsection shall be filed for the same time periods
required for political committees under subsection (a).''.
(b) Building Fund Exception to the Definition of Contribution.--
Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking clause (viii); and
(2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xiv) as clauses
(viii) through (xiii), respectively.
TITLE II--NON-CANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications
SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
434) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Additional Statements on Electioneering Communications.--
``(1) Statement required.--Every person who makes a
disbursement for electioneering communications in an aggregate
amount in excess of $10,000 during any calendar year shall,
within 24 hours of each disclosure date, file with the
Commission a statement containing the information described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be
filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of
perjury and shall contain the following information:
``(A) The identification of the person making the
disbursement, of any entity sharing or exercising
direction or control over the activities of such
person, and of the custodian of the books and accounts
of the person making the disbursement.
``(B) The principal place of business of the person
making the disbursement, if not an individual.
``(C) The amount of each disbursement of more than
$200 during the period covered by the statement and the
identification of the person to whom the disbursement
was made.
``(D) The elections to which the electioneering
communications pertain and the names (if known) of the
candidates identified or to be identified.
``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a
segregated bank account which consists of funds
contributed soley by individuals directly to this
account for electioneering communications, the names
and addresses of all contributors who contributed an
aggregate amount of $1,000 or more to that account
during the period beginning on the first day of the
preceding calendar year and ending on the disclosure
date. Nothing in this section is to be construed as a
prohibition on the use of funds in such a segregated
account for a purpose other than electioneering
communications.
``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds
not described in subparagraph (E), the names and
addresses of all contributors who contributed an
aggregate amount of $1,000 or more to the organization
during the period beginning on the first day of the
preceding calendar year and ending on the disclosure
date.
``(3) Electioneering communication.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `electioneering
communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite
communication which--
``(i) refers to a clearly identified
candidate for Federal office;
``(ii) is made within--
``(I) 60 days before a general,
special, or runoff election for such
Federal office; or
``(II) 30 days before a primary or
preference election, or a convention or
caucus of a political party that has
authority to nominate a candidate, for
such Federal office; and
``(iii) is made to an audience that
includes members of the electorate for such
election, convention, or caucus.
``(B) Exceptions.--The term `electioneering
communication' does not include--
``(i) a communication appearing in a news
story, commentary, or editorial distributed
through the facilities of any broadcasting
station, unless such facilities are owned or
controlled by any political party, political
committee, or candidate; or
``(ii) a communication which constitutes an
expenditure or an independent expenditure under
this Act.
``(4) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `disclosure date' means--
``(A) the first date during any calendar year by
which a person has made disbursements for
electioneering communications aggregating in excess of
$10,000; and
``(B) any other date during such calendar year by
which a person has made disbursements for
electioneering communications aggregating in excess of
$10,000 since the most recent disclosure date for such
calendar year.
``(5) Contracts to disburse.--For purposes of this
subsection, a person shall be treated as having made a
disbursement if the person has executed a contract to make the
disbursement.
``(6) Coordination with other requirements.--Any
requirement to report under this subsection shall be in
addition to any other reporting requirement under this Act.''.
SEC. 202. COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS AS CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 315(a)(7) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)) is amended --
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) if--
``(i) any person makes, or contracts to
make, any disbursement for any electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section
304(d)(3)); and
``(ii) such disbursement is coordinated
with a candidate or an authorized committee of
such candidate, a Federal, State, or local
political party or committee thereof, or an
agent or official of any such candidate, party,
or committee;
such disbursement or contracting shall be
treated as a contribution to the candidate
supported by the electioneering communication
and as an expenditure by that candidate; and''.
SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR
ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or for any
applicable electioneering communication'' before ``, but shall not
include''.
(b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 of such
Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For
purposes of this section, the term `applicable electioneering
communication' means an electioneering communication (within
the meaning of section 304(d)(3)) which is made by any entity
described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other
person using funds donated by an entity described in subsection
(a) of this section.
``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term
`applicable electioneering communication' does not include a
communication by an organization described in section 501(c)(4)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or a political
organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of such Code)
made under section 304(d)(2) (E) or (F) of this Act if the
communication is paid for exclusively by funds provided
directly by individuals. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `provided directly by individuals' does not
include funds the source of which is an entity described in
subsection (a) of this section.
``(3) Special operating rules.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the following rules shall apply:
``(A) An electioneering communication shall be
treated as made by an entity described in subsection
(a) if--
``(i) an entity described in subsection (a)
directly or indirectly disburses any amount for
any of the costs of the communication; or
``(ii) any amount is disbursed for the
communication by a corporation or labor
organization or a State or local political
party or committee thereof that receives
anything of value from an entity described in
subsection (a), except that this clause shall not apply to any
communication the costs of which are defrayed entirely out of a
segregated account to which only individuals can contribute, as
described in section 304(d)(2)(E).
``(B) A section 501(c)(4) organization that derives
amounts from business activities or receives funds from
any entity described in subsection (a) shall be
considered to have paid for any communication out of
such amounts unless such organization paid for the
communication out of a segregated account to which only
individuals can contribute, as described in section
304(d)(2)(E).
``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization'
means--
``(i) an organization described in section
501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
and exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
of such Code; or
``(ii) an organization which has submitted
an application to the Internal Revenue Service
for determination of its status as an
organization described in clause (i); and
``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a
disbursement if the person has executed a contract to
make the disbursement.
``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to authorize an organization
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 from carrying out any activity which is
prohibited under such Code.''.
Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures
SEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.
Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 431) is
amended by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the following:
``(17) Independent expenditure.--The term `independent
expenditure' means an expenditure by a person--
``(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat
of a clearly identified candidate; and
``(B) that is not a coordinated activity with such
candidate or such candidate's agent or a person who has
engaged in coordinated activity with such candidate or
such candidate's agent.''.
SEC. 212. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
434) (as amended by section 201) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the undesignated
matter after subparagraph (C); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a
political committee) that makes or contracts to make
independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more
after the 20th day, but more than 24 hours, before the
date of an election shall file a report describing the
expenditures within 24 hours after that amount of
independent expenditures has been made.
``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a
report under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an
additional report within 24 hours after each time the
person makes or contracts to make independent
expenditures aggregating an additional $1,000 with
respect to the same election as that to which the
initial report relates.
``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a
political committee) that makes or contracts to make
independent expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at
any time up to and including the 20th day before the
date of an election shall file a report describing the
expenditures within 48 hours after that amount of
independent expenditures has been made.
``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a
report under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an
additional report within 48 hours after each time the
person makes or contracts to make independent
expenditures aggregating an additional $10,000 with
respect to the same election as that to which the
initial report relates.
``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this
subsection--
``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
``(B) shall contain the information required by
subsection (b)(6)(B)(iii), including the name of each
candidate whom an expenditure is intended to support or
oppose.''.
SEC. 213. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY PARTY.
Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C.
441a(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting
``, (3), and (4)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Independent versus coordinated expenditures by
party.--
``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a
political party nominates a candidate, a committee of
the political party shall not make both expenditures
under this subsection and independent expenditures (as
defined in section 301(17)) with respect to the
candidate during the election cycle.
``(B) Certification.--Before making a coordinated
expenditure under this subsection with respect to a
candidate, a committee of a political party shall file
with the Commission a certification, signed by the
treasurer of the committee, that the committee, on or
after the date described in subparagraph (A), has not
and shall not make any independent expenditure with
respect to the candidate during the same election
cycle.
``(C) Application.--For purposes of this paragraph,
all political committees established and maintained by
a national political party (including all congressional
campaign committees) and all political committees
established and maintained by a State political party
(including any subordinate committee of a State
committee) shall be considered to be a single political
committee.
``(D) Transfers.--A committee of a political party
that submits a certification under subparagraph (B)
with respect to a candidate shall not, during an
election cycle, transfer any funds to, assign authority
to make coordinated expenditures under this subsection
to, or receive a transfer of funds from, a committee of
the political party that has made or intends to make an
independent expenditure with respect to the
candidate.''.
SEC. 214. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES.
(a) Definition of Coordination With Candidates.--
(1) Section 301(8).--Section 301(8) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause
(i);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of
clause (ii) and inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) coordinated activity (as defined in
subparagraph (C)).''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) `Coordinated activity' means anything of
value provided by a person in connection with a Federal
candidate's election who is or previously has been
within the same election cycle acting in coordination
with that candidate, or an agent of that candidate on
any campaign activity in connection with a Federal
election in which such candidate seeks nomination or
election to Federal office (regardless of whether the
value being provided is in the form of a communication
that expressly advocates a vote for or against a
candidate) and includes any of the following:
``(i) A payment made by a person in
cooperation, consultation, or concert with, at
the request or suggestion of, or pursuant to
any general or particular understanding with a
candidate, the candidate's authorized
committee, the political party of the
candidate, or an agent acting on behalf of a
candidate, authorized committee, or the
political party of the candidate.
``(ii) A payment made by a person for the
production, dissemination, distribution, or
republication, in whole or in part, of any
broadcast or any written, graphic, or other
form of campaign material prepared by a
candidate, a candidate's authorized committee,
or an agent of a candidate or authorized
committee (not including a communication
described in paragraph (9)(B)(i) or a
communication that expressly advocates the
candidate's defeat), except materials published on a candidate's
website and republished at a cost of less than $1,000.
``(iii) A payment made by a person if, in
the same election cycle in which the payment is
made, the person making the payment--
``(I) is serving or previously has
served as--
``(a) an employee;
``(b) a fundraiser; or
``(c) an agent of the
candidate or the candidate's
authorized committee in an
executive or policymaking
capacity; or
``(II) has previously participated
in discussions (other than on an
incidental basis) that have been--
``(a) with the candidate,
an agent of the candidate or
the candidate's authorized
committee, or with a political
party that is coordinating with
the candidate; and
``(b) about the candidate's
campaign strategy and tactics,
including a discussion about
advertising, message,
allocation of resources,
fundraising, or campaign
operations.
``(iv) A payment made by a person if, in
the same election cycle, the person making the
payment retains the professional services of
any person who has provided those services in
the same election cycle to a candidate
(including services provided through a
political committee of the candidate's
political party) in connection with the
candidate's pursuit of nomination for election,
or election, to Federal office, including
services relating to the candidate's decision
to seek Federal office, and the person retained
is retained to work on activities relating to
that candidate's campaign.
``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term
`professional services' means polling, media advice,
fundraising, campaign research, political advice, or
direct mail services (except for mailhouse services) in
support of a candidate's pursuit of nomination for
election, or election, to Federal office.
``(E) For purposes of subparagraph (C), all
political committees established and maintained by a
national political party (including all congressional
campaign committees) and all political committees
established and maintained by a State political party
(including any subordinate committee of a State
committee) shall be considered to be a single political
committee.
``(F) Coordination by a political party.--When a
political party committee makes any expenditure that
refers to a clearly identified candidate of that party,
or to the opponent of a candidate of that party, in
connection with a Federal election, regardless of
whether the communication expressly advocates a vote
for or against the candidate, the expenditure is deemed
to be made in coordination with the candidate of that
party, unless the party certifies under penalty of
perjury that there has been no coordination by the
party.''.
(2) Section 315(a)(7).--Section 315(a)(7) (2 U.S.C.
441a(a)(7)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) a coordinated activity, as described in
section 301(8)(C), shall be considered to be a
contribution to the candidate and an expenditure by the
candidate.''.
(b) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes of
Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``shall include'' and
inserting ``includes a contribution or expenditure, as those terms are
defined in section 301, and also includes''.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 301. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and inserting the
following:
``SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a candidate, and
any other amount received by an individual as support for activities of
the individual as a holder of Federal office, may be used by the
candidate or individual--
``(1) for expenditures in connection with the campaign for
Federal office of the candidate or individual;
``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in
connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal
office;
``(3) for contributions to an organization described in
section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local
committee of a political party.
``(b) Prohibited Use.--
``(1) In general.--A contribution or amount described in
subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal
use.
``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a
contribution or amount shall be considered to be converted to
personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill
any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would
exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or
individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including--
``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
``(B) a clothing purchase;
``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
``(D) a country club membership;
``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
``(F) a household food item;
``(G) a tuition payment;
``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert,
theater, or other form of entertainment not associated
with an election campaign; and
``(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health
club or recreational facility.''.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.
Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to
solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value
in connection with a Federal, State, or local election from a
person who is located in a room or building occupied in the
discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the
United States. It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an
officer or employee of the Federal Government, including
the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit a
donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal,
State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the
discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United
States, from any person.
``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be
fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or
both.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or Executive Office
of the President'' after ``Congress'' .
SEC. 303. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.
Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
441e) is amended--
(1) by striking the heading and inserting the following:
``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
``(A) a donation of money or other thing of value,
or to make an express or implied promise to make a
donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local
election; or
``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of
a political party; or
``(2) for a person to solicit, accept, or receive such
contribution or donation from a foreign national.''.
SEC. 304. CODIFICATION OF BECK DECISION.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Nonunion Member Payments to Labor Organization.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be an unfair labor practice for
any labor organization which receives a payment from an
employee pursuant to an agreement that requires employees who
are not members of the organization to make payments to such
organization in lieu of organization dues or fees not to
establish and implement the objection procedure described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) Objection procedure.--The objection procedure
required under paragraph (1) shall meet the following
requirements:
``(A) The labor organization shall annually provide
to employees who are covered by such agreement but are
not members of the organization--
``(i) reasonable personal notice of the
objection procedure, the employees eligible to
invoke the procedure, and the time, place, and
manner for filing an objection; and
``(ii) reasonable opportunity to file an
objection to paying for organization
expenditures supporting political activities
unrelated to collective bargaining, including
but not limited to the opportunity to file such
objection by mail.
``(B) If an employee who is not a member of the
labor organization files an objection under the
procedure in subparagraph (A), such organization
shall--
``(i) reduce the payments in lieu of
organization dues or fees by such employee by
an amount which reasonably reflects the ratio
that the organization's expenditures supporting
political activities unrelated to collective
bargaining bears to such organization's total
expenditures; and
``(ii) provide such employee with a
reasonable explanation of the organization's
calculation of such reduction, including
calculating the amount of organization
expenditures supporting political activities
unrelated to collective bargaining.
``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
`expenditures supporting political activities unrelated to
collective bargaining' means expenditures in connection with a
Federal, State, or local election or in connection with efforts
to influence legislation unrelated to collective bargaining.''.
TITLE IV--SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 401. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, or the
application of a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance,
is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and
amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions and
amendment to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected by the
holding.
SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 30
days after the date of its enactment.
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 1999
______
speech of
HON. ROBERT A. BORSKI
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 14, 1999
Mr. BORSKI: Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act and urge my colleagues to vote against all "poison pill" amendments that will be offered today. I am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation, which represents the best, real opportunity to reform our broken campaign finance system.
The issue of campaign finance reform cuts to the essence of democracy. Our unique American political system will not survive without the participation of the average American citizen. Unfortunately, more and more Americans are dropping out--with each election, fewer Americans are voting. They are doing so because they no longer believe that their vote matters. As they see more and more money pouring into campaigns, they believe that their voice is being drowned out by wealthy special interests.
Despite the cynicism of the American public, Congress has failed to enact significant campaign finance reform legislation since 1974. In that year, in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, Congress imposed tough spending limits on direct, "hard money" contributions to candidates. Unfortunately, no one at that time forsaw how two loopholes in the law would lead to a gross corruption of our political system.
The first loophole is "soft" money--the unregulated and unlimited contributions to the political parties from corporations, labor unions, or wealthy individuals. "Soft" money allows wealthy special interests to skirt around "hard" money limits and dump unlimited sums of money into a campaign.
During the 1996 election cycle, approximately 30 percent of all large federal contributions came in the form of soft money to political parties. Both parties raised soft money at a 75 percent higher rate than four years ago. For the 2000 elections, it is estimated that soft money spending will exceed $500 million--more than double the total for the 1996 elections.
Soft money is used to finance the second loophole in campaign finance law: sham issue advertisements. This loophole allows special interests to spend huge sums of money on campaign ads advocating either the defeat or election of a candidate. As long as these ads do not use the magic words "vote for" or "vote against" they are deemed "issue advocacy" under current law and therefore not subject to campaign spending limits or disclosure requirements.
During the 1996 elections, the television and radio airwaves were flooded with these sham issue ads--many of which were negative attack ads. Americans who see or here these ads have no idea who pays for them because no disclosure is required. They drown out the voice of the average American citizen, and even sometimes of the candidates themselves. Without reform, we can certain expect a huge increase in these sham issue ads.
The Shays-Meehan bill begins to restore public confidence in our electoral system by closing these two egregious loopholes. The bill bans all contributions of soft money to federal campaigns. Specifically, it bans national party committees from soliciting, receiving, directing or spending soft money. The bill also prohibits state and local parties from spending soft money on federal election activity.
In an effort to ban campaign advertisements that masquerade is "issue advocacy," Shays-Meehan tightens the definition of "express advocacy" communications. Under the bill, any ad that is clearly designed to influence an election is deemed "express advocacy" and must therefore abide by federal contribution and expenditure limits and disclosure requirements. Shays-Meehan includes well crafted language that specifically exempts legitimate voter guides from the definition of "express advocacy."
The Shays-Meehan bill would not prevent public organizations from running advertisements, but it would ensure that ads clearly designed to influence an election are regulated under federal law. We have laws clearly designed to regulate and disclose campaign donations and expenditures, and no one should be allowed to evade them. Shays-Meehan would ensure that everyone involved in influencing elections plays by the same rules.
Opponents have argued that the Shays-Meehan bill undermines the First Amendment right of free speech. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has a broad ability to protect the political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption. It has upheld as constitutional the ability to limit contributions by individuals and political committees to candidates. The Supreme Court has also clearly permitted Congress to distinguish between issue advocacy on the one hand, and electioneering or "express advocacy" on the other.
The Meehan-Shays proposal will not cure our campaign finance system of all its evils--and I certainly support more far reaching restrictions on campaign contributions and expenditures. However, the bill will take a modest but significant first step toward restoring integrity in our political system. It will limit the influence of wealthy special interests and help to restore the voice of average American citizens in our political process. In short, enactment of this legislation is essential to the survival of American democracy.
Thursday, June 28, 2001
By Mr. SHAYS (for himself and Mr. Meehan): H.R. 2356. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform; to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2356, BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001
Thursday, July 12, 2001
Mr. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 188
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2356)
to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide
bipartisan campaign reform. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on House Administration. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order
against the amendments printed in the report are waived.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have
been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion
to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. After
passage of H.R. 2356, it shall be in order to consider in
the House S. 27. All points of order against the Senate
bill and against its consideration are waived. It shall be
in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of
the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions
of H.R. 2356 as passed by the House. All points of order
against that motion are waived. If the motion is adopted
and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be
in order to move that the House insist on its amendment
to S. 27 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette): The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 188 is a fair, structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. I would like to point out that this is not an unorthodox rule; rather, this rule is what is known as "regular order."
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. The rule makes in order 20 amendments that were printed in the report accompanying the resolution. In addition to the full consideration of these amendments, the rule makes in order two substitutes, one offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), which is debatable for 30 minutes, and the other offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), which is debatable for 60 minutes.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, as well as all points of order against the amendments.
After passage of H.R. 2356, the rule provides that it shall be in order to consider in the House Senate 27. It waives all points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration.
The rule makes in order a motion to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof provisions of H.R. 2356 as passed by the House. Furthermore, the rule waives all points of order against the motion to strike and insert. Additionally, the rule provides that if the motion to strike and insert is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its amendment and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, before we begin what is certain to be a very passionate debate, I would first like to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, on his efforts to bring this issue before us today. The Speaker pledged a fair, open, and timely debate on this measure and, as has been the hallmark of his leadership, today has made good on that commitment. I would also like to acknowledge the great strides that have been made to ensure that this rule be made as fair as possible and to ensure a healthy debate on this important issue. As this rule was developed, the committee honored numerous requests from the gentleman from Connecticut to ensure a proper and complete debate. In short, we are here today because the Speaker has facilitated a fair and open process.
Additionally, I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, for his fair bipartisan handling of this matter. The willingness of both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) to accommodate all parties involved by supporting alternative measures and open debate is a true testament to their leadership on this measure. I thank both the gentlemen.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the unique opportunity to hear testimony on this issue from all sides, both as a member of the Committee on House Administration and as a member of the Committee on Rules. I have witnessed firsthand the process that has brought us to this day, and I stand here before my colleagues proud of both the process and the rule.
Mr. Speaker, when we peel back the layers of debate on the issue before us today, when we remove the emotion and the hyperbole, when we separate the rhetoric from the reality, there is a fundamental question before this Congress today: how far will this Congress go in restricting the rights of the American people, whether individually or collectively, to participate in their political process? It is ironic that as this Congress and this country have achieved so much economically and socially by breaking down government regulation and intrusion, there are those who would have us impose excessive restrictions and undue burdens on the most basic of all human rights: the right of free speech. That we can improve our current campaign finance system is something upon which we can all agree, but to do so by destroying the very fabric of this Nation's political system is not an improvement, nor is it reform.
There are a number of important issues that we face in our shared desire to improve and reform campaign finance in these United States. Most important, we must ensure that we encourage rather than stifle citizen involvement in their political process.
The freedom to express one's views in the form of political speech is one of the inherent rights that this Nation was founded upon. Government restrictions which would limit that speech strike at the very core of our rights and liberties as Americans.
We should recognize, too, the freedom of political parties to encourage voter enrollment and participation. A vibrant party system has been and must continue to promote the free flow of ideas and debate that have shaped this Nation over the past 225 years.
By definition, Webster's dictionary says that "reform" means "to make or become better." What we do today must ensure that our campaign finance system does become better, and it can only become better if we recognize that curbing expensive campaigns should not come at the expense of political liberties. That is why I urge support of this rule and the support of the Ney-Wynn bill.
While neither the Shays-Meehan nor the Ney-Wynn bill bans so-called "soft money," Ney-Wynn at least ensures that such expenditures are used for party activities such as voter registration, getting out the vote, overhead, and fund-raising expenses. Such a provision will ensure that candidates cannot circumvent set limits, while ensuring a continued vibrant party system. Ney-Wynn also contains broader reporting requirements. People have a right to know who is supporting candidates for political office, and under the Ney-Wynn bill they will have that information quickly and completely. Further, Ney-Wynn does more to restrict the influences of special interest groups.
Political parties will be restricted from fund-raising and spending soft money while special interests would still be allowed to spend funds in virtually unlimited amounts, increasing, rather than curtailing, their influence over the electoral process.
Mr. Speaker, there is a solid reason why the Ney-Wynn bill has enjoyed a growing bipartisan support over these past few weeks. That is because it is better, more responsible legislation that, as Webster defines, reforms our campaign finance system by making it better.
Mr. Speaker, let me once again remind my colleagues that our business here today is being conducted under regular order. This fair, standard rule is before this body because of the tireless efforts of both the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney).
Let us proceed with open debate on both the bill and its amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has brought us a rule that is the height of cynical political maneuvering, and the rule itself is, quite frankly, one of the most stupid proposals I have seen in my 23 years in this institution.
I want to look at the cynical maneuvering, first. We all know that the Republican leadership wants to defeat Shays-Meehan. There are, of course, Democrats who have some reservations about Shays-Meehan also, but these Democrats also believe in fundamental fairness, and that Shays-Meehan should have a clean, legitimate shot on the floor.
The Republican leadership has written a rule that everyone knows may well lose. If we assume that this rule is about cynicism, then what the Republican leadership has done is to present a rule to the House that they know will fail, and then they will refuse to reconvene the Committee on Rules to draft another rule.
They will refuse to schedule campaign finance reform for debate and simply explain it away by saying campaign finance reform is dead because the House refused to pass a rule to bring it up. This is, of course, the equivalent of killing your parents and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you are an orphan.
Why do I say that this rule is likely to lose? Experience. It is a repeat of a rule that the then Democratic leadership fashioned in 1981 during the debate on the first Reagan budget. In 1981, the Democratic leadership refused to give the Republican alternative, the now infamous Gramm-Latta substitute, a straight up-or-down vote. Rather, the Democratic leadership broke Gramm-Latta into pieces, requiring a series of votes on its provisions, thinking that that was the way to kill it. Well, surprise, that rule was rejected by the House. Let me repeat, the House rejected that rule as fundamentally unfair to the minority. Now, 20 years later, the Republican leadership has constructed a rule that divides Shays-Meehan into 13 separate amendments.
Sound familiar? Maybe not, because no one in the current Republican leadership was in Congress in 1981. But I find it hard to believe they and their staff can be totally ignorant of history, and that they all have to know that there is a very good chance this rule will be defeated.
Mr. Speaker, one might have to conclude that this is a cynical way to go about achieving their real objective, which is, of course, to kill Shays-Meehan.
Let us look at how incredibly dumb this rule is. It seems to have been written in such a way as to help the strategic objective of killing Shays-Meehan. I would suggest the way this rule is written that it might have the exact opposite effect.
There are a number of Members on both sides of the aisle who have legitimate and sincere concerns about Shays-Meehan. In the event this rule actually passes, the heavy-handed and cynical maneuvering on the part of the Republican leadership may well drive some of the opponents of Shays-Meehan right into the Shays-Meehan camp.
If that is the case, then the Republican leadership will have orchestrated their own defeat, the proverbial snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory.
There are legitimate issues involved in a discussion of the merits of the two main alternatives, Shays-Meehan and Ney-Wynn. I, for one, am concerned that the absolute prohibition in Shays-Meehan on the right of Members of Congress to raise non-Federal funds for State and local political parties to conduct voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities will weaken the political process and neuter Members of Congress. Members will not be able to play a meaningful role in voter turnout efforts in their home districts, and will become largely irrelevant to their own political parties.
The Ney-Wynn bill does not contain this provision, and it is important for Members to think very carefully about this issue if we get to the point where we might actually vote on the legislation.
However, because of this incredibly dumb rule and the cynical maneuvering on the part of the Republican leadership, we may never get to that point. On the other hand, if this rule is, by some chance, passed, the debate on this issue will be in such a highly charged atmosphere that it may well be impossible to have a rational discussion on the fundamental issues involved. This will be a sad day for the democratic process in this institution and in this country.
Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. The Republican leadership needs to be shamed into bringing back a new rule that is fair to the House, fair to the proponents of both bills, and fair to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I have not been in Congress for 22 years, like the gentleman from Texas, but I do know the difference between right and wrong. I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) knows the difference between right and wrong.
What we recognize about this rule is that this is an honest up-or- down vote. Yesterday in the Committee on Rules the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) asked for his bill, and got what he asked for. He received it. That was his bill. We did not gut the bill. We are not putting any amendments against the bill. He gets his bill exactly the way that he said in the Committee on Rules he wanted it. He gets all 12 or 13 amendments.
Where I come from in Texas, you vote for what you are for and you vote against what you do not like. The fact of the matter is that this is an honest attempt to give our colleague, who is a Republican, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), exactly what he asked for in the Committee on Rules.
We are not hiding anything. We are not making it more difficult. We are simply giving him exactly what he wanted. I have lots of legislation on which I would love to have the same opportunity that we are extending to our colleague.
The fact of the matter is that in the Committee on Rules, it was the Democrats who sit on the Committee on Rules that did the beating up of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), that did the beating up of Shays-Meehan. They said that it had virtually no reason to be on the floor of the House of Representatives. It has no reason to take the time that we are spending on it.
The Republican leadership, not only the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Armey and Mr. DeLay, but also our committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), have taken the time to schedule this vote to give the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) exactly what he asked for yesterday, and to make sure we have a full debate. I think it is not only fair and honest, but it is the right thing to do for our colleagues.
Mr. FROST: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
I am the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration. As such, I participated in the markup of these two pieces of legislation, the Shays-Meehan legislation, which has in the past had 252 votes each time it was offered for passage on the floor of this House, and the Ney-Wynn bill, which is a new bill.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). At the markup, which was held on June 28, it was my understanding, and I believe the understanding of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) would have the opportunity, between June 28 and yesterday, to perfect their legislation, to present that perfected legislation to the Committee on Rules, and to have those pieces of legislation presented to the floor for consideration with such further amendments as others might have.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that was our understanding. I tell my friend, the gentleman from Texas, as a result, I did not offer any amendment. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) nor any other Member offered any amendments. Why? Because it was the understanding of all 10 of us, in my opinion, that the bills would be perfected in the 10 days between June 28 and July 8 or 9 or 10.
That was not done. What the gentleman suggests is a fair process is to divide up into 14 different sections the perfections of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) sought, and therefore try to fight each one of those 14 different times.
I frankly think that is not fair. Why is it not fair? Because, as the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, has put forward, it is a rule which does not comport with what the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) want to offer as their base bill.
Mr. Speaker, on the substance of this, the American public in my opinion is very concerned about the amount of money in politics. Rightly or wrongly, and I cast aspersions on no one in this House, rightly or wrongly, the American public believes that the gargantuan amounts of money that flow into Washington, into State Capitals, into local county seats as political contributions, hard or soft money, and that is a somewhat esoteric distinction that the public does not make, but it is an important one, because one is limited and one is not, they believe this is an important issue. They want to see it considered on its merits, not by procedural dissection, which is essentially what has occurred here.
Mr. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a little bit of blurry history or rewriting history. I certainly was not here in 1981, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) was not, either. But as I recall, there was a minority substitute to a majority bill that the rule affected that the leadership lost, and the minority had a victorious day. In those days, the Republicans were the minority.
But when we look at today, I have been here today in both the Committee on House Administration and on the Committee on Rules. It was my understanding that on Wednesday evening, at the insistence of the sponsor of Shays-Meehan that we hold a markup before the July district work period, that was scheduled for Thursday before we left.
On Wednesday at 8 p.m. it was agreed upon by both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), who had to produce his bill, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) that he would produce his bill, and at 8 o'clock we would have the bill so the House, the entire House, 435 Members, would have the opportunity to learn what was in both bills.
That was because the Shays-Meehan bill that I knew as a State legislator watching the debate of this great body is now so much different than it was back then.
I am a fan of the 1957 T-Bird. It changed so much in the sixties, when I owned a sixties T-Bird, and in the seventies, in the eighties, and in the nineties, so the T-Bird today that is made reference to no longer looks like the 1957 Thunderbird. So you would have to be clarifying exactly what year of Thunderbirds you were referring to if you were an admirer.
In Shays-Meehan, this bill before us today is nothing like the Shays- Meehan bill that was constructed years ago and has been debated in this House in previous years. It is substantially different.
On the Committee on Rules, I have the opportunity to see managers' technical amendments on a frequent occasion. This bill, when we look at what happened with the Committee on Rules, we granted every single request, 12, of the Shays-Meehan bill. Whether they were technical or they were absolute critical changes that were made in the bill that would not be classified a manager's amendment, we gave it to the Shays- Meehan request.
Just as the Speaker said today, this week, we will have the debate on Shays-Meehan and any other amendments on campaign finance reform. It is here today. So the bill introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) reported by the Committee on House Administration will be debated in its entirety. As a matter of fact, they filed after the deadline, 4\1/2\ hours late, these 12 amendments, which were actually put in the rule so they could be debated today in its entirety.
However, when we begin to look at special privileges for any Members, that becomes a political concept of what the Committee on Rules is, in fairness. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is not the manager of the campaign finance bill, it is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the Chair of the Committee on House Administration.
The en bloc amendment has been inaccurately referred to as the manager's amendment. The fact is that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) is the manager of this legislation, so the amendment requested by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is not a manager's amendment.
Anyway, whether one is a freshman, a sophomore, as I, or a junior member of the Committee on Rules on the majority side, as its most senior Members know, an en bloc amendment has been inaccurately referred to as a manager's amendment in this legislation, and that an amendment en bloc is a clustering of individual amendments.
Mr. Speaker, each and every amendment requested by Shays-Meehan is in this rule, to be debated openly and fairly in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), from the Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the work of the Committee on Rules is never done. We work hard and we work late into the evening trying to fine-tune some of the most controversial issues that this House ever faces.
And, indeed, that is exactly what we did last night.
My friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), came to our committee and he made his presentation; and he was passionate, as he always is, because he believes in this. And to a large extent, I do as well. This has been his cause, and he has fought it very well.
So I am very surprised today by all the fanfare over this manager's amendment, because the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) did not even mention this manager's amendment in his presentation to the Committee on Rules until I brought it up. At that time he said, oh yes, and he explained it briefly, and left us on the committee with the distinct impression that as long as his provisions were included in some way, it was okay to divide it up. Indeed, his words were: "There are about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 12 changes, one or two are technical, some are substantive, but this is an amendment that gets our bill in a form that we are most comfortable defending. And so, obviously, we like it. Some people have said you might like to divide them up into pieces; however, you decide."
He told the Committee on Rules, you decide. And so we did. We felt that to divide this up and allow examination of these substantive changes was the right and fair thing to do. So for all of us who have worked so hard to get this bill here today, for everyone who has done so much, no matter where you stand on it, do not kill this rule. Today is the day. Have we not waited long enough?
There is nothing unfair about this rule. And if it is defeated, I hope that this country understands who defeated it.
Mr. FROST: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It will be very clear that it will be the Republican majority that defeats the rule, if it does go down.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this silly rule. This rule provides the American people with a limited opportunity to debate this important issue. It is a rule that was written by the Republican leadership that fears the will of the American people to have an open and honest debate on campaign finance reform.
If we are to maintain this institution's reputation as a representative body, then it is imperative that the American people have an opportunity to freely debate this issue here on the floor of the House. It appears the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) does not understand that when this bill is chopped up like it is, it will not have an up or a down vote, which I assure my colleagues, he is not in favor of.
Mr. Speaker, I have another problem with today's debate. I want to know why we are even talking about campaign finance reform before we are talking about election reform. I would think that after last year's travesty of an election, in which it was discovered that thousands of Americans nationwide had their right to vote stripped from them, Congress would have acted by now.
Mr. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of the rule as well as in strong support of the need for a paycheck protection provision to the campaign finance reform bill, and I will tell my colleagues why.
Banning soft money to the parties does not take the money out of politics, it only takes the money out of the parties. For example, currently a union such as the AFL-CIO can give $1 million to the Democratic party. The Democratic party will then turn around and run attack ads against Republicans like me that say, "Call Rick Keller and ask him why he is a bad guy." Well, if we ban the soft money to the party, we will still see the exact same TV attack ad on the air. The only difference will be the little disclaimer at the bottom of the screen which will now say, "Paid for by AFL-CIO," as opposed to, "Paid for by the Democratic party."
Any attempts to ban these ads 60 days before an election is blatantly unconstitutional. That is why to be fair and balanced we must also couple the ban on soft money with a paycheck protection requirement that requires unions to get the written consent of their workers if they intend to use part of their union dues for political activities. This is critical because fully 40 percent of the union members nationwide are Republicans, yet nearly all of their $100 million per election year is spent by unions on behalf of liberal Democrats. This is blatantly unfair and one-sided.
But I ask my colleagues not to take my word for it. Listen to what Thomas Jefferson, our third President and the author of the Declaration of Independence, had to say about this matter. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Yet the American worker is forced to do just that.
Finally, President Bush has repeatedly said that paycheck protection is an important component to any campaign finance reform bill. We should give the President a fair and balanced campaign finance reform bill that he can sign into law.
I support the rule.
Mr. FROST: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO: Mr. Speaker, today we have a historic opportunity to enact meaningful campaign finance reform. The Senate completed its work and passed a bill. The bipartisan Shays-Meehan measure has been twice passed by this House in previous Congresses.
We are on the threshold of bringing real reform to a system that is out of control and overrun by big-monied interest. Yet here we are debating the merits of a procedural rule that can only be characterized as guaranteed to fail. It does not allow the Shays-Meehan bill to be considered as a coherent whole. It is disingenuous and unfair.
This rule allows for 22 amendments designed to eviscerate the Shays- Meehan legislation; designed to kill the bill. Until we can get a clean up or down vote, we might as well tack up a "for sale" sign on all of our office doors.
We need to question the overall strategy behind this rule. If Shays- Meehan does not get defeated on the floor, then the opponents have paved the way for it to die in conference with the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to support genuine reform; that they not be afraid of real action. Restore integrity to our political process, restore America's faith in its political process. Defeat this rule. Support a clean vote on campaign finance reform.
Mr. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have the unofficial comments made by my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), last night in the Committee on Rules, which I would like to just share with the House as we look at the rule, the debate of the rule, with the balance of the time we have left.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said: "I just want people to have a fair and open debate on this process. Even if it disadvantage us if we have 200 amendments to go after our bill, I have always believed that the debate is healthy. I have always taken the position that we could be the substitute or the base bill, as long as ultimately you amend whatever is the base bill.
"Obviously, if you take up the Ney bill and he takes us down, we lost. And then you amend the Ney bill. If we survive, then we amend our bill. I have always taken that basic view.
"A vote for the Ney bill is a vote against our bill. And if he is the base bill and we replace him, then we amend our bill. I have always made that assumption.
"This manager's amendment, as I referred to it, I reluctantly call it the manager's amendment, it sounds ostentatious. I am not sure I feel like a manager. But this is an amendment that gets our bill in a form that we are most comfortable defending. And so obviously we like it. Some people have said you might like to divide them up into pieces; however, you decide."
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST: Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN: Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is not really about technicalities, though there is a manager's amendment that we should have been able to offer and, in fact, we will be able to offer, because this rule is going down if we do not get an up or down vote on campaign finance reform.
But what this really is about are technicalities designed to kill a bill to end this soft money abuse. The United States Senate, in a historic vote, voted for a bill we have been working to preconference with Members of the other body. We have negotiated over a period of time and had a final product at 12 o'clock midnight on Tuesday. The Committee on Rules did not meet until Wednesday, sometime around 3 o'clock. We should have had the opportunity to present to the committee and have an up or down vote on the bill that we agreed to. But technicalities were being used to try to defeat campaign finance reform.
There is a strong feel across America these unlimited amounts of money have to be curtailed. We cannot get a patient's bill of rights passed in this body because of the influence of soft money. We cannot get Medicare prescription drug coverage for seniors because $15.7 million in soft money are gumming up the works. It becomes difficult to get legislation passed to protect our environment when continually soft money has played a role in killing that legislation.
So my colleagues can talk all the technicalities that they want. The fact of the matter is, my colleagues will either give us an en bloc amendment or we will defeat the rule. Because the American people want a vote on Shays-Meehan, and they want that bill to be similar enough to the bill passed in the other body so that we can avoid a conference committee, where legislation to reform our campaign finance laws have historically died, where the Patient's Bill of Rights died, where reasonable gun safety measures to protect America's children have died.
We want to avoid that conference committee. So we have preconferenced this bill in an effort to build on the progress that was made in the other body, in an effort to work with Members in a bipartisan way in this body, Republican Members who are willing to take on this issue in a leadership role and a bulk of the Democrat party, to see to it we end this abuse of the soft money system. It is inexcusable to continue to fund political campaigns through unlimited amounts of money.
I believe tonight, as soon as my colleagues acquiesce on this rule, we will be ready to begin that historic debate.
Mr. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that I am glad my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), addressed the group in the House today, because he was not at the Committee on Rules to present his case before us as we deliberated over the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult couple of days. I have been working with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on this matter for some time. Some time ago the gentleman from Connecticut, speaking on behalf of himself and his cosponsors, came to me and requested that they be given a fair shake on this, that they get a chance to have their bill heard and have it heard in a timely fashion. We have worked on that. Today is the time that the gentleman from Connecticut and others have agreed to.
The gentleman from Connecticut came to me and said, I do not want anybody stacking the rule against me, I want to make sure it is a fair competition between my bill, which over 2 weeks ago he informed me was written. In fact, the gentleman came to me and exercised his frustration and impatience that the bill that the committee would put up was not yet written when his was already written and ready to go, and would I protect his bill so that he could have a straight up and down bill, as his bill was, and was written and was ready to go at least 2 weeks ago. We assured him that that would happen.
He subsequently came back and said I want my bill as a base bill, not the committee mark. I do not want the conventional thing here, which is to put the committee's mark on as the base bill and have mine as a substitute. I want mine as the base bill, and let the committee's be a substitute. We agreed. We wanted to be fair. We gave him that special consideration. So his bill is the base bill.
And, now, in the last few days, he has come before us and he said I want to amend my bill, and I have a demand that I have my amendment in the way I would like it. And he said, I have 14 different things I would like to do with this bill; 14 different amendments to this bill. Six of the 14 are provisions to strike all together provisions in his bill that was ready to go 2 weeks ago. Six provisions to strike.
Now, what does he want to strike? What are those provisions? I think we ought to talk about it. Three of those were to clarify provisions that he had in his bill, that was ready to go 2 weeks ago. Let us go with it. But now we need time, in this 11th hour, to clarify. What are those three clarifications? What do they mean?
I think we ought to know about that. Here is one, for example. What does this mean? It says he has one amendment that would increase the aggregate limit on individual contributions to $95,000 per cycle, including not more than $37,500 per cycle to candidates, and reserving $20,000 per cycle for the national party committees.
Is that soft money, or is that hard money? What individuals are we talking about? I think we ought to talk about that amendment.
Our complaint is that I do not get these 14 amendments. Incidentally, I might mention, Mr. Speaker, 145 amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules accepted 20 amendments. Fourteen of the 20 amendments that were accepted were amendments of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Here is a fellow who has gotten his bill that just 2 weeks ago was ready to go as the base bill, and now he needs 14 amendments to his own bill.
When was the last time we saw anybody in this House come to the House with their bill and need 14 amendments to their own bill, 14 separate amendments to their bill? Also, if I do not get them, I am not being treated fair.
I am a little concerned about that concept of fairness. Fourteen of the 20 were given to the author of the bill himself, to amend his own bill, that just 2 weeks ago was ready to go, 14 substantive amendments.
What we have is a person who got the bill on the floor when he wanted it on the floor, got the bill that he wrote that was ready to go as the base bill ahead of consideration of the committee's bill, who has been given the opportunity to have 14 out of the 20 amendments made available to amend his own bill on the floor, who is now complaining that we are not being fair with this Committee on Rules.
What more could the Rules Commi |
