[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

______

HON. TOM DeLAY

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 20, 1999

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers recognized that
restricting the free exchange of ideas in the political arena is the
tool of tyranny. The First Amendment ensures that a free exchange of
ideas, not the forceful will of the government, will always dominate
the political landscape.
Currently, there are those who would obliterate the First Amendment
in the name of ``campaign finance reform.'' Reforming our campaign
finance system by limiting the ability of individuals and groups to
express their views on issues and candidates is like trying to make a
car run better by removing the engine.
Time and time again, the Courts have held that the First Amendment
protects the right of individuals and groups to speak freely about
issues and candidates, free from the heavy hand of government
regulation and restrictions.
The American people do not need government speech police dictating
what, where, when and how they can speak about issues that are
important to them. the ``big brother'' reforms that are being proposed
will trample on the fundamental rights of individuals in order to
protect the interests of incumbent politicians.
I commend the following piece by Mr. James Bopp, published by the
Heritage Foundation, to my colleagues' attention. Mr. Bopp clearly
explains the need for true reform that is constitutional and
strengthens, rather than destroys, the ability of the American people
to have a voice in their government.

[From the Heritage Foundation, July 19, 1999]

Campaign Finance ``Reform'': The Good, the Bad, and the
Unconstitutional

(By James Bopp, Jr.)

Campaign finance reform soon will be debated in the U.S.
Senate. The problems with the current campaign financing
system that are identified by the most vocal reformers,
however, are not real problems for Americans who want more of
a say in who is elected and what policies public officials
pursue. And although incumbent officeholders in Washington,
D.C., may feel threatened by negative advertising and want to
manipulate the campaign rules to their advantage, this does
not justify imposing further restrictions on the freedom of
speech and association. The U.S. Supreme Court already has
addressed the remedies proposed by the ``reformers'' and
found them unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court and numerous federal courts following it
have struck down almost all laws that attempt to restrict
campaign spending or campaign advertising by individuals or
organizations (including corporations, unions, political
action committees [PACs], and political parties). Pursuant to
the First Amendment, the Supreme Court limits the regulation
of political expression to a very narrow class of speech:
explicit or express words advocating the election or defeat
of clearly identified candidates--such as ``vote for'' or
``elect.'' But not every type of express or explicit appeal
for votes is subject to regulation. For example, the Supreme
Court has held that:
A political candidate has an absolute First Amendment right
to spend an unlimited amount of his own money expressly
advocating his own election (unless he voluntarily waives
that right in order to receive public financing).
Individuals and organizations also have an absolute First
Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of their own
money expressly advocating the election or defeat of
particular candidates so long as there is no coordination
between the individual or organization and the candidates.
And governments may not presume that there is coordination
under certain scenarios--unless there really is some.
In addition, all other election-related speech that
discusses candidates and issues (including their voting
records or positions) but does not explicitly call for the
election or defeat of particular candidates is protected as
``issue advocacy.'' Although it undoubtedly influences
elections, issue advocacy is absolutely protected from
regulation by the First Amendment. Consequently, ``reforms''
that attempt to redefine ``express advocacy'' to include
types of issue advocacy, or to create new categories of
speech subject to regulation, or that effectively would ban
issue advocacy by corporations and labor unions are doomed to
a court-ordered funeral. So is legislation that effectively
would require any group engaging in issue advocacy to
register and report as a PAC or that would impose burdensome
disclosure requirements on issue advocacy.
Political parties enjoy the same unfettered right to
receive contributions for and to engage in issue advocacy.
And there are even fewer reasons to fear their exercise of
this important right because political parties have an
interest in a broader array of issues than narrow interest
groups do, and their donors know they exist to advance those
issues. The Supreme Court also has found that proposed bans
on political parties receiving and spending soft money cannot
be justified on the ground that it might prevent corruption.
Instead, the Supreme Court has determined such a goal is
insufficient to restrict the discussion of candidates and
their positions on issues.
To adopt true reform, Congress first needs to recognize
that today's perceived abuses are simply the predictable
result of past ``reforms'' in which the suppression of free
speech was the principal focus. Today's complex laws cause
wasteful distortions in the electoral process and lessen
transparency and public accountability. There are, however,
constitutional measures that would correct these flaws.
Specifically, raising or eliminating contribution limits,
which have been eroded by inflation, would allow elected
officials to concentrate more on their public duties than on
raising funds, make the flow of campaign money more
transparent, and improve public accountability. And removing
barriers that prevent political parties from exercising a
moderating influence on political campaigns would serve to
reduce the weight of narrow interests.
These reforms would encourage more direct citizen
participation in campaigns, thereby reducing the incentive
for indirect involvement through independent expenditures and
issue advocacy. Such true reforms not only are
constitutional, but they also reinforce the sovereignty of
the people over government officials and decrease the threat
of corruption by making it more likely that any influence
will be exposed. Bearing this in mind,
Congress should not rush to pass measures that would cause
uncertainty in the short run and inevitably be struck down as
unconstitutional. Because Members of Congress take an oath to
support and defend the Constitution, they should pay special
attention in the legislative process to any constitutional
defects in pending legislation.
Congress should not try to challenge the Supreme Court's
rulings on the First Amendment, especially when the people's
freedom to speak is at stake and Members self-interest in
retaining office conflicts with those rulings.
Instead, to enhance political participation and improve
transparency and accountability in the process, Congress
should:
1. Raise the individual contribution limit to at least
$2,500, indexing it for inflation; raise the aggregate
individual contribution limit; and raise the individual and
PAC contribution limits to political parties from $20,000 and
$15,000, respectively, to at least $50,000.
2. Remove the limits on coordinated expenditures by
political parties with their own candidates.