Mr. President, I support reforming our system of campaign financing. Reform is necessary to reduce public cynicism in elected officials and to bolster confidence in our democratic institutions. I want to eliminate even the appearance of corruption and encourage individual participation in political campaigns. The American people deserve an open system- one that shines the full light of day on campaign contributions. At the same time, we should make it easier for citizens to become engaged in the electoral process.
However, the Campaign Finance Bill before the Senate contains some fatal flaws. The most egregious problem with this legislation is a provision that limits the free speech of some organizations 60 days before an election. Groups from across the political spectrum would be prohibited from communicating their views if they even refer to a candidate for federal office. I don't think we should put a damper on any organization speaking at any time in the United States, but especially 60 days before an election. Limiting political discourse at election time solves nothing. And, it goes against the grain of one of our most fundamental rights, the right to freedom of speech.
I also believe that a complete ban on "soft money" goes too far. Political parties raise this money to finance voter registration drives, get-out-the-vote activities, and communications about issues the party stands for. These are essential functions of a political party. They are also activities that increase voter participation. Effective limitations on soft money are necessary to reduce real or perceived corruption in the system. But, a complete ban would undermine the role of the national political parties.
Who is going to fill the void in the process if we tie the hands of the parties? The Democrats have always relied on labor unions to man phone banks and get people to the polls. That would not change as a result of this bill. The Republicans, however, don't have an external organization to fall back on. Republicans rely on the party to build and mobilize their grassroots network. This bill takes the Republicans' organizational ability and cuts it off at the knees. But, it leaves the Democrats untouched. That's hardly a balanced approach.
A big reason why soft money spending has increased in the first place is the limitations on campaign contributions by individuals. The cap on individual donations has been frozen at the same level since 1974. This has made individual contributions worth less and less over the years. I'm pleased that this bill increases the individual contribution limit and indexes it for inflation. It's high time we put more emphasis back on contributions by individual citizens instead of corporations and unions.
On the other hand, the new prohibitions on soft money will simply cause an increase in spending in other areas. For instance, spending on issues ads can impact a campaign but is not regulated. Some have advertised the new restrictions as getting the money out of politics. But they don't get rid of the money. They only shift it from one place to another. In fact, this point is illustrated by an article that appeared in Roll Call on February 21 entitled "House Dems Make Plans To Circumvent Campaign Reform". This article describes a promise that was apparently made by the Minority Leader in the House to a group of Democratic members. He assured them that he would help raise money for certain outside groups aligned with the Democrats, despite the new fund-raising restrictions that he supported. These groups can then turn around and use this money to run unregulated issue ads to benefit Democrat candidates. This example belies the contention that a soft money ban will solve the problem of money in politics.
The best method for combating the influence of money in politics is to require full disclosure of campaign donations. We can try to regulate ethical behavior by politicians. But the surest way to cleanse the system is to open it up to the public. We must allow the voters to hold candidates accountable. I've been a long time advocate of comprehensive disclosure requirements. In fact, this bill does contain several positive reforms. It increases the number of times candidates have to report contributions to the Federal Election Commission. And, it makes report information more accessible to the public. This bill also increases penalties for campaign finance law violations and provides for tough new sentencing guidelines. These are precisely the sort of reforms we should be doing more of.
However, some of the purported reforms in this bill simply won't work and may even be counterproductive. I'm not the only one to spot the problems in this bill. Recent editorials in the two largest newspapers in the State of Iowa highlight many of the same concerns I have just outlined. I ask unanimous consent that these editorials from The Des Moines Register and The Gazette in Cedar Rapids appear in the record with my statement.
Many attempts were made in both the House and the Senate to fix the problems with this bill, but to no avail. If this bill passes in its current form, I believe we will have lost an important opportunity to enact a balanced and sensible package of real reforms to our campaign finance system. Therefore, I must reluctantly vote against the final passage of this bill.