~-.....,......... ~_,... ......... __ , May 20, 1987 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 13279 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS CAMPAIGN COST REDUCTION visions in the law, but because the Court Fourth, as many PAC's themselves recog­ AND REFORM ACT INTRODUCED eliminated portions of the law that were in­ nize, they are on accelerating treadmill of tended to avoid those undesirable conse­ fundraising they cannot control. They are con­ HON. AL SWIFr quences. stantly subject to increasing demands from OF WASHINGTON The most important improvement we can­ candidates for more and more contributions. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES make in the current law is not something new; Since they do have an interest in legislation it is to return to the law an element that was before the Congress, they are susceptible to Tuesday, May 19, 1987 intended to be there all along. That element is pressure from candidates, just as the reverse Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportu­ campaign spending limits. Congress knew is true. nity to discuss a comprehensive campaign fi­ limits were important then, and they are even Fifth, small individual contributions are tend­ nance bill I am introducing today, along with more obviously crucial now. ing to disappear. Not that there are fewer Mo UDALL, LEE HAMILTON, LEON PANETTA, The cost of running for a House seat is small campaign contributions. Far from it. The DAN GLICKMAN, GEORGE BROWN, BRUCE rising more than twice as fast as inflation. In amount of money in campaign contributions of VENTO, DON PEASE, SAM GEJDENSON, JIM 1974, a House campaign cost about three­ $200 or less to House candidates has been BATES, and MERVYN DYMALLY. and-a-half times the average income for a rising at roughly the same rate as inflation. I have introduced this bill, the Campaign family of four. By 1986, the cost had risen to The problem is that overall campaign spend­ Cost Reduction and Reform Act of 1987, be­ eight times the average family income. Per­ ing is rising twice as fast as inflation. The dif­ cause I am committed to improving our cur­ haps, as the Supreme Court has suggested, ference is being made up from PAC contribu­ rent campaign financing system. In particular, I that kind of increase alone is not sufficient tions, and individual contributors-our con­ am deeply concerned about the spiraling cost reason to support campaign spending limits­ stituents-are getting submerged. of running for the House of Representatives, but what that kind of increase leads to in our So what do we do? We seek voluntary cam­ which is increasing twice as fast as inflation. paign spending limits. campaign finance system is more than suffi­ Limiting this spending arms race is the single The problem with spending limits last time cient reason. Trying to raise anywhere from most important change we can make. was that Congress sought to impose limits on half a million to a million dollars for a competi­ First, however, before addressing the kinds all candidates, rather than encouraging candi­ tive race, within a year or two, invites the cur­ of changes I would like to see in the law, and dates to accept the limits. The Court has indi­ rent massive flows of PAC dollars into the why those changes are important, let me step cated that candidates must be offered the op­ system, and it inevitably brings enormous back a moment to say that suggesting the law portunity to accept limits, rather than having can be improved is not to imply that the cur­ pressure to bear on all participants. them imposed. rent law is fatally flawed. First, our current fundraising system inter­ The conventional inducement for candi­ It is often asserted that campaign laws feres with our responsibilities as legislators dates to agree to spending limits, of course, is produce different results from those that had and as representatives. We spend a dispro­ public financing. Personally, I have always been expected; that there is a "law of unin­ portionate amount of our time raising money, supported public financing in concept. I have tended· consequences." To some extent, that and worrying about raising money. The fund­ absolutely no philosophical objection to it, and is true. But I think those kinds of statements raising process can become so all-consuming I believe it has worked well in Presidential leave an implication with which I do not agree. that we could spend less and less time doing races. However, the more I tried to figure out The implication is that nothing we do makes the things we spend all the money to come how to take a system that functions smoothly the situation better-that every time we try to here and do in the first place, from solving the with a relative handful of Presidential candi­ improve the campaign financing system, we Nation's problems to meeting with individual dates, and apply it to 800 or more House can­ make it worse instead. That is wrong. While constituents. didates, the more I became convinced that we might all agree that our campaign financ­ Second, the current system increasingly public financing in House races would be ing system is not everything we would like, it prevents nonwealthy candidates from even enormously complex and expensive to admin­ is certainly better than it was 15 years ago. considering offering themselves for public ister. Contribution limits have reduced the influence office. Nonwealthy challengers-particularly Furthermore, I believe that the cost reduc­ of large individual contributors. Spending in nonincumbents-are either priced out of the tion package I am introducing will not only be the Presidential system, which of course is market at the start, or finish with heavy loads tremendously easier to administer, it will also publicly financed, has kept pace with inflation, of debt. provide a better inducement than public fi­ rather than spiraling out of control like spend­ Third, there is no question that the appear­ nancing, and at much less cost. ing in congressional races. Disclosure, which ance of corruption, and the potential for actual This proposal, unlike public financing, does is probably the single most important element corruption as well, are serious and growing not give money to candidates to pay their of the law, is infinitely better than it was when candidates take increasingly large per­ campaign costs. Instead, it seeks to limit the before the Federal Election Campaign Act centages of their campaign funds from well-fi­ rapid increase in some of the costs them­ [FECA] took effect. nanced, well-identified, influential, economic selves, particularly those that are most impor­ To the degree that we have experienced interest groups-each with an interest in legis­ tant in a competitive campaign: broadcasting "unintended consequences," I would like to lation before the Congress; many with little or time and postage. Under this proposal, candi­ remind my colleagues that the Congress that no connnection to the candidate's home dis­ dates who agree to an overall spending limit passed the FECA and its amendments in the trict. Certainly, I am not inherently opposed to are entitled to reduced postage and broad­ 1970's did not pass the law we know today. PAC's, or to their right to participate in the casting rates. Most importantly, the law that Congress process. They have a role to play that I be­ Briefly, the proposal is as follows: passed contained spending limits for congres­ lieve is a completely legitimate one. I accept 1. The spending limit.-Just as under cur­ sional races. Those limits were stricken by the campiagn contributions from PAC's myself. rent law, a candidate would have to file with Supreme Court. If those limits were still in What does trouble me is the way their role is the FEC immediately upon having raised or place, we would not have the dramatic in­ increasing by leaps and bounds from one spent $5,000. Under the new system, part of creases we have today, either in PAC contri­ election cycle to the next. Ten years ago a the filing would be a statement as to whether butions, or in overall campaign spending. The House candidate was likely to get about one­ the candidate accepted the inducements and problems we face today have come about, not fourth of his money from PAC's; 5 years ago it the spending limit. A "participating candidate" so much because Congress failed to antici­ was about one-third; now, it is edging perilous­ would be one who accepted the spending limit pate undesirable consequences of certain pro- ly close to half. of $200,000 per election-$400,000 per cycle, e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. 91-059 0-89-28 <Pt. 10) 13280 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS May 20, 1987 since primary and general are considered sep­ age provides little benefit to nonserious candi­ House candidates. Also, when the value of arate elections-in return for the benefits of dates, because a candidate has to raise a the postage and broadcasting discounts is the system. Once a choice was made, it could reasonably significant amount of money to be taken into account, candidates will receive not be altered in the same election cycle. able to buy the broadcast time or postage and additional value beyond the actual dollars 2. lnducements.-A participating candidate they spend. Furthermore, the greater the take advantage of the discounts. portion of his campaign budget that a can­ would be entitled to the following benefits: Second, the cost reduction plan subsidizes didate devotes to postage and broadcast­ Reduced broadcasting costs.-The partici­ only fundamental campaign expenses-radio, ing-the items most important to dissemi­ pating candidate would be entitled to radio television and mail-that are crucial to getting nate his message-the greater the value of and television rates discounted 30 percent a candidate's message to the voters.