January 30, 1990 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 847 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM er-especially given the active involvement 3. In a world of big-money campaigns, by Charles Keating in the campaign fund­ challengers are left out, and incumbents ing process-it is clearly going to be a priori­ have unfair advantages. To run a competi­ HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI ty. tive campaign for the House these days OF PENNSYLVANIA The odds for success have increased in the takes roughly $400,000. Few challengers IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES past several months, for other reasons as have the wherewithal or the access to re­ Tuesday, January 30, 1990 well. The longstanding impasse between the sources to raise anywhere near that sum. political parties shows signs of being Incumbents increasingly have monopo­ Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, the leader­ broken, especially because of the encourag­ lized political action committee <PAC> con­ ship of both parties in the House of Repre­ ing movement towards sensible change tributions, worsening the financing prob­ sentatives has made enactment of a meaning­ being made by House Republicans. lems of challengers. ful campaign finance reform law a top priority The recommendations of the GOP mem­ Add to this the other advantages of in­ for 1990, the second session of the 101 st bers of the Task Force on Campaign Fi­ nance Reform were largely reasonable and cumbents-mailing privileges, staff, sheer Congress. I share your belief that we owe it to constructive, and the recent comments by name recognition-and the obstacles to the American people to clean up our cam­ House Republican Leader Bob Michel <R­ challengers become insurmountable. Hence, paign finance morass, _in a bipartisan fashion, Ill) provide a genuine opening for compro­ the 98 percent reelection rates for incum­ before we adjourn for the year in October. mise. bents in 1986 and 1988. The American people are understandably But success in the campaign finance arena Real campaign finance reform would fed up with the cost of elections, the per­ will be judged not just by whether a politi­ "level the playing field" by maki.Ilg it easier for challengers to get into the game. And, ceived advantages of incumbents under the cal compromise can be cobbled together in a political atmosphere demanding et hics ideally, it would transform a system that current financing process, and the perceived reform; we have had several campaign fi­ now discourages experienced and able candi­ influence of large contributors. There is an nance "reforms" enacted in the past two dates because of the daunting task of rais­ overwhelming desire to democratize our cam­ decades under similar circumstances-creat­ ing money, while encouraging the ideolo­ paign finance system by increasing the impact ing the mess we have today. gues and multi-millionaires who can hack it of small contributors, and reducing the impact This time, a higher standard must be ap­ under the current rules. of the so-called fat cats. plied. And now is the time to step back and THE FATAL MISCONCEPTION put some cool and objective common sense Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the Nearly everyone connected with the politi­ American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy into the process. REASONS FOR CHANGE cal process from journalists to politicians to Research, and a well-known and respected academics, understands these problems. But observer of U.S. elections, has prepared a The best place to start is by reviewing our most move from them to a fatal misconcep­ very thoughtful analysis of our campaign fi­ conceptions-and misconceptions-about tion about their roots-and to faulty as­ nance system. what is wrong with the campaign finance sumptions about what would cure them. system, and why we want to clean it up. His analysis, which first appeared in Roll There are clearly three major reasons for The fatal misconception? That the prob­ Call, carefully dissects both past efforts to change: lem is too much money. The most common revise our campaign finance system and cur­ 1. We are uneasy about special interest in­ complaint about the campaign finance rent proposals for improvement. He concludes fluence in the political process. From the system is that it is awash in money-espe­ by offering a major five-point plan for reform. Keating Five to the listings in the Washing­ cially, of course, special interest money. ton Post of all Congressional speech hono­ The most common solution offered by re­ I would like to share his insight with my col­ formers is to remove as much money as pos­ leagues and announce that I will use his pro­ raria, it's evident that the ever-acute soci­ etal sensitivity to special interests in politics sible from the system. Common Cause and posal as the basis for a new, comprehensive, many Republicans want to accomplish this campaign financb reform bill. In addition to ad­ and policy has been ratcheted higher. Washington is awash in lobbyists, and the end by eliminating PACs. Many Democrats · dressing the issues raised in Mr. Ornstein's ar­ most observable, reportable, and quantifi­ want to do it by putting spending caps on ticle, my bill will also deal with the problem of able evidence of their influence is campaign campaigns. Each solution solves the wrong candidates pouring millions of dollars from contributions. These donations may be problem and creates a bigger one. their own pockets into elections, and the prob­ legal, but their growing size and role in cam­ In a vast and heterogeneous society like lem of so-called independent groups spending paigns has led to an overwhelming desire to the United States, elections cost a lot of large sums of money to defeat or elect a spe­ change the laws, to reduce this special inter­ money-and should. There is no way to com­ est presence. municate effectively and fully with the cific candidate. 550,000 people who make up a Congression­ What makes these proposals unique, is that 2. Politicians have become obsessed with money. The pay raise issue, the chasing of al constituency, or the tens of millions of they are positive and focus on providing in­ honoraria, the petty business deals of ethics Americans affected in many Senate elec­ centives to encourage actions we desire, code violations are examples of this phe­ tions, without spending a lot of money. small contributions by many people, rather nomenon, but so too is the obsession with McDonald's spends more money advertis­ than focusing on actions we are trying to dis­ campaign money. ing its hamburgers than we do on our feder­ courage. Challengers can't run effectively without al campaigns. As scholar Howard Penniman The article follows: money-lots of it. Incumbents can't be as­ points out, contrary to conventional CFrom Roll Call, Jan. 8, 1990] sured of keeping effective challenges away, wisdom, the per-voter costs for campaigning or of surviving reappointments, redistrict­ in the US are about the same as the average_ THE ORNSTEIN PLAN FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE ing, or gerrymandering, without having for Western democracies. REFORM: TAX CREDITS, SEED MONEY, PAC large nest eggs. We happen to have a lot of voters, spread CUTS From regular phone calls to faithful con­ out over huge geographical expanses. This <By Norman J. Ornstein) tributors to constant appearances at Wash­ means that American elections are expen­ The Keating Five story and the stubborn ington fundraisers, politicians spend enor­ sive-and have to be. Candidates need to refusal of the Senate to eliminate honoraria mous amounts of time raising money for raise lots of money to run effective cam­ in return for a pay raise mean that political campaigns, plotting ways to raise money, paigns-campaigns, in other words, that ethics will continue to be a big issue in 1990. and thinking about how much money they adequately reach voters. That's bad news for Senators, but it could need to raise. But the current system, designed in con­ be good news for campaign finance reform­ This is time that would be better spent siderable part by the same reformers who ers. Campaign finance is the one remaining worrying about public policy, or relating to decry it, makes raising money in any form piece of major reform in the political proc­ representatives or constituents on a more especially difficult. Under current law, Con­ ess that remains unaddressed. Now, howev- open and less venal basis. gressional candidates, whether incumbents 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. 848 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS January 30, 1990 or challengers, have to become obsessed SPENDING CAPS? With these two reforms, Congressional with raising money. What about capping campaign spending? candidates would suddenly have a major in­ The single largest reason for the sharp Reformers who favor this approach believe centive to raise money in small individual growth in PACs has been previous "re­ it would reduce the obsession with money, contributions from their own state's forms" that cut the amount of money in give challengers more opportunity by reduc­ voters-tilting the playing field sharply campaigns <restricting the size of individual ing the huge leads that well-off incumbents away from PACs and toward "average" contributions), for example, and made it have, and trim special interest influence by people. For a further tilt. more difficult for candidates to raise money cutting the overall money in the process. 3. Cut allowable PAC contributions. PACs from small individual donors <eliminating A cap on spending might reduce a candi­ can currently contribute up to $5,000 per the tax break for small campaign dona­ date's ability to communicate with voters, election (primary or general) to a candidate.