Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
U.S. Senate ^ | March 20, 2002 | Senator McConnell, the Defender of the Constitution

Posted on 03/24/2002 12:30:42 PM PST by Smile-n-Win

STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL
ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

*The following statement was delivered today on the floor of the U.S. Senate*

Mr. President, I would like to begin by citing the ultimate campaign reform – the First Amendment to the Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

I referred to the freedom of the press because it is the robust exercise of that freedom which has brought us here today to assault the freedom of speech.

Over the past 5 years, the New York Times and the Washington Post have joined forces to publish an editorial an average of every 5 ½ days on campaign finance reform. If you had to buy that editorial space in the Times or the Post it would cost about $36,000 and $8,000 respectively for each editorial. Multiply that amount by the number of editorials in each paper and it equals a total value of $8 million of unregulated soft money advertising that frequently mentions federal candidates. And, of course, that type of corporate, big media, soft money expenditure will not be regulated in this new law.

Why is the press -- the institution that has unlimited free speech -- so interested in restricting the speech of everyone else? Let’s take a closer look.

The unconstitutional issue ad restrictions in this bill purport to limit advertising within proximity to an election. However, it does not -- interestingly enough -- apply to newspaper ads. So, the already-powerful corporations that control the news -- and in many instances, the public policy -- in America will get more power and more money under this new law. One has to wonder why that blatant conflict of interest has not been more discussed in a debate about the appearance of conflict.

Outside groups such as Common Cause have devoted years and millions of dollars to lobbying this issue in the House and Senate. And why not, their fundraising will explode if this bill passes – they no longer have to compete with party committees for soft dollars. Shays-Meehan permits every member of the House and the Senate to raise soft money for these outside groups. And, I’m told that this unlimited, undisclosed, unregulated soft dollar fundraising has already begun.

Although the facts about the provisions of this bill are almost always misrepresented, the driving mantra behind the entire movement is that we are all corrupt or that we appear to be corrupt.

We have explored corruption and the appearance of corruption before in this chamber. You can’t have corruption unless someone is corrupt. At no time has any member of either body offered even the slightest hint of corruption.

As for the appearance of corruption, our friends in the media, who are part and parcel of the reform industry, continue to make broad and baseless accusations. It has been reported that the reform industry spent $73 million from 1997-1999 on this issue – this is all soft money. These all soft dollar expenditures are used to fuel negative perceptions of federal officeholders and candidates. Scandal or perceived scandal sells papers and gets viewers. In the non-stop competition to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, the reform industry relentlessly works to raise questions in their minds.

In short, I believe that the appearance of corruption is whatever the New York Times says it is. Add to that, cash-strapped, scandal-hungry newspapers and unlimited foundation donations for the reform industry – and you’re in full-scale corruption mode. The actual facts are rarely relevant.

Mr. President, I request that 2 articles be included in the record that document the hypocritical actions of the reform industry.

With no basis in fact or reality, the media consistently and repeatedly alleges our every decision can be traced back to money given to support a political party. I trust that every member of the chamber recognizes how absurd, completely false and insulting those charges are. In fact, we have been derelict in refuting these baseless allegations. I doubt we will ever see a headline that says “99% of Congress has never been under an ethics cloud.”

Each of us is elected to represent our constituents. We act in what we believe is the best interest of the country and our home states. Does representing the interests of our state and our constituents lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption? These allegations are not an attack on us, they are an attack on representative democracy.

What we are talking about here today is speech. The government telling people how, when and how much speech they are allowed. This wholesale regulation of every action of every American anytime there is a federal election is truly unprecedented.

The courts have consistently upheld the free speech rights of individuals and parties. Even in the most recent case of Colorado II, the court made clear that parties are not to be treated any worse than any other organization in the protection of constitutional rights. This legislation falls far short of that charge. The Shays-Meehan bill weaves a bizarre web of restrictions and prohibitions around parties and candidates while simultaneously strengthening the power of outside groups and corporations who own newspapers.

This legislation is remarkable in its scope. Indeed, this legislation seeks nothing less than a fundamental reworking of the American political system. Our Nation’s two party system has for centuries brought structure and order to our electoral process. This legislation seeks, quite literally, to eliminate any prominence for the role of political parties in American elections.

This legislation favors special interests over parties, favors some special interests over others, it treads on the associational rights of groups by compelling them to disclose their membership lists to a greater extent than ever before contemplated, it hampers the ability of national and state parties to support state and local candidates, and places new limits on political parties’ ability to make independent and coordinated expenditures supporting their candidates. Many of these provisions are directly contrary to existing Supreme Court precedent.

Equally remarkable is the patchwork manner in which this legislation achieves this virtual elimination of political parties from the electoral process. It seeks to achieve a pernicious goal via haphazard means. And the real loser under this legislation is the American voter, who no longer can rely on the support of a major political party as an indicia of what a candidate stands for.

Let me walk you through how this legislation will affect all of us.

1. Effect on National Parties

A. The Numbers

Shays-Meehan will eliminate nearly 50% of the fundraising receipts of the National Parties. National parties will be forced to conduct their wide array of federal and state party activities with only half the revenue.

Shays-Meehan will eliminate 90% of cash on hand of the National Parties.

By eliminating so-called soft-money, or nonfederal money, national party support of state parties and state and local candidates will be dramatically reduced if not eliminated.

In the 2000 cycle:

Where will all the soft money go? To outside groups and we can raise it for them and to the newspapers who can sell advertising in proximity to an election.

B. Coordinated vs. Independent Expenditures.

Shays-Meehan significantly limits party support of federal candidates. Parties are prohibited from engaging in both independent and coordinated party expenditures after a candidate has been nominated. The bill treats all party committees – from state and local to the national party – as a single committee.

How this works: If the Atlantic City Republican Party does a $500 independent expenditure on behalf of a Senate candidate – the party is prohibited from making the permissible $900,000 coordinated party expenditure in New Jersey.

The impact is even more severe for Presidential candidates! – if a local party anywhere does a $300 independent expenditure, the nominee will loose the entire party coordinated – roughly $13.7M in 2000.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have spent time in New Hampshire lately should pay very close attention to this provision.

C. Conventions.

Shays-Meehan will end National Party Conventions as we know them. The soft money ban covers host committees created to host these grand events.

In 2000, the federal convention grant was $14M per major party, just slightly more than was spent on convention security alone in 2000.

However, host committees raised and spent roughly $65M each. This is all soft money. Parties will be left with a choice: put on their conventions with 80% less funding or pay for them with all hard dollars - money that would otherwise be used for candidate support.

The big losers are not only the parties and presidential candidates, but also the host cities and the viewing public.

In case you think this can be done through state parties, Shays-Meehan closes that option – by allowing the use of soft money only for state, district or local political conventions.

Perhaps the outside groups will step in and fill the gap. We will be able to raise the money for them. Or maybe even the unrestricted media.

2. Effect on Federal Officeholders and Candidates

Shays-Meehan “federalizes” our every action and conversation. The big losers under this bill are state and local candidates and our state parties.

Under Shays-Meehan we can only raise money for state and local candidates within the hard dollar limits and restrictions – individual limit will be $2,000 per election.

Under Shays-Meehan we can only raise soft dollars for state parties within the hard dollar limits and restrictions - $10,000 from individuals.

But have no fear, my colleagues, the House has provided us with an alternative:

3. Effect on State and Local Parties

4. Effect on State and Local Candidates

5. Effect on Outside Groups

A. Outside Groups vs. The National Parties.

Soft money will exist and thrive under Shays-Meehan – everywhere but at the party committees. Here are a few short examples:

The bottom line is that this bill does not take money out of politics, it takes the parties out of politics.

B. Issue Ad Restrictions

C. Loopholes for Outside Groups

UNIONS

There are other loopholes in Shays-Meehan for specific outside groups.

INDIAN TRIBES

D. Coordination

Petitioning the Government to Redress Grievances

6. Closing

Mr. President, I submit for the record additional documents written by individuals and groups across the political spectrum which highlight the fundamental problems with this legislation. Although this legislation will pass today, I am confident the Supreme Court will step-in to defend the constitution.

I want to commend the proponents of this bill for acknowledging the serious constitutional questions that are wrapped up in this legislation and for providing an expedited route to the Supreme Court for an answer to these questions. I am consoled by the obvious fact that the courts do not defer to the Congress on matters of the Constitution.
Today is a sad day for our Constitution, for our democracy, and for our political parties. We are all now complicit in a dramatic transfer of power from challenger-friendly, citizen-action groups known as political parties to outside special interest groups, wealthy individuals and corporations that own newspapers.

After a decade of making my constitutional arguments to this body, I am eager to become the lead plaintiff in this case and take my arguments to the branch of government charged with the critical task of interpreting our constitution.

Today is not a moment of great courage for the legislative branch. We have allowed a few powerful editorial pages to prod us into infringing the First Amendment rights of everyone but them. Fortunately, this is the very moment for which our Bill of Rights was enacted. The Constitution is most powerful when our courage is most lacking.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cfrlist; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: Smile-n-Win
Bump

Thanks!

21 posted on 03/24/2002 1:25:38 PM PST by Desert Lizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Thanks for the article. I'm trying to stay calm about this whole mess. I think if President Bush were to veto this the media would harm him with ties to Enron as the President who is trying to hide something. I still trust President Bush and I think he is doing what he feels is the best way to handle this situation.
22 posted on 03/24/2002 1:32:42 PM PST by SharonLorraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Yeah, that line was a bit over the top.
23 posted on 03/24/2002 1:33:51 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Torie
"Trust me."

I'd trust you a whole lot sooner than I'd trust that bunch in DC.

Carolyn

24 posted on 03/24/2002 1:44:47 PM PST by CDHart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I don't think so. Votes are purchased all the time for below the radar screen issues, that the press ignores because it is too comlicated for them, and/or not sexy enough. Trust me.

Since you are accusing Congress of an illegal act I hope you have details to back yourself up. For example? Name 3.

25 posted on 03/24/2002 1:47:38 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
The only thing the First Amendment Reformers are right about is that it is, in fact, about money and power. THEIR money. THEIR power.
26 posted on 03/24/2002 1:50:52 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
It is all quite legal. That is the problem. Even more of a problem is the "solution."
27 posted on 03/24/2002 1:54:49 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
No, the point of the article is that CFR sets up an outside of politics power broker to hold the purse strings. Clinton already had the organization in place. He will do all the fund raising for the wacko liberal groups and co-ordinate all the advertising.
28 posted on 03/24/2002 1:54:53 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Banking, telecommunications, and securities law are driven by money. So was accounting legislation until Enron. So is copyright law. Why do you think copyright periods were extended? For example, Disney wanted to own Mickey Mouse a bit longer. That is worth a couple of billion at least right there.
29 posted on 03/24/2002 1:58:25 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Torie
No, Torie, it is not legal to purchase legislation. If a bunch of lawmakers were in court over specific legislation tied to specific donations with some real facts to back it up then maybe I could see the need for reform. All this crap is about the "appearance of corruption". I different matter altogether.

Everything in a capitalist society is driven by money. The government is driven by money. The media is driven by money. Churches are driven by money. Charities are driven by money. NOT just corporations.

30 posted on 03/24/2002 2:01:47 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win;maica
Anyway, the bill is clearly unconstitutional, so we may rightly hope the Supreme Court will throw it out.

The bill is written with "separability." What parts do you think will be declared unconstitutional? Will what's left favor the 'rats?

McCain got millions in free publicity from the New York Times in the 2000 campaign. These were news articles, of course.

31 posted on 03/24/2002 2:02:22 PM PST by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Signing this into law is condemning countless American lives to jail by public disobedience. Way to go Bush.
32 posted on 03/24/2002 2:05:51 PM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
:-} Not only is it unconstitutional, according to David Mason, it is unenforceable.

It is McCains Folly.

33 posted on 03/24/2002 2:07:37 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
PS: David Mason is the Chairman of the Federal Election Committee, the arm of the gov't charged with enforcing election laws, for those who were wondering.
34 posted on 03/24/2002 2:10:24 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PRND21,NittanyLion,JohnHuang2
I think this merits a look see.
35 posted on 03/24/2002 2:15:27 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
bump - damning indictment of CFR.
36 posted on 03/24/2002 2:17:50 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"...incumbents job security" bump! ;^)
37 posted on 03/24/2002 2:24:32 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Thanks for the bump. This one's bookmarked.
38 posted on 03/24/2002 2:29:00 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
bookmark. Excellent talking points. Sen. McConnell has emerged from this battle with a lot of promise.
39 posted on 03/24/2002 2:32:31 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
Mr. President, why have you forsaken us?
40 posted on 03/24/2002 2:43:55 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson