MENU |
Updated 02/19/02 03:46 PM EST | Today in Congress | |
................... ....................
|
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly in this political city the debate over campaign finance reform has taken the shape of people talking about which party would be advantaged, but there is a more profound issue, more profound even than the kind of subtle corruption that campaign money takes. It goes to the nature of democracy. We have two systems in this country. We have an economic system, capitalism, which is based on inequality. It is inequality which drives that system which has been so productive of wealth and which is so broadly supported. If people are not unequally rewarded for their labor, if people are not unequally rewarded for the wisdom of their investment decisions, if people are not unequally rewarded because they respond to consumer demand, capitalism does not work. So inequality, some of us want to keep it from getting excessive, but it is at the heart of that system. We also have a political system, and the heart of that political system is equality. That was the genius of the American Constitution, not fully realized at the time, a goal that we have been striving towards with some success ever since. What we have in our public policy is a tension between an economic system built on inequality where people are unequally rewarded and unequally powerful and a political system in which people are supposed to be equal, in which people's preferences are supposed to count each equally one for one. What we have in America today is a corruption of that system in the broadest sense. As money has become more and more influential in politics, the inequality of the economic system has damaged the ability of the political system to function in a way that carries out equality. We cannot allow the inequality that is a necessary element of our capitalism to swamp the equality that is supposed to be the element of our political system. That is why the Shays-Meehan bill is so important. It reduces the role of money. Soft money is a way that the unequal part of our system gains undue influence over the place where it is supposed to be equal, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the profound philosophical reason why campaign finance reform ought to reduce the role of money, ought to reduce the extent to which inequality undermines formal equality. Interestingly, some of those opposed to the bill have implicitly acknowledged this. I have heard people say, on the Republican side mostly, we cannot go ahead with that kind of a forum; if we get rid of soft money, the next thing we know, labor and environmentalists and all those people will dominate the election. We have, in fact, had people almost explicitly say that the danger in campaign finance reform is that the people will have too much to say. Well, that is the way it is supposed to be in the political part of the system. The financial, the economic system has inequality, but in the political system people are supposed to have equality. That is also the answer to those who say that somehow this violates freedom of expression in the first amendment. I should note, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat interested to see Members that I have served with for a very long time who for the first time in their careers have become champions of free speech. That is, there are Members who have supported virtually every restriction on free speech, including censorship on the Internet and other rules that the Supreme Court has thrown out, and they have voted for them cheerfully, but when it comes to the power of money to swamp the equal part of our political system, suddenly they become advocates of free speech. Indeed, it seems that many of them are for free speech as long as it is not free. They are for free speech when it costs money, when they can buy it. In fact, if we look at the purpose of our Constitution and our political system, if we look at the role that equality is supposed to play, we understand, because we do not just interpret the Constitution in the abstract, we interpret it in its context, our political system is meant to be one in which people are equal, and what we are doing with campaign finance reform is restricting the ability of money to swamp that equal sector. It does not impinge on free speech as we have ever understood it. Everyone in this country will be as free as they ever want to say what they want to say, to speak out. We do say that they cannot use money, they cannot use the inequality that has accrued to them through the capital system to undermine the electoral system. So, for that reason, precisely because the very heart of the democratic political system is at stake, I hope that we will pass the campaign finance reform bill in an appropriate form, in a form that can go right to the President's desk, because it is essential that we vindicate the equality principle against those who are the beneficiaries of inequality who are seeking to erode it. #####
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome converts. I do not always get a chance to do that, but for years here I have tried to defend freedom of expression, free speech and the first amendment. We have passed information censoring the Internet that was thrown out unanimously by the Supreme Court. We have passed other restrictions. And, frankly, I have usually found most of my friends on the other side voting for these restrictions, but today is the day of conversion. The first amendment and freedom of speech have gained today defenders that they have never had before. Unfortunately, I am afraid they will never have them in the future either. But, for instance, I was looking at the amendment that will be offered later by the majority leader in defense of the first amendment. The first four cases he cites are from the Warren Court. Oh, for the days of Warren and Douglas and Black and Brennan. That is the version of the first amendment that they are embracing, and if I thought that was a lasting embrace, I would welcome it. But it is a very temporary use of a particular version of the first amendment that they never had before and they will never have again. Let us be very clear that if you are, in fact, going to adopt their version of the first amendment, which I think is not a correct one, you are going to encompass a lot more than simply letting yourselves spend money, although maybe that is a distinction. I thought about it as free speech. You have had a number of people, including the majority whip who just spoke, who had not previously distinguished himself, in my view, as a great defender of free speech. The key is this: They are for free speech as long as it is not free. If you pay for the speech, they are for it. Free free speech they never defend, but paid free speech is something that many of these people find acceptable. I will tell Members this, that, in fact, if you endorse this version of virtually untrammeled free expression, understand that in no way logically and philosophically can you confine it to this. We have obscenity decisions being quoted here. We have decisions about the right to speak in very radical terms about opposition to the government. It does not fit logically to be someone who has been for severe restrictions on free speech in every other context and suddenly become a first amendment absolutist in this case. And the doctrine of free speech that is being used to try to discredit this bill, which I think is an inaccurate one, because the notion that speech you pay for is somehow fully endowed and that no restriction can be made and no regulation on that, that does not seem to me to be free speech. But if that is what people hold, let me say the lead Senate opponent of this says to be consistent he is against the flag burning amendment because he says he is against this on free speech grounds, the Senator from Kentucky, and he is against the flag burning constitutional amendment. So let us be clear, if you want to adopt that version of free speech, adopt it, but you cannot turn it on and off like a water faucet. ##### CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM [Page: H415] GPO's PDF
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I was struck by reading the findings. Members will be pleased to know that if they vote for this amendment, they will be certifying the American Civil Liberties Union as an expert on the interpretation of the first amendment. Now, I often agree with the ACLU on the First Amendment, not on some other amendments, but I think this is a new height in freedom of expression. Look at finding 16 on page 12: Whether it is the American Civil Liberties Union or the counsel to National Right to Life, experts have thoughtfully explained this need. I am sure the ACLU appreciates the gentleman from Illinois's very occasional endorsement, because I must say, having served on the Committee on the Judiciary with him for years, I do not remember too many other occasions when he and the ACLU have agreed on constitutionality; not on the antiterrorism bill. In fact, I agree with the gentleman from Indiana. I do not think we should vote for things that we think are unconstitutional. That is why I have consistently voted against the censorship of the Internet which this House passes every other year, and, in the alternative year, the Supreme Court throws out. The fact is that there is a pattern here of people who have never found much virtue with the ACLU and the first amendment suddenly becomes believers. Now, it also sanctifies here the case of New York against Sullivan, the libel case that I have heard Members be critical of, but people also talk about draftsmanship. Let me say I was particularly impressed with finding 14. This is the finding. Finding 14: Sheila Toomey, Anchorage Daily News. It does not say anything else, except that she was reporting on a story. So Ms. Toomey, whoever she is, has now become an official finding of the United States if you pass that amendment. That is a great honor to her. So you have sanctified the expertise of the ACLU, you have officially found Ms. Toomey, who probably did not know heretofore that she was lost, and you have, in fact, added surplus verbiage, at best. The gentleman from Illinois is well aware nothing we can do could impinge on the First Amendment. So what this amendment comes down to, in addition to certifying the expertise of the ACLU, and they will appreciate every Republican who votes that way, and they will probably cite you in their literature, and you may expect the people in your own districts to be thanked by the ACLU for sending a supporter of their expertise to the Congress of the United States and to officially vote and certify them as experts. #####
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (House of Representatives - February 13, 2002) [Page: H453] GPO's PDF
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, first let us talk about the time. Yes, if this bill had come up in a timely fashion last year, it would have been effective for this cycle. The amendment purports to say let us put it into effect right away. Seventy House seats will be decided in primary in 3 weeks. The States of California and Illinois between them have more than 70 House seats. The primaries are in 3 weeks. Members can differ about a lot of this bill, but it is simply not logically possible to argue that they are for this bill and are going to have it go into effect 3 weeks before primary which have been conducted heretofore under the old rule. That is just not arguable, and to have someone say I am for the bill but I want to make it take effect right away and then call me a hypocrite is like being called silly by the Three Stooges. It simply does not make any sense. One cannot purport to be for this bill and say that they are now going to put it into effect 3 weeks before 70-some-odd primaries. The other point that the gentleman raised has some validity. There is some ambiguity in the bill; and as Members know, it will be corrected in a recommit. To the extent that there is an unintentional ambiguity that would allow a hard-money, soft-money transfer, the recommit will ban that. I understand that there is no worse news to give people who have found a flaw in something they hate than to plan to correct a flaw. I apologize. Maybe they should have held that they tortured the language or did not torture the language, they came up with an ambiguity. The two sponsors of the bill are going to put an end to that ambiguity. I understand why they want to talk about it now. It is about to disappear, and they will miss it, I understand, because it will take away from them that argument. So the fact is very simple. If my colleagues voted for Shays-Meehan, how can they possibly now go to the people and say yes I voted for this and I then voted to make it take effect immediately 3 weeks before the primaries in which the rules have already been under the other way? Then it has got to go to the Senate and be signed by the President. I hope this amendment is defeated and we will correct that error in the recommit. #####
Web Navigator || Back To the Top || Back to Main Page || |
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Pursuant to the order of the House of January 23, 2002, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK) is recognized during morning hour debates
for 5 minutes.