Return to the 1999 Congressional Record directory

Project FREEDOM Opening Page

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: June 14, 1999

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

------------

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: H4214]

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today's reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating tremendous incentive to protect one's own interest by investing in politicians.

The problem is not a lack of Federal laws or rules regulating campaign spending. Therefore, more laws will not help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.

There is tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over $100 million per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers' dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans and grants. Corporations and others are forced to participate in the process out of greed, as well as self defense, since that is the way the system works.

Equalizing competition and balancing powers such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.

The reformers argue only that the fault is those who are trying to influence government and not the fault of the members who yield to the pressure of the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process, which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans.

The reformers' argument is to stop us before we capitulate and before we capitulate to the special interest groups. Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed and run.

Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending, a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.

The quasi two-party system will become more entrenched by limiting the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative choices and third party candidates will be further handicapped if all the reforms proposed are passed. The media become a big winner. Their influence grows as the private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. The wealthy gain a significant edge since it is clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.

Celebrities will gain an even greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank, and by limiting the resources to counterbalance this advantage works against the noncelebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger. The current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government.

More regulation of political speech through control of private money without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.