WASHINGTON – First District Congressman Paul Ryan yesterday voted in favor of campaign finance reform that would ban soft money to the national parties, state and local parties (for federal election activities), and tax-exempt organizations that make expenditures in connection with a federal office.  The measure was brought up as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill (H.R. 2356); however, it did not pass.  Instead, the Shays-Meehan measure passed in the House of Representatives early this morning by a vote of 240-189.

"I support an enforceable ban on soft money and real reform that protects free speech," Ryan said.  "Unfortunately, the Shays-Meehan bill falls down in both these areas: it contains major soft-money loopholes and unconstitutionally limits speech in the days before an election.  In this way, it's really an 'incumbent-protection' bill, because it would help muzzle groups who want to run ads critical of current representatives and our record on the issues."

Although Shays-Meehan would ban union and corporate soft money to the handful of national parties, it would carve out a $10,000 per-person, per-year soft money loophole for state and local parties.  With thousands of state and local parties in existence, and with thousands of potential corporate and union donors to each give $10,000 to each of these thousands of party committees, it is clear that Shays-Meehan does not come close to banning soft money.

In addition, the Shays-Meehan legislation that passed today includes other serious loopholes. For example, it would allow a member of Congress to make unlimited soft money solicitations on behalf of certain tax-exempt special interest groups, just as long as the member does not specify what the money should be used for.  It also allows soft money to be used to buy billboards, direct mail, telephone and door-to-door political activities.

"The idea that you are either for Shays-Meehan or against campaign finance reform is wrong," Ryan said. "Shays-Meehan is a well-intentioned but flawed bill.  I think we have the responsibility to send the best bill we can to the President. That's why I voted for better alternatives to that legislation."