Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - December 05, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to join my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing the Presidential Funding Act of 2007.

It was 100 years ago that the reformer President Theodore Roosevelt proposed ``a very radical measure'' in his State of the Union message to Congress. He envisioned a system of campaign financing that would include a congressional appropriation to support national campaigns so that, as he said, ``The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish.''

When the campaign financing reforms of the 1970s were enacted, it was hoped that we would draw closer to achieving Theodore Roosevelt's goal of funding the pursuit of our highest public office largely from public rather than private funds.

Our Presidential-campaign finance system still suffers from serious defects, however, and current events are dramatically highlighting the need for continued reform and improvement.

The current Presidential campaign is already shaping up as the most expensive election in history by far. Candidate after candidate has chosen to forego public funds due to fundamental flaws in the system. Fund-raising tallies have already shattered records. If a candidate decides to seek public funding, he or she risks running out of funds to counter candidates who can attract large amounts of private contributions.

Current estimates are that the 2008 contest for the Presidency of the U.S. will cost more than $1 billion. Much of that cost will be incurred in delivering messages to the electorate through advertising and publications of all sorts.

One billion dollars is a huge sum. Yet we cannot expect modern campaigns to be run on budgets that might have sufficed for William McKinley, whose successful 1896 campaign relied heavily on speeches from his front porch in Canton, Ohio, to admirers who came by train to hear him. This idyllic but limited approach to campaigning is long gone.

Unless we wish to return to the cronyism, influence peddling, and restricted suffrage of the 19th century, large expenditures on broadcasting and other media are essential for any campaign that hopes to prevail. That financial fact obliges candidates to spend a great deal of time appearing at exclusive, big-ticket fundraisers.

To allow candidates to spend less time raising money, Congress established a system of public funding for Presidential campaigns that started with the 1976 Presidential election. That system has not been substantially changed since 1984, and its limitations have only become more evident with time.

The central problem is that the system does not provide enough public funds to permit a credible contest against well-bankrolled candidates who have opted out of the public-financing system.

In November 2003, Governor Dean announced that he would opt out of public financing, saying ``floods of special-interest money have forced us to abandon a broken system.'' Senator Kerry also felt obliged to opt out so that he could lend his campaign $6 million rather than be restricted to the use of $50,000 in personal funds.

Citing Senator Dole's campaign in 1996, Senator McCain's campaign in 2000, and Senator Edwards's campaign in 2004, the League of Women Voters has spoken of the public system's ``devil's bargain'' for candidates: ``To get matching funds, they have to accept a spending limit that will leave them bankrupt if the contest continues into March. ..... With the underdogs boxed in by the limits, the frontrunners, and others who can afford it, have additional incentive to opt out.''

The bill we introduce today would make a number of important changes.

The key provisions of the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would increase the public match for primary-season contributions, make funds available earlier in the contest, tie the availability of public funding during the general-election campaign to a candidate's using it during the primary season, provide additional funds if a non-publicly funded opponent spends heavily, and update spending limits to more realistic levels.

All of these steps represent sensible and useful improvements in the campaign-finance system.

I recognize that some of our colleagues and some members of the public are wary of taxpayer-supported funding for Presidential candidates. I can only respond that the alternative--a complete reliance on private contributions--is worse.

I would also reassure doubters that this bill is no giveaway or an inducement to fringe candidates of narrow appeal. Its provisions are predicated upon matches for individual contributions, not absolute grants, and it requires achieving significant levels of individual contributions in at least 20 States.

We all understand that the current system of public funding for campaigns has defects. The growing inclination of candidates to opt out of the system underscores that fact. The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would cure some serious problems and help restore the appeal of public funding.

If enacted, this bill would take effect in January 2009. By moving toward virtually full realization of Theodore Roosevelt's ``very radical measure,'' we can take a big step toward making the financing, the conduct, and the outcome of the 2012 presidential campaign a genuine source of pride for American citizens of all political affiliations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source