Dear Colleague:

\"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more
instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people, by gradual and
silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden
usurpations.\" James Madison

An excellent observation by one of our Founding Fathers.

While there are plenty of fitting examples that jump to mind, none seem
as clearly relevant as the so-called campaign finance \"reform\" bills
that are swirling about the halls of Congress. At its core, this issue
is about the freedom of speech in America. It\'s about limiting the
ability of individual citizens, and groups of citizens acting together,
to criticize their government and their political leaders. King George
would be proud.

But setting aside the serious Constitutional infringements and myriad of
technical flaws contained in the bills, there are three bigger picture
issues I\'d like us to consider.

First, the \"reformers\" have been actively trying to convince you and
the public that our votes are for sale. I disagree. As a new member of
this institution, I have been impressed mightily by the strongly held,
disparate views of my colleagues \-- regardless of party affiliation.
Even when we don\'t agree about the issues, I know our differences are
based on philosophy and constituencies \-- not money, not lobbyists, and
not special interests.

From the first day of freshman orientation (and several times since
then), we have been schooled on the ethical standards and expectations
of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. There seem to be an
abundance of existing rules that outline the proper relationship between
members and outside interests, a process for filing grievances, and
penalties for failing to adhere to those rules. Are the \"reformers\"
suggesting that the members of the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct ignore violations? I believe each of the committee members take
their responsibilities seriously and work diligently to protect the
integrity of this institution.

Regarding the regulation of campaign finances, I\'m sure we\'re all
familiar with an independent agency called the Federal Election
Commission. Currently, the commission\'s staff consists of around 350
people responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws amounting to 428
pages of the Code of Federal Regulations. For years, they have made an
excellent case for increasing the number of employees and the amount of
funding they need to adequately enforce the existing rules. Why haven\'t
the \"reformers\" been as adamant about resolving this crisis. Why
haven\'t the \"reformers\" insisted on vigorous enforcement of existing
laws?

So now the \"reformers\" want to come along and dump a deluge of new
pages of regulations on the FEC to enforce and for all of us to endure.
Will the \"reformers\" work as hard to fund these new rules as they have
to pass their legislation? At some point, the politics of this issue
must stop and the governing must begin.

Finally, if the \"reformers\" really wanted to make a lasting impact \--
to really make sure that soft money or hard money or special interests
or labor unions do not unfairly influence elections and federal public
policy, there\'s an easy answer: Send more of the decision-making
responsibility back to the states and local units of government \-- in
other words, divest Washington, D.C. of that product which is supposedly
being supplied to willing buyers \-- power.

Personally, I believe a great first step would be to repeal the 17th
Amendment, which provides for the direct election of U.S. Senators. That
way, people could ensure that Senators would only be beholden to their
own Governors and State Legislatures. But, that\'s a whole different can
of worms to get into.

At the end of the day, I hope we can rise above the rhetoric and the
hyperbole and vote against these thinly veiled attempts to limit our
freedoms, indict the veracity of this body, and empower incumbents
against the rightful ability of the average person to criticize or take
issue with his or her government. Please join me in opposing the
McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan legislation.

Sincerely,

C.L. \"Butch\" Otter

Member of Congress

\"An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is
what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.\"
Hugo Black