November 13, 2023

President George W. Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20502

Mr. President,

As you know, the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill (H.R. 2356)
is scheduled to be on the House floor on February 13th. The
circumvention of the House Republican Leadership, made possible by the
signatures of 20 Republicans on the discharge petition, has forced the
House to consider legislation that in many respects violates the reform
principles you outlined in March of last year.

[Bush Principle]{.underline}: **"Protect Rights of Individuals to
Participate in Democracy."** Specifically, you called for updating
individual contribution limits and for protecting the rights of citizen
groups to engage in issue advocacy.

[Shays-Meehan Violation]{.underline}: Shays-Meehan would leave the
individual contribution limit for House candidates at \$1000 per
candidate per election (subsequently indexed for inflation) and would
raise the limit for *Senate* candidates to \$2000 per candidate per
election (subsequently indexed for inflation). That is, for House
candidates in this election cycle, the limit would remain at the level
established in 1974, a limit that, if actually adjusted for inflation,
would be [\$3661]{.underline} today. The bill's new Senate contribution
limit of \$2000 would have been a full adjustment for inflation in the
year [1982]{.underline}. Subsequent adjustments for inflation would be
based on the \$1000 limit in 2002---not in 1974.

Additionally, Rep. Shays and Rep. Meehan wanted to amend their bill
during last year's House consideration to [reduce]{.underline} the
aggregate limit that individuals could give to candidates. Whereas
current law allows individuals to contribute to candidates an aggregate
of [\$50,000]{.underline} per two-year election cycle, Shays and Meehan
wanted to amend their bill so that it would have reduced this aggregate
limit to [\$37,500]{.underline} per two-year election cycle. It is
likely that they will offer this amendment during this year's House
consideration.

Moreover, the Shays-Meehan bill would trigger campaign law for
broadcast, cable, or satellite advertisements that *[refer]{.underline}*
to a clearly identified candidate within 60 days of a general election
and 30 days of a primary and that reach an audience that includes voters
in that election. This would curtail issue advocacy by citizen groups,
since publicizing a message about a public official or person seeking
public office would be subject to government scrutiny and regulatory
limits.

[Bush Principle]{.underline}: **"Maintain Strong Political Parties."**
Specifically, you called for helping political parties more fully engage
citizens in the political process.

[Shays-Meehan Violation]{.underline}: Shays-Meehan would *hamper*
political parties in numerous ways. "Soft money" could *not* be
solicited, received, directed, transferred, or spent by political
parties for "federal election activities" (the definition of which would
be *[vastly]{.underline}* expanded to include public communications that
simply refer to candidates, voter registration drives four months before
an election, and other civic and party-building activities). These
provisions as written could only serve to [weaken]{.underline} political
parties.

Additionally, Shays-Meehan would prevent parties from raising money for
or donating money to citizen groups that make federal-election-related
disbursements, thereby weakening parties' abilities to interact with
citizen activists. Further, the bill would prohibit parties from making
independent or coordinated expenditures for general election candidates,
decimating one of the core reasons for parties to exist---to help elect
candidates to office.

[Bush Principle]{.underline}: **"Ban Union and Corporate Soft Money."**

[Shays-Meehan Violation]{.underline}: Though Shays-Meehan would ban
union and corporate soft money to the handful of [national]{.underline}
parties, it would carve out a \$10,000 per-person, per-year soft money
loophole for [state and local]{.underline} parties. With thousands of
state and local parties currently 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 even come close to banning union and corporate soft
money]{.underline}.

[Bush Principle]{.underline}: **"Eliminate Involuntary Contributions."**
Specifically, you called for prohibiting corporations from using
treasury funds for political activity without the permission of
shareholders and for requiring labor unions to obtain authorization from
every dues-paying worker before spending dues on activities unrelated to
collective bargaining.

[Shays-Meehan Violation]{.underline}: Shays-Meehan does not address and
therefore would [not]{.underline} eliminate involuntary contributions.

[Bush Principle]{.underline}: **"Require Full and Prompt Disclosure."**
Specifically, you called for prompt and constitutionally permissible
disclosure of contributions and expenditures designed to influence the
outcome of federal elections.

[Shays-Meehan Violation]{.underline}: Shays-Meehan would essentially
maintain current campaign disclosure law. However, by widening the
definitions of key terms like "federal election activity" and
"electioneering communications," the bill would expand what would be
required to be disclosed. Under these new definitions, certain
contributions and expenditures which do [not]{.underline} expressly
advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate would
*[still]{.underline}* be subject to federal disclosure regulations. That
is, in reference to your principle, certain citizen expenditures NOT
designed to influence the outcome of federal elections would be subject
to federal disclosure regulations and would thus be discouraged from
ever happening.

[Bush Principle]{.underline}: **"Promote Fair, Balanced, Constitutional
Approach."** Specifically, you called for the inclusion of a
*non*-severability provision, so if any provision of the bill is found
unconstitutional, the [entire]{.underline} bill would be sent back to
Congress for adjustment.

[Shays-Meehan Violation]{.underline}: Shays-Meehan contains a
*severability* provision---the exact [opposite]{.underline} of what you
requested. That is, if any provision in this bill were to be found
unconstitutional, the remaining portions of the bill would still be in
force.

Several provisions in Shays-Meehan contradict previous Supreme Court
rulings. For example, the Court has ruled in *Buckley v. Valeo* that
only [express advocacy]{.underline} (i.e. explicit words or activities
calling for the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal
candidate) triggers federal campaign law. However, the Shays-Meehan
legislation would trigger federal campaign law for *issue* advocacy or
even for *referring* to a candidate in any context in a public
communication within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a
primary.

Mr. President, it is evident that the Shays-Meehan campaign finance
reform legislation violates every one of your clearly outlined reform
principles. **[Not one]{.underline}** of your six reform principles, as
indicated above, is incorporated into the bill.

Therefore, we encourage you to work against the passage of Shays-Meehan.
Should this or any legislation that similarly violates your reform
principles reach your desk, we strongly urge you to veto such
legislation and to count on us to work vigorously to ensure that your
veto would be sustained.

Sincerely,

John Shadegg John T. Doolittle

Member of Congress Member of Congress

RSC Chairman RSC Campaign Reform

Taskforce Chairman

Jeff Flake Jim Ryun

Member of Congress Member of Congress

Mike Pence Joe Pitts

Member of Congress Member of Congress

George Radanovich J.D. Hayworth

Member of Congress Member of Congress

Walter Jones

Member of Congress