A LOOK AT H.R. 1826, AND THE PUBLIC 

FINANCING OF CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 30, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
A LOOK AT H.R. 1826, AND THE PUBLIC FINANCING OF CONGRESSIONAL 

CAMPAIGNS 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–711 2009

A LOOK AT H.R. 1826, AND THE PUBLIC 

FINANCING OF CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 30, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

Ranking Minority Member 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

VICTOR ARNOLD-BIK, Minority Staff Director 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

A LOOK AT H.R. 1826, AND THE PUBLIC 

FINANCING OF CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS 

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:04 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, Lungren and Harper. 

Staff Present: Jamie Fleet, Staff Director; Tom Hicks, Senior 

Election Counsel; Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, 

Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; 

Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; 

Daniel Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, Elections; Greg Abbott, Professional Staff; Peter Schalestock, Minority Counsel; and Karin 

Moore, Minority Legislative Counsel. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. I would like to call the Committee 

on House Administration hearing to order. Welcome, members of 

the committee, witnesses, and guests. 

Before I begin, I would like to recognize the men and women of 

the AOC and the CAO who have worked hard to renovate our hearing room and our conference room. They did terrific work, a good 

job, as they do every day, and we get to benefit from them. So we 

thank them for the job that they do. 

Today’s hearing will focus on H.R. 1826, the Fair Elections Now 

Act, sponsored by my friend, John Larson of Connecticut. I want 

to thank my friend for bringing this legislation to the attention of 

the committee. 

The Fair Elections Now Act is voluntary and would provide 

qualified House candidates grants, matching funds, and vouchers 

to replace fundraising that relies on large donors and special interests. In exchange, participating candidates would agree to limit 

their fundraising to amounts raised by small-dollar donors. 

This legislation is based on the very successful model used in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine. These models have been credited 

with not only expanding the pool of candidates for office who otherwise could not compete in a money-driven election, the bill also encourages a more diverse pool of campaign contributors. 

As we witnessed in the 2008 general election, President Obama 

was able to mount a strong grassroots effort to attract small contributions from a wide range of supporters; from students to bus 

drivers to factory workers to doctors and lawyers. These new parVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:30 Oct 17, 2009 Jkt 52711 PO 00000 Frm 000005 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06602 E:\HR\OC\A711.XXX A711

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
2 

ticipants were able to use the Internet and other means to contribute small-donor amounts and finally have a voice in the electoral process. 

Our campaign finance laws are continually under examination. 

In September, the Supreme Court is scheduled to rehear arguments in the Citizens United case, going beyond the original challenge of the case. This committee will be paying close attention to 

the Court’s ruling and to the Court’s treatment of the over 100 

years of judicial precedent in campaign finance law. 

We will now proceed to other Members’ statements. I would like 

to recognize the Ranking Member Mr. Lungren for any opening 

statement that he may make. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to thank you for calling today’s hearing. I would also like to thank 

you for your courtesy in agreeing to invite two witnesses to represent the Minority viewpoint today. 

I think I am getting a little bit of an idea that when you welcome 

the gentleman who is the author of the bill and call him friend 

twice, I get an idea of maybe your position on the bill. So we will 

consider this. 

The CHAIRMAN. I really don’t like him that much. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So as we consider this friendly bill, H.R. 1826, I 

am, unfortunately, constrained to register my concern about the belief that taxpayers would be compelled to fund political campaigns. 

Historical record shows a striking absence of concrete support for 

public financing of campaigns. By concrete support, I refer to the 

number of taxpayers who now, on a volunteer basis, check the box 

on their tax return allowing the use of their taxes for public financing of Presidential campaigns and to the number of candidates who 

use public financing. 

In a report issued by the Congressional Research Service, the 

portion of taxpayers who check the public financing box has declined precipitously from the height of 28.7 percent in 1980 to 8.3 

percent in 2007. If any of us running for office had suffered that 

loss of support, we might check what we were doing and not believe that what we were doing is what the folks wanted. Save for 

a handful of exceptions, that percentage has declined each year. 

Moreover, candidates seem committed to going the private route 

as well. Few major Presidential candidates accept government financing for primary campaigns. In the 2008 election, President 

Obama, whom you cited, opted to forego public financing in the 

general election after, of course, he publicly told us he was going 

to take it as long as he could get an agreement with the other side. 

John McCain came out and agreed to do it. But it didn’t happen. 

That is despite the fact that the President cosponsored legislation 

similar to H.R. 1826 when he was a Senator. 

The electoral process is a way for individuals to exercise their 

right to freedom of expression. It is unwarranted and undesirable 

to establish a government agency to decide for us how much campaigns should cost and how much candidates should receive to pay 

for them. We even have difficulty in this body determining what is 

allowed, when it is taxpayer-supported. What is allowed in terms 

of appropriate language to describe issues? And the last thing I 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
3 

want us to do is to have government telling us exactly what you 

can say or can’t say. 

Part of politics is it is vigorous, it is robust. It ought to have 

some life to it. And sometimes we try and squeeze the life out of 

it in the pursuit of cleaning the system. And I am not sure we 

won’t clean the system so much as we actually create uneven playing fields. 

So long as the Supreme Court is telling us that the First Amendment allows you to spend whatever amount you may spend on your 

own campaign—and they have done that—I do not understand why 

putting restrictions on the other side makes much sense. 

As I understand this legislation, there is no way it attempts to 

limit the other candidate. And so how do you have a system like 

that work? If the Supreme Court is going to continue to tell us that 

the First Amendment allows you to spend whatever money you 

want to run for office yourself, they ought to say you can spend 

whatever amount of money you want and support another candidate, so long as we know about it in a timely fashion. 

My good friend Jack Kemp, who left us this year—and he was 

a good friend—would have been a candidate for President of the 

United States in 1988, except he couldn’t raise the money. If Steve 

Forbes had been able to contribute a portion of his fortune to Jack 

Kemp to run for office, Jack Kemp would have been the candidate, 

not Steve Forbes, in successive campaigns. With great due respect 

to Steve Forbes, he is not and never will be the candidate Jack 

Kemp was. They had similar views. But because of some peculiarity in the law we have, we say to Steve Forbes, who has great 

ideas but frankly is not a good candidate, or did not prove to be 

a good candidate, he can spend all the money he wants in the futile 

effort, but he can’t use his First Amendment right to express his 

point of view by giving that amount of money to a candidate who 

would be a viable candidate. And I don’t understand why, as long 

as we knew about the money—we knew about it early enough, everybody could make their judgments—why that wouldn’t be a better way to go. 

So I think this legislation has true difficulty so long as the Supreme Court is going to continue in the position that the First 

Amendment as properly interpreted as they understand it allows 

you to spend whatever amount of money you want personally for 

your own campaign or for expression of your own views. But yet 

we say if you give it to somebody else who expresses those views 

better than you do, who basically would be a better candidate than 

you do, that somehow is a corruption of the system. I do not understand that contradiction. 

We will hear testimony that government funding schemes for 

campaigns do not result in a more accessible field for potential candidates. Neither is the number of viable candidates bolstered or the 

incumbency advantage substantially diminished. Furthermore, 

public financing of political campaigns is not proven to effect greater civic participation. 

In addition, I am disturbed by a press report quoting a supporter 

of this bill saying: These kinds of things are the necessary precursors to all the other things we want. I would like to know what 

those other things are. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
4 

Apparently this bill is really intended to change the political 

playing field, perhaps to advantage one group or another, exactly 

the kind of partisan manipulation of election laws I hoped that this 

committee has always tried to avoid or will continue to try to avoid. 

Now, in my judgment, is not the time to find further ways to 

spend money that we do not have. My State of California is showing the rest of the world what can happen to this country. We used 

to say the only difference between the Federal Government and the 

State government is that the Federal Government can print money, 

and the States can’t. My State proved that it could print money. 

They call them IOUs. After 2 months, banks like the Bank of 

America said, We are not going to take them. 

Well, what if China, acting like the Bank of America, decides it 

is going to stop taking our debt? We are going to be in the same 

situation my home State is. We are accumulating unprecedented 

deficits, daily adding to a debt that will not be paid out of my pockets, probably won’t even be paid out of my children’s pockets. But 

I do have four grandchildren—actually six grandchildren, with my 

daughter’s two stepchildren—and they are the ones that are going 

to have to pay this. The last thing the American people need is for 

this body to heap greater debt on the backs of our progeny for the 

sakes of political campaigns. 

I am going to put it on the record: I hate raising money for campaigns. The only two people I know who enjoyed it both went to 

prison. And I won’t use their names. But I hate it. It is the least 

attractive part of this job. I can sell ideas, I can ask for support 

for others. I have a great deal of difficulty—and my campaign finance people are listening, and they would probably say don’t say 

it—but I have a great deal of difficulty making the close on asking 

for money. It is the most difficult. 

And now we have in our campaign coverage by the reporters, 

they start to judge whether you are a good candidate, whether you 

have got good prospects depending on how much money you have 

got in your account. Read the stories now. They are about how 

much money did you have this quarter. So the very press that is 

telling us maybe this is what we ought to do is the very press that 

is making this part of the horse race, and that is a terrible tragedy. 

So I know very few politicians who love to raise money. As I say, 

the only two I do know went to prison where they could think 

about it for a while. But, having said that, it may be one of those 

things you have to do in order for this system to work. 

With that, I would like to thank each of the witnesses. I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say, and hopefully we can 

engage in some good questions and answers here today. I appreciate the Chairman’s courtesy in allowing us two witnesses, as I 

said, and I thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief so we 

can get to our witnesses. 

I would like to say that although I rarely cosponsor bills that 

come before the committee, I had to make an exception with this 

one. I think it is a smart approach and addresses a necessary topic. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
5 

The only thing I would suggest in terms of potential changes is 

to have some kind of index. I remember when I first ran for office 

in 1980, and I got a $50 contribution, and I just thought that was 

such a large amount. That was a while ago. Things do change. And 

maybe it is better to write some kind of inflation index or something into the bill so we don’t end up with a ridiculous result some 

number of years down the road. 

I am also from California, and none of us are very happy about 

how things turned out in the State budget—at least I am not. But 

I really think in many ways what has happened in California is 

more of a political problem than an economic problem. It is at least 

possible, in my mind, that if we had something like this funding 

in California, we wouldn’t have had those rigid ideological battles 

that ended up dominating the end game. 

Yes, it is true that this is a voluntary system. It doesn’t control 

all the candidates. But I think if this were in place, it would become the gold standard for what people should participate in, and 

there would be tremendous pressure for people to participate in it. 

Like Mr. Lungren, I hate to raise—all of us who run for office 

have to do it because you have to run a campaign, but I don’t like 

it. If we had a different system, I think it would be good for the 

country. 

The checkoff system, it is true, it has declined. But I will tell you 

this: This system would be cheap at the price for the taxpayers, if 

it came to that. I don’t think it would, but if it did, the taxpayers 

would get a bargain because they would own the government. They 

would own the government. 

So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. And I thank you 

for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

I, unlike my two colleagues, enjoyed raising money until I heard 

your statement. I am going to rethink my position. 

Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome each of you here today for your testimony. I look forward to hearing what you have to say. 

I have to tell you that I believe that this is not a good use of taxpayer money. At a time we have already burdened our country 

with spending funds and things that we just don’t have the money 

for, the price tag on this is not going to be a good one. 

I do think that the taxpayer boxes that have not been checked 

as much in recent years are an indication for the public’s distaste 

for this. It is very difficult to raise money. It is part of our system, 

and it is probably very unpleasant to have to go to your friends and 

family and neighbors and do that. 

It was a situation, and certainly in my campaign, as a new Member, that I was in a hotly contested primary, and the other candidates—one had $1.3 million; one, $600,000; and I was able to 

raise $270,000, $20,000 of which was my money—or the bank’s 

money. So it was hard to do. But with that we made the runoff and 

were successful. And it is part of this. And you appreciate those 

contributions that you get, but to ask people to give you money and 

then turn around and give you more money through their taxes is 

not the fair way to do it. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
6 

We need complete transparency in the process. The way to do 

this should be that if someone wants to give you money, they 

should be allowed to do that with full disclosure so that you know 

who it was and what amount that was. We know folks that may 

not agree with that, but I don’t think this is the time to burden 

our taxpayers with more money to be spent. 

With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I actually think this concept is exactly what we need. I hate raising money. I hate it. I hate the fact 

that the general public thinks that every time I raise a dollar, I 

am being bought. I hate it. It is bad not just for me, it is bad for 

the system, it is bad for people’s perception of government. And I 

don’t think it levels the playing field, no matter what. 

It basically says for most working-class people, You will never be 

able to run for this office. There are always exceptions. I am one 

of them. But those are the exceptions. 

I do not like this House or the Senate being a place just for millionaires, and that is just what it is getting, one by one. 

I do not like the fact that every single time I have to pick up the 

phone, I feel dirty; not because I am doing anything wrong, it is 

an absolute requirement to be here and to get our messages out. 

And I want the system to be better. 

I do have some problems with the details of this bill, not a big 

deal, but the concept is so long overdue that anybody who wants 

to raise money, go right ahead. You enjoy doing it. That is not what 

I ran for office to do. I spend a ton of time—we all do. I would really much rather be reading a health-care bill and having that debate, which is fine, or any number of other things, than ever picking up the phone to anybody to beg them not for $100, but for thousands of dollars. I can’t imagine anybody likes doing that. I can’t 

imagine anybody wants to push this. 

I know this is not a perfect result, but I am more than happy 

to listen to alternatives to get us off of this terrible treadmill. But 

until we get a better idea, this is the only one that is left. I think 

it is a good idea. Again, details are details. We will work them out 

over time. But, other than that, we are doomed to the never-ending 

rat race to get the next dollar so we can get our message out so 

we can beat each other up. For me, I just want off it so we can 

all just get along. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Davis, opening statement. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I will be extremely brief. I am glad to see 

one of my favorite members of the caucus John Larson here. 

I will just make one observation at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, 

that all of us, I think, are concerned about the explosion of money 

in politics and the fact the numbers keep ratcheting up. I remember being a little kid who loved politics, reading that some candidates spent a million dollars trying to win a House race and 

thinking, What is the world coming to? Today that is a minor candidate getting heavily outspent. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
7 

The only cautionary note that I bring to the table is I worry, just 

as much as I worry about money, about the rise of the extreme left 

and the rise of the extreme right. I fear any system which makes 

it easier for the extreme right and the extreme left and fringe candidates who come out of both those entities to think that they can 

use the public dime to command their space when, frankly, the 

quality of their ideas would entitle them to get to that space. So 

that is the cautionary note that I would put on the table. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I would like to welcome our first panel of witnesses today. Representative Larson, serves as the United States Representative for 

the First Congressional District of Connecticut, which he represented since 1999. Congressman Larson is currently the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus and sits on the Ways and Means 

Committee. Representative Larson was the original cosponsor of 

the Fair Election Now Act. As the former Ranking Member of this 

committee, we welcome you back, and we look forward to your testimony. 

In 2008, Representative Pingree was elected to the United States 

House of Representatives for the First Congressional District of 

Maine. The Congresswoman sits on the Armed Services Committee 

as well as the House Rules Committee. Prior to her election in 

2008, Congresswoman Pingree was CEO of Common Cause, a nonpartisan advocacy group committed to election reform, amongst 

other issues, and served as the Maine Senate majority leader from 

1996 to 2000. 

Representative Walter Jones represents the Third Congressional 

District of North Carolina in the United States Congress. He has 

served in the House since being elected in 1995, and currently sits 

on the Armed Services Committee and Financial Services Committee. Prior to being elected to Congress, Congressman Jones 

served as an elected official in the North Carolina General Assembly. 

I want to thank all Members for taking the time to be here. 

Without objection, we will have written statements made part of 

the record. We ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. 

We know that that is really tough to do. I do allow leniency along 

the way and will not gavel you down if you don’t go too far out. 

We are among friends, I think, from time to time. 

So I would like to start with our caucus Chairman Mr. John 

Larson. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Chairman Brady and Mr. Lungren, Mr. 

Harper, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Davis. We greatly appreciate this opportunity, and I think it instructive that in the opening 

remarks of the Members that you pretty much had the viewpoints 

and discussed the necessity why we believe that this legislation is 

important. 

I also think you see common ground right in the outset. I don’t 

think that there is a one of you that enjoys the experience that we 

see most of our colleagues having to do on a daily basis, making 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
8 

the trek down to the various campaign offices to get on the phone 

and dial for dollars. 

I say that not because—as all of you have pointed out, that that 

is certainly the legal system under which we operate. It is not corrupt, but the system is corrosive. And it is that corrosion of the system that affects our democracy. And that is why we believe so 

strongly and why we are here today. 

I want to thank my cosponsors: Chellie Pingree, who is the 

former head of Common Cause in Maine and knows this issue 

backwards and forward; Walter Jones, thought by many to be, as 

I believe, the conscience of the House of Representatives. He does 

such an outstanding job; and Todd Platts, who couldn’t be here 

today, but also a supporter of the bill, demonstrating its bipartisan 

position. 

I would also like to, for the record, Mr. Chairman, and I will just 

say this briefly, note the number of groups that are supporting 

this. I think it is instructive. 9 to 5, the National Association of 

Working Women; AFSCME; Americans for Campaign Reform; the 

Chesapeake Climate Action Network; Common Cause; Consumer 

Watchdog; Democracy 21; Friends of the Earth; Health Care Now; 

MoveOn.org; the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the 

USA; Public Campaign; Public Citizen; SEIU; the Sierra Club; and 

U.S. PIRG, amongst others; and more than 74 of our fellow Members in Congress who support this bill, as I do. 

All of my colleagues are principled people who would rather be 

doing just about anything else, as you bore witness to, than making 

fundraising calls, attending fundraising breakfasts, lunches, dinners, you name it. 

I don’t believe that any Member of this body is unduly influenced 

by the contributions that are made. Members came to Congress, 

some perhaps with a bit of idealism, strong leadership skills, and 

a desire to represent their districts in the best way possible. In 

short, they came here to make a difference. However, in this age 

of multimillion-dollar congressional campaigns, even the most dedicated Member has no choice but to spend a great deal of his time 

or her time fundraising. Unfortunately, there is and will remain 

the perception that contributions mean influence. 

Mr. Davis raised the point no one wants to see this go tilted in 

one direction or the other. That is why the effort to make sure that 

we have bipartisan support. No one wants to see this tilt one way 

or the other. We want to see fair elections and open elections. That 

is why the system is completely voluntary, so that if one chooses, 

as Mr. Lungren has suggested, not to participate in that, it stands 

the Buckley v. Valeo test. 

This legislation stands that test. It has been vetted, and it stands 

that test for the very arguments that were presented by my colleagues. But it also provides the opportunity for people to participate, not in a frivolous manner, because you have to meet thresholds, and you have to make sure that you are raising the money 

first and foremost back in your own State, reacquainting Members 

more often than not with what goes on back in their own districts, 

serving the people we were sent to serve here by. And that is an 

issue that oftentimes gets overlooked. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
9 

If you are spending more time in district raising your money 

there, and not here in Washington, D.C., within the Beltway, then 

aren’t we creating, in many respects, a more representative, a more 

Republic, democratic society? I believe that that is the core of this 

legislation and why it is so important. 

In my home State of Connecticut, we addressed these problems. 

The inordinate amount of time spent fundraising was unfair, and 

the public perceptions of pay-to-play and the runaway cost of campaigns were the main reason why the State of Connecticut implemented a public financing system. 

On the second witness panel you will hear from Jeff Garfield, the 

executive director of the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement 

Commission, who will testify about the success of Connecticut’s system. Seventy-five percent of the candidates for the general assembly participated in the program. Eighty-one percent of those are 

now serving in Connecticut’s General Assembly. 

Arizona and Maine, as you will hear from Chellie, have similar 

systems, which have largely been successful. Such systems allow 

candidates to spend more time with their constituents, more time, 

frankly, with their families, and less time, as I believe all of you 

have acknowledged, in the pursuit of money through fundraising. 

This has to be good for the country. It has to be good for people 

individually. It will provide Members an opportunity perhaps to get 

to know one another as well as the issues that we are debating as 

well. 

I introduced the Fair Elections Now Act, which is commonly referred to as FENA, with the support of Common Cause, U.S. Public 

Interest Research Groups, Public Campaign, and many others. I 

am also proud of the sponsorship in the Senate by Senator Durbin 

and Arlen Specter. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time I ask unanimous consent to enter 

these letters of support of FENA into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
10 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 52711A.001
11 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 52711A.002
12 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 52711A.003
13 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 52711A.004
14 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 52711A.005
15 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 52711A.006
16 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 52711A.007
17 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 52711A.008
18 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 52711A.009
19 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 52711A.010
20 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 52711A.011
21 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 52711A.012
22 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 52711A.013
23 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 52711A.014
24 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 52711A.015
25 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 52711A.016
26 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 52711A.017
27 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 52711A.018
28 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 52711A.019
29 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 52711A.020
30 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 52711A.021
31 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 52711A.022
32 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 52711A.023
33 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 52711A.024
34 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 52711A.025
35 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 52711A.026
36 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 52711A.027
37 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 52711A.028
38 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 52711A.029
39 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 52711A.030
40 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 52711A.031
41 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 52711A.032
42 

Mr. LARSON. Last, Mr. Chairman, abiding by your time request, 

and having slightly gone over it, I want to say that this bipartisan 

effort is something States have already done, and now it has put 

the focus on Congress. We have a great opportunity here. There is 

more commonality of concern about what this process does to us, 

how corrosive it has become. We are open to ideas and suggestions. 

Zoe mentioned indexing. Mr. Capuano has other ideas on how to 

perfect the bill. I am sure that ideas emanating from Mr. Harper 

and Mr. Lungren are also ones that could better shape elections as 

we go forward. 

That is our commitment, and that is our goal. But primarily we 

know we are part of a corrosive system that we need to take back 

to the people and have them once again feel that the government 

that they have is their own. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The Honorable Chellie Pingree. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHELLIE PINGREE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you very much, Chairman Brady, 

Ranking Member Lungren, and distinguished members of this committee. Thank you very much for allowing me to say a few words 

about this particular bill and about the experiences that we have 

had in my home State of Maine. 

First, I just want to thank Mr. Larson for his sponsorship and 

hard work already on this bill. It has been a pleasure working with 

him and also Mr. Jones from North Carolina, who has already done 

so much in his own State legislature to promote this issue and 

comes from a State where there has already been several advancements made. 

So I am honored to sit here on the panel with both of you and 

to just take a few minutes to talk to all of the members of the committee. 

I am a staunch supporter of this bill and will summarize my testimony and submit my written remarks, but I just want to say a 

few high points about this. 

My experiences in Maine really brought me to understand how 

much this can change a legislative body and how much it can 

change all of the members of that body. I have seen firsthand how 

well this works. 

Currently in Maine we have had an operating public financing 

system, somewhat similar to what we are looking at today, since 

the year 2000, and 85 percent of the members of the State legislature, Republican and Democrat alike, run under this system, including my daughter, who happens to be the speaker of the house, 

who I am grateful to say is on the second panel, and you will hear 

far more interesting information from her. Heaven forbid she ever 

runs against me in a primary. But that is another matter for another day. 

I actually have never run for office under the public financing 

system. I was elected in 1992 to the State legislature, went on to 

serve as the senate majority leader, but was term-limited in 2000, 

at which point I decided to run for the United States Senate and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
43 

had an experience somewhat similar to what all of you are describing and was required to raise millions of dollars for that campaign. 

As we all know, it takes the launch of a United States Senate campaign to get your message out there. 

My strongest recollection of those 2 years is something which I 

think many of you experienced in a variety of ways. We actually 

had three people sitting outside the room, precalling, to get the 

calls through. I spent virtually my entire day, sometimes up to 20 

hours, because you can still call California, as you know. At 9 

o’clock at night in the State of Maine, you are still awake out there 

and calling people from around the country saying, Hi, I am Chellie 

Pingree, running for the United States Senate. Would you be willing to donate to my campaign? People I had never met before, people who maybe I heard of somewhere, people who had maybe heard 

of my campaign, asking them if they would support my campaign. 

And that is how we went about raising most of that money. 

At exactly the same moment, my daughter Hannah, whom you 

will meet, was 25 years old, had decided to run for the State legislature, where we had just implemented public financing of campaigns, a completely voluntary system very similar to this particular bill. She found people who would give her a $5 contribution 

to qualify her for running for office. Once she was qualified, she got 

a reasonable amount of money to run her campaign—not an excessive amount of money, not lots of TV ads, but enough for signs and 

mailings and radio ads. 

Then, you know what she did while I was sitting in that white 

room for 2 years? She knocked on doors, she went to the fish piers, 

she went to the grocery store. She talked to all those people who 

never thought they would meet a politician or participate in a campaign. She engaged them. And she is fond of reminding me she 

won that campaign. I didn’t happen to win that year. But it made 

a difference in how the campaigning was conducted. And it was exactly, as all of you have said, just how we want campaigning to 

take place. 

I was fortunate enough to run again in 2008, and, as you know, 

I am now a Member of this wonderful body. But I would like to see 

us implement a system very similar to what we are talking about 

in Maine, and this would be—it would be a voluntary system. People would collect a reasonable amount of contributions that were 

relatively small, that meant anybody could participate. It would 

then show that a candidate was qualified. 

Not anybody could run for office. You would have to collect 1,500 

contributions; $50,000 would be the total of what you would have 

to raise. But then you would get also a reasonable amount of 

money to run for office. And just as we do in Maine, if your opponent runs without the system, you would be able to match some 

of what they raise. 

So it creates a level playing field. It allows for some support for 

the high cost of broadcast TV. It has a variety of other technical 

issues in here which I would be happy to talk about at any time. 

But it really would change the system whereby we go about running for election. 

I know, because I have been a State legislator, a senate majority 

leader; I know how hard it is to recruit candidates and tell people 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
44 

that the next thing you are going to have to do is turn around and 

raise money. I know how hard it is to get diversity in the pool of 

candidates. This could make an enormous difference. 

I also know how hard it is to get a politician to change the system by which they got elected. We all got here and then we say, 

Well, maybe it wasn’t so bad. Maybe we should just stick with the 

way we have got. But it is completely unacceptable to the public 

on the outside. It allows for too much influence, whether we choose 

it or not, of outside money. And, clearly, it changes our behavior, 

the way we have to spend our time. And as a member of the freshman class, I know as well as anyone that as soon as somebody finishes a vote, the first thing they have to do is get out of the Chamber as fast as they can and start making those phone calls. Before 

you know it, the next election is around the corner. And all of us 

want to be back here serving the people. 

I just have to ask myself one question: If we had full public financing here, a voluntary system, and if as many Members chose 

to use it as the State of Maine or Arizona or now Connecticut, 

would we be struggling this week to figure out how to put together 

a health-care bill? Would it really be so hard to make policy if we 

didn’t have all the outside influences? 

It certainly, I know, would change our behavior. And I am looking forward to supporting this system. I thank you for taking the 

time to listen to this today, and would be happy to work with you 

and answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

[The statement of Ms. Pingree of Maine follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
45 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 52711A.033
46 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 52711A.034
47 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 52711A.035
48 

The CHAIRMAN. The Honorable Walter Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to submit my 

written statement for the record and take just a few minutes to go 

off the reading and speak from the heart. 

I want to thank Ms. Pingree and Mr. Larson for their leadership 

and including me the opportunity to join them in this effort. 

The system, as has been acknowledged by those of you at the 

dais, the system is broken. There is no question about it. Too many 

times Members of Congress have to go back and raise money from 

the lobbyists. And there is a place for lobbying, and I don’t think 

any of us disagree with that. The law says there is a place. But 

the perception that we go back to the people who are lobbying us 

to raise money is where the public really loses trust in Washington 

and those of us who have the privilege to serve. Nobody is bought. 

I don’t think that. But the public has a different opinion, many 

times, than what I just stated. 

I was—and I want to thank Ms. Pingree for saying I started the 

effort in 1987. I brought a bill to the floor of the House. For 1 hour 

I could see I was losing the vote. I sent it back to the committees 

with no hopes that it would come back out of the committee. However, today we fund our State judges through public finance, and 

it is working, and it is working well. 

I want to go to another issue very quickly. I will never forget in 

2003, when my party was the Majority and we had the Medicare 

prescription drug bill on the floor. We started the vote at 3 in the 

morning, and we finished the vote at 5:53 in the morning. That 

night, I think, was the political Sodom and Gomorrah on Capitol 

Hill. 

I will never forget walking at 2:30, 3 o’clock in the evening, a.m., 

and lobbyists lined up. They outnumbered Members of Congress. 

How are you going to vote on this; do you know this about why you 

should vote for this? And then when you got up into the Capitol, 

they were still there. 

Now, that doesn’t happen often, but it doesn’t need to happen but 

one time. And the people don’t forget it. 

I think what Mr. Larson has put together, that Ms. Pingree and 

Mr. Platts and I have joined in, is a vehicle that can help fix the 

problem. He has acknowledged, we have acknowledged, that we 

know that there could be other ideas that can make this a success. 

Mr. Chairman, a couple other points real quickly. I am like anyone else. When I go home, and I do the shopping for my family, 

and I go in the grocery store and I see the families that I don’t 

know what they are making, let us say $40,000, a family of three 

or four, and I am thinking that I wish that we could raise our moneys from those families; $10, $15. And some of us do get—I do. We 

do a mailing, I get $10, $15, $25. And nothing makes me feel better, quite frankly. Yet we need the other money, too. 

So I think today what we have is an opportunity, as has been 

said by the two who spoke before me, and some of you, this is an 

opportunity to return the government back to the people. Yet it 

doesn’t mandate that we all have to abide by this process should 

it become law. 

A couple other points in the minute and 6 seconds I have left. 

The reason I think that the public financing checkoff is not as 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
49 

strong as it has been is simply because of this problem here. People 

say, Well, what does my $5 or my $10 do, or my $1, depending on 

what State, or if it is the national campaign, because they understand. 

I wish Mr. Obama had—quite frankly, I wish he had stuck to his 

pledge—this has not been a criticism—to abide by the public financing. I think that would have sent a message; even though he 

had a tremendous vote, he had a lot of small moneys coming in, 

but I think it would have sent a message that Washington, DC, 

wants to return the power to you, the people of this country. 

So, before closing, I just want to say again, Mr. Chairman, and 

to the Ranking Member as well, thank you for giving us this opportunity. I have testified a few times, maybe not as many as others, 

but I will tell you I walked into this room today thinking that this 

was the most important testimony that I could be part of, because 

the system is broken, the system needs to be fixed, and Mr. Larson 

has presented a bill that will work us toward fixing the problem. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, and 

the committee for giving us this opportunity. I hope that you will— 

from this hearing today and the next witnesses, let us return Congress to where they vote based on their conscience, not on the influence or perceived influence of money that buys the conscience. 

Let us return it back to the people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

We will now have our question and answers. I just have a few 

brief questions. 

Connecticut, Maine, and Arizona have public financing. Are they 

similar? What are the differences within the three States? Does 

anybody know? I mean, we don’t know about Arizona, unless you 

know about Arizona. We have got Maine and Connecticut. Any 

glaring differences? This bill will unify all States, but any differences? 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. The next panel will have a couple of people who probably could answer it more technically, but I would say 

these are basically the same kind of system. They are voluntary 

systems. You collect a reasonable number of qualifying contributions, very small amounts of money. For instance, in Maine, it is 

$5. Fifty $5.00 contributions. On this one you have to collect 

$1,500; obviously, a much bigger area. And then you are given a 

lump sum fee by which to run your campaign. Sometimes it is 

based on the average of campaigns run in your district before or 

campaigns run in your State. Most of them have a component 

whereby if your opponent runs without using the system, you can 

be matched with the public money up to three times. So there is 

not an unlevel playing field. If the allocation is $500, then you can 

get $500 three times every time your opponent goes over that. 

So it is a way to keep it level. It is a way to discourage people 

from not using the system. But, of course, they certainly can. 

One thing that is different about this one is it is somewhat similar to what goes on in New York City. For $100 donations or less 

that are raised within your State, you can actually kind of go outside of just the allocation, and those $100 contributions or less are 

matched four to one. So the total under this system that you could 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
50 

raise under the sort of configuration it is right now is, I think, 

about $3.4 million, $3.3 million. And there is a very limited number of Members of Congress who have actually raised or spent over 

$3.4 million, $3.3 million in their campaign. 

One of the questions that often gets asked is: Will there be 

enough money? People don’t want to sign up to run under a system 

and then find out they are in a challenging campaign, or the media 

market is expensive, or they need to answer some ads. They want 

to make sure there is plenty of money. 

That is one thing that is different about those other States, the 

match and the ability to go outside it. This one also has a $100,000 

media voucher. That is often an issue that people bring up: What 

about free air time for candidates, or what about a way to get more 

air time? That is included within this package. 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just add, as well, again, I 

just want to say the similarities are the voluntary nature. And I 

also would go back to this—and specifically in this legislation, 

meaning the Buckley v. Valeo test. I think it was suggested in your 

opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, with a case pending before the 

Supreme Court, this bill becomes even more important, depending 

upon that ruling. 

I would also add that, sharing a lot of the views that Mr. Lungren expressed, Jack Kemp probably could have got elected under 

this system. 

The CHAIRMAN. Why should a new Member, someone from a 

marginal district, support this bill and want to limit his or her ability to limit the necessary funds to raise to win in marginal districts? 

Mr. LARSON. I think, number one, 73 percent of Americans feel 

that Members of Congress are unnecessarily influenced by special 

interests and their campaign contributions. Seventy-three percent 

of Americans believe that campaign contributions from the banking 

industry have played a major factor in the recent financial crisis. 

Any Member that is running, any new Member that is running, 

and a candidate participates in this program, can tap into $2.4 million of public funds. This is in addition to what he or she raises. 

Candidates who participate are incentivized to meet and interact 

with their constituents. Further, they have much, much more time 

to work on the issues on which they hear from their constituents, 

whether they be at public forums or hearings, or whether, when 

elected, actually work on legislation. 

The CHAIRMAN. One last question, in my mind. You talked about 

a $100,000 media voucher. Is that every State? Do States have to 

fluctuate on what amount voucher they can get per media market? 

I don’t think we can get an 8-second commercial in the city of 

Philadelphia, the State of California, or the State of New York or 

the city of New York for $100,000. Does that fluctuate, or is it 

broad-based throughout the whole country? 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. In terms of what I know, that is just the 

same. But that is just an add-on to everything else in the campaign. It also requires a 20 percent reduction off the lowest media 

rates, which is often an issue when you are running for office is 

that you are supposed to get the lowest rates, but many people feel 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
51 

like they don’t. I think there is someone on the second panel who 

can probably answer that more exactly. 

Mr. LARSON. It is above and beyond what you are able to put together and raise. You are right, in the Philadelphia market a 

$100,000 voucher isn’t going to get you far on TV. 

The CHAIRMAN. Won’t get you a return phone call. 

Mr. LARSON. Again, as you look at this both in terms of the 

amount of money that you would be able to raise in a primary and 

then as the amount of money that you would be able to raise in 

a general election, there would be sufficient funds there. This 

voucher is just an add-on. If you are running in Wyoming as opposed to Philadelphia, $100,000 might be more than you would 

need to get on the airwaves. 

So part of some of the suggestions in perfecting this bill is making sure that you not only index it, but also have sliding scales as 

they relate to districts. These are bills—and I know that the committee is aware of this—that other thoughtful Members like John 

Tierney and Dave Obey have introduced legislation. I think segments from their legislation that help expand and utilize the system better, as long as we keep it voluntary and make sure that it 

can suffice with respect to Buckley v. Valeo, I think that any additions in terms of making the system work would be welcome to the 

cosponsors of this the bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

It seems to me one of the underlying assumptions that you have 

for the bill is that this will help diminish the impact of money in 

politics. It has been my observation that you don’t diminish the impact of money in politics, you redirect the money in politics, such 

that now—as much as we raise money, at least that amount, if not 

more, in most cases, more is being spent by other groups, 527s and 

so forth, who may think they are doing something for you or 

against you, and you have no control over independent expenditures. You can’t even tell them: Don’t run that ad, even if they are 

trying to help you. 

I just think the assumption that if you do this, you are going to 

take money out of politics just doesn’t stack up. Right now I have 

had so far nine robocalls against me. I have had three radio ads. 

These are, I believe, in most cases, identified with the Democratic 

Party. You may have had a passing relationship with that party. 

In most cases, they are organizations that are front group for 

unions. This does nothing to stop that. That requires me to spend 

more money. 

And, Mr. Jones, you suggested that we have this aura—not aura, 

this claim against us that we make our votes because of the money 

we get. Well, those robocalls suggest that. They go back and they 

find out how much money I have gotten from people related to 

banking during my 30 years in politics, add that all up to some 

form, and say, Tell your Congressman to stop supporting those special-interest groups based on the money that he has received, 

which is totally absurd. Yet the very things that are being directed 

at me are the things you are arguing that we have to respond to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
52 

because we are raising money, and somehow, magically, because 

we are going to get it from public funds, that is going to stop it. 

There is nothing in this bill that will do anything with 527s. 

There is nothing in this bill that will do anything with the SEIU, 

which spent $1 million in my district in the last 2 weeks of my last 

campaign, not against me, but against one of the State legislators, 

as is their right to do. And my frustration with this is we have created systems already with McCain-Feingold, and now with your 

system that will supposedly cleanse the system by taking money 

out or away from us, and it will be given to groups that have no 

responsibility. 

Now, I don’t understand how that is a superior position to having 

a system which causes all money or as much money as possible, 

even in huge amounts, to be directed to our campaign so that we 

have to take responsibility for it. 

Mr. LARSON. I understand and appreciate the gentleman’s frustration. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I think your bill just moves us further in that direction. 

Mr. LARSON. Our bill, you are right, does not address 527s. That, 

I believe, is a whole separate argument that deserves to be addressed. But our bill doesn’t address that. Our bill addresses us, 

elected Members of Congress. 

I think it is pretty consistent, listening to the Members here, the 

level of frustration that we have. Yet if we don’t take the first steps 

to—and this is not about getting money out of the system. Everything that this bill calls for is raising money. You still have to go 

out and solicit. It is just smaller funds and in your State. 

What it seeks to do, I think, is end the corrosive part of this process and then provide an opportunity to put the public back in 

charge. Whether it is through the enhanced checkoff system or a 

sale of the public spectrum or other means that could create a 

fund, a people’s fund that would provide a trust from which you 

could tap into that, I think is better overall for the health of democracy. 

Now, with regard to 527s, I think that there is a lot of work that 

needs to be done in that area, but the two are not related. 

Mr. LUNGREN. We are talking about the political system. It is the 

clash of ideas. We ought not to be afraid of ideas. That is the inconvenient truth we have here, which is the First Amendment to our 

Constitution—— 

Mr. LARSON. I am not afraid of ideas. 

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Which allows us to say things that 

are embarrassing or wrong or inappropriate. That is the genius of 

the First Amendment. And because we have the genius of the First 

Amendment—— 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Lungren, excuse me. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Just a second. 

Because we have the First Amendment, it puts certain inhibitions against what we otherwise might do. 

As I say, you can sit here and talk about this. I have had nine 

robocalls against me; I have got two or three ads against me by 

groups that are not responsive, which is going to cause me to spend 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
53 

more money to respond to that. Yet there is the suggestion if we 

have public financing, we will get rid of these kinds of concerns. 

Frankly, the record has been, as we have tried to restrict funding 

and individual contributions to individuals, we have seen that 

money go in other places. I suspect that if this bill passes, you will 

see that money not going to Members, because you restrict the 

amount of money they can get from any particular individual or 

any particular group. Those individuals and groups will spend it in 

other ways because they have got a concern about what government is going to do for them or against them. 

So we are going to have more of this which we have in our politics today which is we as candidates can’t control the debate to the 

extent that the people that want to support us support it through 

us, as opposed to other things. That is the concern I have. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, since he used my name, but not in 

vain—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. I was complimenting you. 

Mr. JONES. I know you were, but I wanted to speak very briefly, 

because John gave the answer. 

This is not about us. This is about those people who would love 

to run for Congress that do not have the accesses that we have. It 

is to create an opportunity for a person in a district that maybe 

doesn’t have the contacts, but maybe can work through the system 

that we are proposing to get a little bit of money to challenge me 

or someone else. That is the only way this democracy is going to 

survive. 

I don’t know—not you personally—I don’t know how anyone 

would be opposed to looking at this as an option, because it is 

strictly voluntary. It is strictly voluntary. I don’t see how we lose 

on that one. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, just a couple of quick questions on the broadcast voucher. 

Coming from the Bay area, you couldn’t buy any amount of—I 

mean, this would do nothing. And so the question is could these 

vouchers be used for some other form of media? Could you use 

them to buy ads on Google or Yahoo? Could you do radio instead 

of TV? Have you thought about that? 

In Los Angeles, I don’t think any Members of Congress runs ads 

because it is just prohibitively expensive to do TV in Los Angeles. 

Mr. LARSON. Yes, we have thought about it. The Tierney bill is 

far more expansive in that area, and certainly we are open, as I 

said, to change, because what is right for Connecticut, Maine, or 

Arizona may not be right for California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama. It may not work that way. 

So to be able to have a sliding scale and to be able to perfect this 

as we go forward. But, as Chellie said, I think the panelists behind 

us, the architects of the concept in the bill, will be better able to 

explain the thinking behind that. But certainly the most important 

thing about this thinking is the flexibility and the recognition that 

you are going to get good input from Members who know better 

than anyone else what goes on in their congressional district. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
54 

Ms. LOFGREN. I will then ask the next panel. I am interested in 

alternate media. 

Mr. LARSON. Which makes sense. That is the way the world is 

moving. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. We have a second panel, and there are a lot 

of Members, but my other question, from time to time we get concerns, and I think it is legitimate, our colleagues who come from 

extremely low-income communities have a very difficult time raising funds in those communities because people are so poor. 

President Obama had the biggest on-line small-donor campaign 

in the history of the United States. I don’t know if anybody has 

analyzed the donation patterns to see how many of those small donors lived in low-income communities. If you have, I would be interested. Maybe the next panel has. But I think that is an important thing to know for our colleagues who represent very low-income communities. 

Mr. LARSON. It is a great question. I don’t have the data off the 

top of my head, but perhaps the next panel does. 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. And I would just add, if I may, part of 

the design of this system is to address one of your concerns. Many 

of us start running for office by calling all of the people we ever 

went to college with. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I understand. I worked off my wedding list. It was, walked two precincts, gave $25, silver tray. 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. The silver tray was worth $100. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, no, the silver tray was the wedding present. 

It was all on one card. 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Exactly. What this is attempting to address, many people don’t have business contacts, or they didn’t 

serve in politics before. They don’t have some other way to get 

started. This says if you come from a community where you can 

ask all the people in your neighborhood to chip in a $10 contribution, as Walter was saying, you can turn that into matching money. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I understand that. But there is also an on-theground reality depending on the level of poverty in some of these 

districts. When I ran, I mean, I was never expected to win. And 

I had people who borrowed money so they could donate $200. It 

was a sacrifice that people made, but they wanted to. 

In some parts of America, you can’t do that. It is feed the kids, 

or donate; and the kids are going to get fed first. 

I would just like to know—and I think we have a great experiment in a sense in the Obama campaign. I am sure we can get that 

information and analyze it if it hasn’t already been done. I think 

it will be an important piece of information for many of our colleagues in those communities. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Harper. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously everybody has good intentions to make the system always work better, but if our concern was, I believe you said, the 

corrosiveness of large contributions, then why did we increase last 

year’s limit of $2,300 up to $2,400? We seem to be allowing for 

that. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
55 

Mr. LARSON. If I could respond. 

Mr. HARPER. If I may finish, and then you can answer. I want 

you to be able to respond to all of this. 

If the deal here is the concern about large contributors, which we 

all want to get when we are making our calls for contributions for 

campaign, I found it very easy to accept contributions and vote 

against that position if they were so inclined to make a contribution. Every one of you in here I know have done that because you 

do your job, and you do it fairly and efficiently. 

But I am sitting here and looking at these letters, Friends of the 

Earth, worried about the coal, oil, and gas industries using their 

people to contribute. 

Here is another: Chesapeake Climate Action Network, worrying 

about the coal, oil and gas industries. 

Here is Health Care Now worrying about health care industries’ 

tremendous influence by their contributions. 

How is this any different than the individual contributor’s influence that they may have? We are loaded up—you know, if it wasn’t 

for special-interest groups coming to see us, we wouldn’t have anything to do. And we are not really addressing that in this particular situation. 

And this is not voluntary for our taxpayers. Unless there is 

something that is created that allows the taxpayer to say none of 

their tax money is to be used for this, it is not voluntary to the 

folks in my district. 

If our concern is what to do about—as you said, Congressman 

Jones, about allowing somebody who doesn’t have the financial 

means to run a campaign, most of the self-funders—and I think the 

Wall Street Journal, and I may be wrong, did a study on selffunders, and most of them lost. 

I am a perfect example within the system that existed to run a 

grassroots campaign on not much money. It is unheard of to think 

that you can raise a quarter of a million dollars and make it into 

a primary against people with $600,000 and $1.3 million. And we 

did it, and we won because we worked harder than anybody else, 

and we had great friends across the district that were helping us. 

You look at the cost of starting a new Federal agency to oversee 

this. And if this did happen, isn’t there some group that could oversee it without a new bureaucracy created? This is going to cost us 

money. So if we are going to deal with this, let us deal with something that is going to be completely—deal with the whole issue. 

That is what I would like to do. 

Congressman Larson, you wanted to reply. I want to give you a 

moment to do that now. 

Mr. LARSON. Let me just say, when I used the term ‘‘corrosive,’’ 

what I meant by that was the entire approach ends up being corrosive. What is it corroding? It is corroding the democracy. It has us 

spending an inordinate amount of time with our hand out, regardless of what the amount is. 

Now, this still doesn’t get us away from that, it just makes it de 

minimis. And then it alleviates the time because of the matching 

amounts of money. So it makes the amounts de minimis, but it 

makes the influence of people who can give de minimis. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
56 

I am not suggesting that anyone up here, nor any Member of 

Congress, for whatever the contribution will do, they will do exactly 

what you said. They will vote their interest. They will vote against 

something. I am not suggesting that person or that person’s campaign contribution is going to change your mind. What I am suggesting, though, is overall in an entire system where everybody is 

doing that, it is corrosive. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Congressman. 

With that I yield the balance of my time to Congressman Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce two items 

for the record: One, a study of the Campaign Finance Institute on 

President Obama’s campaign and large donors versus small donors, 

which shows that President Obama, 26 percent of his donors were 

$200 or less; and George Bush, 4 years before, 25 percent of his donors were $200 or less. And also a CNN article on large contribution political donors who are now supporting the Fair Elections 

Now Act. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
57 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 52711A.036
58 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 52711A.037
59 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 52711A.038
60 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 52711A.039
61 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 52711A.040
62 

Mr. LUNGREN. I just want to say that I appreciate everyone here 

and their position. I do remember with public funding we created 

or helped create a Lyndon LaRouche who ran for President from 

a prison cell, and continues to run for President with public funds, 

and I think that might be what Mr. Davis was suggesting in some 

of these situations. And I don’t know how you can construct a system to stop the Lyndon LaRouches of the world from taking advantage of a program like this, but, frankly, I don’t think we need to 

create more of them in our political system. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you. 

First, I would like to echo the Ranking Member’s words. I don’t 

like 527s either. I have never had the good fortune of having any 

ads run against me just yet. I would encourage the right-wing 527s 

to please come to Boston and run a few ads against me; it would 

help me raise more money. But I don’t like them either. I would 

be happy to add anything that we can think of to limit them or get 

rid of them to this bill or any other bill any time. I think they are 

corrosive to the system as well. 

And I also would like to find ways to limit or at least make 

transparent outside entities that want to come in and weigh in on 

each of our races. I have no problem with that. I hate people coming in and creating an agency or group that claims to be some 

good-government group, and then kicks us. We all know it is one 

millionaire or one group of people kicking. We both have them. 

Again, transparency is probably all you can do. But if there is 

anything that the Ranking Member or anybody else would like to 

do on 527s or the like, I am more than happy to join in on that. 

As far as voluntary taxes, I wish they were voluntary taxes, because my constituents wouldn’t be sending a nickel to Iraq. We 

wouldn’t be sending a nickel for half of the things that we spend 

money on. Unfortunately, that is just not the way it is. We all get 

together and beat each other up here, and we come up with a general consensus of where we want to spend money, and that is 

called taxes. That doesn’t mean we get to have checkoff boxes. I 

don’t like the Presidential checkoff box for that very reason, for 

that very reason. 

I totally agree with the issue that Mr. Davis raised about limited 

access. I totally agree. I am not looking to fund the extreme anybody. I want legitimate candidates on the ballot. I think there are 

ways to do that. I think this bill has some of those provisions in 

it. I would like to see some strengthened, but the concept is exactly 

right. Nobody is looking to fund—and, by the way, the LaRouches 

that used to be in the Republican Party, and now they have come 

over to us. Do you want them back? 

Mr. LUNGREN. They have found their natural home. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I owe him one. 

As far as this bill goes, again, I do have some problems with it. 

One of the problems I don’t have is the numbers. The amount of 

money that is potentially available here is $3.3 million to a specific 

candidate. Like Mr. Harper, I do come from one of the most expensive TV markets. Not 10 years ago, but in today’s market, I would 

have raised and spent about $700,000 in today’s market, so probVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:30 Oct 17, 2009 Jkt 52711 PO 00000 Frm 000066 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06602 E:\HR\OC\A711.XXX A711

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
63 

ably comparable to the numbers you have. I beat guys who literally 

have spent 10 times more than me. I totally agree with that concept. I actually think this number is too high, my personal opinion, 

but that is a different issue. 

I also don’t think that you have to have $3 million. I have to have $3 million if you have $3 million so I can get my message out. 

If you don’t have $3 million, I don’t need $3 million. All I want is 

a reasonably level playing field so whatever message you can get 

out to say how good you are or how bad I am, I want to be able 

to do the same. That is all. And the whole concept that it costs millions of dollars to run for Congress, it only does because people who 

run spend that kind of money. It shouldn’t cost that amount of 

money. 

Again, different issue, my guess is we probably can’t limit that, 

so there has to be some number. I just think if there are other proposals out there, I am more than happy to do it. I don’t want to 

spend taxpayers dollars either if it is avoidable. If there are other 

proposals to do this, please, let us put them on the table and talk 

about them. All I want to do is I want to do whatever we can to 

advance the ball: One, get my time back so I can do what I ran 

for office to do; and, number two, to enhance the view of the public 

and at least our integrity, if not our judgment—I guess we need to 

do that individually—but at least the integrity of the system. 

We have all said it, and we all know it, there are all kinds, and 

every couple of years this comes around. I have taken some money 

from some people who are now being called up. I have looked. In 

all of the years I have been here, less than 1 percent of the money 

I took was from some of the people that are now being concerned. 

Nobody is going to sell out for 1 penny on the dollar. That is ridiculous. But you can’t tell people because the numbers are big. 

And I am not a good fundraiser, but since I have been here, I have raised about $5 million, and I am not that good at it. That 

is obscene. Before I got to this job, the most money I ever raised 

was $100,000. All I want to do is get away from that. 

Nobody ran for this office to come and raise money. I don’t think, 

I am not so sure, but if we really knew what we were getting into, 

I am not so sure that some of us wouldn’t make a different judgment. But once you are in it, you are in it, you are on the treadmill. I want to get off the treadmill. If there are other ways, believe 

me, I am not stuck on this. Help us find a way as opposed to simply saying the current system is okay. 

The current system is not okay. It doesn’t work, and I want to 

thank my colleagues for putting this forward. I want to thank my 

colleagues very much for being open to discussion and amendment 

on this as we move forward, and I hope that we can make some 

progress to get us all back to what we really want to do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

For the record, Mr. Capuano didn’t mean the money he took, he 

meant the money he raised. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I hope you watch my words here, too. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am the conscience here. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
64 

Mrs. DAVIS. I appreciate your all being here, and I think this is 

a critical issue. None of us want to be telemarketers. My concern, 

and the reason that I have supported in concept public financing, 

is because I think we work better when we can focus our efforts 

on solving the problems that we want to solve for our constituents. 

No matter how you talk about this, it takes people away from 

that basic task before them. There is nothing wrong with having 

supporters, and certainly people want to play a role and engage, 

and I think that is important, so we need to find ways for people 

to do that, and we have lots of examples of that. 

I think the other concern really is we are trying to match efforts. 

We are exhausting the voters at the same time. We have 

supersized campaigns, supersized like so many other things in our 

culture. That is really what has happened. That is part of the problem. 

I have a few questions, and they relate to what do we know now 

about these efforts in other States. And, Chellie, you spoke to that, 

and I think the second panel will speak to that as well. 

What do we know about whether or not those particular States 

have reasonable-size campaigns? Do they go from being supersize 

to being more reasonable? Is the activity of the 527s, is it any less; 

is it any more; is it just the same? What is our experience with 

that? 

Do candidates actually spend less time fundraising? We are talk- ing about $5 and $10 contributions, and that does play a role engaging people, and it is far better than spending the time on the 

phone in a whole different format, but does that mean people really 

have more time? 

It seems to me perhaps we do have some opportunities as we 

look at the bill and we try to figure out how we can help it move 

forward. It is what do we know now? What kinds of studies are out 

there? I happen to believe that there are tons of graduate students 

who have studied a lot of these races, and perhaps we can look at 

those at well. If you have any comments, I would be happy to entertain them. 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I know there are some studies that will 

be handed out to the committee, and I think all of the States are 

attempting to do a significant amount of analysis as to how this 

changes the makeup of people who run for office and the amount 

of money spent. 

I will speak briefly about my experience in Maine and then leave 

it to the people who are actively working on this now. But I think 

you and others portrayed this accurately in the sense that we have 

gotten into an arms race here. If you look back to Ms. Lofgren, who 

said $50 was a lot of money in the 1980s, and now you probably 

wouldn’t make a phone call for $50, you would get it in the mail. 

Now it is a $2,400 max that you are trying to get with a phone call. 

We have changed the culture of this. We have upped the amount 

of money we can spend, the TV buys, and fighting back and forth. 

One of the things that doing this does, and Maine has about 85 

percent of the Members who run under this system, basically there 

is a cap. So if you have two people under the volunteer system, 

they get a limited amount of money. I can’t tell you the exact 

amount, but let us say if you are running for the State senate 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
65 

where you only have 35,000 in a district, you get about $25,000 to 

run on, and that is it. So your opponent has $25,000. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Have independent or third-party candidates participated more meaningfully in these situations than one would see 

across the board? 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I should let somebody behind me answer 

that. I think there have been times when third-party candidates 

have been able to participate. But again, you have to be—become 

a qualifying candidate. So you still have to find people to write you 

a $5 check. Sometimes that is harder than you think. It is one 

thing to get a signature, but when you say to somebody on the 

street, hey, can you also write me a $5 check? 

I may be inaccurate here, but I also want to comment on the outside expenditures. If an outside expenditure is directed towards you 

and the matching system, it can trigger a match for you. So if 

somebody from the outside runs an ad against you, as was being 

talked about, that can actually trigger a match into your account. 

So in a sense, you have much better control. That money goes into 

your account, and you decide how to answer back what is being 

said about you, which I think takes away some of the influences 

of these sort of warring outside expenditures which you have no 

control over. 

The only other thing I wanted to say something about, having 

lived in a State where we have really had a lot of change in the 

system since 2000, is it starts to change the culture. The newspaper will now editorialize against who doesn’t run under the public financing system and start to ask questions. It doesn’t mean 

that many people don’t, because it is still voluntary. They will also 

run more editorials about outside expenditures. Why are you doing 

that against that candidate; we have a public financing system. So 

I think it gets more attention to the culture of your campaigns 

which we have kind of lost here in this arms race. That is my opinion anyway. 

Mr. LARSON. Susan, you are going to hear from Jeff Garfield, the 

executive director of the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement 

Commission, later, and I am sure you will find those statistics interesting on how it has worked in Connecticut. 

But your point, I go back to when I first ran for the State senate 

in Connecticut. We used to do something called 10 for 10. We 

would have 10 households invite people and raise $10 from each 

person who came to their household. And then they would gather 

collectively. It was just a more communal way of doing this. At that 

time you raised money in the community, in your State, et cetera. 

There wasn’t the kind of resources and K Street and all of the 

other influences. So the emphasis is here conceptually, and you 

have to work on it, but is to get back to that communal relationship. 

But I dare say that the threshold of 1,500 people and $50,000, 

and while $50,000 doesn’t sound like an awful lot of money, when 

you have to get there with $100 contributions, it is. And some of 

the questions that have been raised about poorer districts and how 

we can monitor, those are the things that we need to work through. 

But in concept, as you said, you are supportive of it. I think that 

is the beauty of a hearing. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
66 

Again, I thank Mr. Brady, because these are the kinds of hearings and things, frankly, we don’t get to talk enough about. And 

there is wide opinion on this. Nobody has a bad opinion, it is just 

a matter of how we are working this thing through for the collective good of the institution, in this case the Congress, and the democracy that we participate in. 

Mr. JONES. Mrs. Davis and Mr. Chairman, I think what has been 

said is so important for this reason. In the State of North Carolina, 

we failed in 1987 and 1989, but now we have a system for our 

State judges that is working extremely well. It is working. The 

panel behind us will be able to speak to the details of some of these 

States. It is working, but it is working because the people want it 

to work. That is what we are trying to say here today. 

Thank you for your leadership on the Armed Services Committee, and thank you for what you said, because this is a golden 

opportunity to move forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think what history shows us is that virtually every adventure, 

every experiment in regulating the financing of campaigns has led 

to unintended consequences. Many Congresses ago corporate contributions were banned, PACs emerged. We put limits on campaign 

contributions under the theory that would dilute the influence of 

money. Candidates adjusted by raising more money from more people and having to reach out to even more special-interest networks 

to reach their budget goals. 

The McCain-Feingold bill in the early part of this century has 

not reined in independent expenditures. Independent expenditures 

have exploded. The concept of bundling is now common in politics. 

At the State and Federal level, large donors who get together and 

raise money for you, and they may only be giving you their $2,400, 

but they have raised $50, and they walk in and hand you the $50 

that they have raised. 

My sense is that there would be unintended consequences that 

flowed out of public financing. Here is one of the most conspicuous 

ones. Not only would you get more Lyndon LaRouches and more 

frivolous fringe third, fourth, fifth and sixth parties, I think you 

would get more frivolous primary challengers, frankly. 

Mr. Jones, in the context of your district under this system, I tell 

you who I think you would have gotten: Eight or nine people running against you saying that you weren’t right-wing enough for 

their tastes. 

John, even in your district I think under this system what you 

would get is five or six people running against you in every primary saying you took a dime from the biggest insurance company 

in your district, proof that even John Larson has sold out. 

Ms. Pingree, I think what you would get in your district—while 

I have no doubt you will have a very progressive record here, what 

you would get is a number of people saying, look at this one contribution from this person, this amendment she supported; now we 

know why, the real story. That is the nature of modern politics. 

The reason we don’t get more frivolous primary challenges is, 

candidly, they can’t raise the money. If they were led to believe 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
67 

they could raise the money—because this kind of system says to 

fringe candidates all around America, all you have to do is talk to 

the true believers; all you have to do is talk to the committed, find 

their Web sites, go to their clubs and meetings and add them all 

together, and presto, voila, you have got your money coming in now 

for the Federal Government to sustain you. And, frankly, most of 

them wouldn’t care if they won. 

Most frivolous candidates for Congress would not want to be 

here. They wouldn’t want to catch the plane every few days, and 

they wouldn’t want to sit on the floor for 2 hours and cast votes. 

They would rather do talk radio interviews all day. They run to get 

their name out. They run because they love to be able to go to a 

candidates forum and stand up there and say whatever they want 

to say, and for the first time in their life someone appears to be 

listening. I think that is what you would get out of the system. 

Here is the other unintended consequence that would flow from 

all these minor challenges. The behavior that would emerge, the 

Members of Congress would think, how do I avoid minor primary 

challengers? Let me just vote with the base of my party all of the 

time. So all of a sudden the Walter Jones of the world would become very infrequent, and you already are on your side. A Republican would say, How do I avoid a minor primary challenger? I will 

just vote with my base all of the time. A Democrat would say, How 

do I avoid a minor primary challenge? I will just vote with my base 

all of the time. And so what you would get is more and more Members of Congress feeling that they had to hew to an ideological line, 

and I don’t think you would get better public policy, I think you 

would get an even more sharply split political system than we have 

today. 

I agree, frankly, with Mr. Lungren’s observation. The big corporate interests in this country, here is how they would adjust to 

this system. All of the money that they would save from not having 

to make contributions to congressional candidates and Members of 

Congress, they would not contribute that money to charity. They 

would turn around and dump it into independent expenditures, and 

you would see only more of what we are all going to see in this 

next 30 days: Every interest group in the country that has a stake 

in the health-care debate running independent ads in our districts 

saying here is why you should vote for or against this bill. They 

would not inject the money into the system, they would redirect it 

into other forms of expenditures. 

That is my 2 cents’ worth. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman, and I thank every one of 

you for spending the morning with us. We appreciate it. 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Brady, might we thank your staff, especially 

Jamie Fleet and Tom, but we want to thank all of them. We want 

to give a shout-out to Mary McHugh, who I understand had a 

birthday this week, and tell her that Sister Helen Eugenia still is 

thinking about her. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would like to have the second panel come up to the table. 

I call the committee back to order and recognize our next panel 

of witnesses. I would like to ask unanimous consent for CongressVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:30 Oct 17, 2009 Jkt 52711 PO 00000 Frm 000071 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06602 E:\HR\OC\A711.XXX A711

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
68 

woman Chellie Pingree to make one introduction on a witness on 

the second panel. 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a rare honor. Thank you for allowing for me to testify on 

the first panel. 

To the Chair and Ranking Member and all of the members of the 

committee, it is a pleasure to be here today, and what a rare treat 

to have the chance to introduce my daughter, Hannah Pingree, 

who, as I mentioned before, I hope never runs against me in a primary. You will all soon see why. 

Hannah is a resident of the State of Maine. She is from the island of North Haven. We live in a community of 350 people. She 

graduated from the smallest high school in the State of Maine. The 

graduating class had five students. That is about as small as it 

comes. She went on to study at Brown University and ran for the 

State legislature at the age of 25. She has served in the State legislature for 7 years, and we have term limits. She is coming on to 

her last year. She serves as the speaker of the house. Although she 

may look like she is 12 years old, she scares everyone, and people 

do pretty much in that house what they are told. 

I am grateful that she took the time to come down here and testify. I asked the Chair if she could serve on the panel because she 

has run under the system, she has recruited candidates under a 

public financing system, and knows the pitfalls and challenges and 

what works well. 

Thank you for allowing me to introduce her, and for her to be 

here today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome. 

Also joining her is Jeffrey Garfield, executive director and general counsel for the Connecticut State Election Enforcement Commission. He has served in that capacity for almost 30 years. Mr. 

Garfield has been active in many organizations, including the 

Council on Governmental Ethics Laws, which is the international 

organization with interests in ethics, election, and campaign finance law. 

We have also Bradley Smith, professor of law at Capital University School of Law. Prior to that he served for 5 years as Commissioner on the Federal Elections Commission. 

Mr. John Samples is the director of Center for Representative 

Government, CATO Institute, which studies campaign finance regulation. He is also an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins. Prior to 

joining CATO, Mr. Samples served 8 years as director of the 

Georgetown University Press and was vice president of the 20th 

Century Fund. 

Mr. Arn Pearson is vice president for programs for Common 

Cause organization, where he works with the national and State offices helping create model campaign finance legislation. Mr. Pearson has a long history in public financing and campaign finance reform. He was previously campaign reform director for Common 

Cause. 

Without objection, your written statements will be a part of the 

record. We ask you to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or 

less. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
69 

I will start off by having the speaker of the house, the Honorable 

Hannah Pingree. Your mom introduced you in a way that none of 

us up here would be able to do, especially the 12-year-old part. 

STATEMENTS OF HANNAH PINGREE, SPEAKER OF THE MAINE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; JEFFREY GARFIELD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CONNECTICUT 

STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION; BRADLEY 

SMITH, PROFESSOR OF LAW, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL 

OF LAW; JOHN SAMPLES, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, CATO INSTITUTE; AND ARN 

PEARSON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS, COMMON 

CAUSE 

STATEMENT OF HANNAH PINGREE 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Chairman Brady, Ranking Member 

Lungren and members of the committee. I am Hannah Pingree, 

Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives. Thank you for the 

opportunity to be here today to share with you my experiences with 

the Maine clean elections system as you consider H.R. 1826 and 

the public financing of congressional campaigns. 

I am here to express my strong support for Maine’s clean election 

system and tell you a little about my experience with public financing as both a candidate and as a legislative leader. In many ways 

public financing has changed the face of Maine politics. Public financing has encouraged many nontraditional candidates to run, 

from young people and women to working people and single mothers, because they don’t have to have networks and wealthy friends 

or industry support to be successful. Public financing allows candidates, and elected officials, to take the time they need to meet 

voters and serve their constituents. 

Most significantly, public financing has created a separation between the vast majority of legislators and lobby groups. Under the 

clean election system, most Maine legislators don’t receive campaign support from lobbyists, allowing legislators to weigh issues 

on their merits and vote freely without the fear of losing support 

in the next campaign. 

In 2002, as you heard from my mom, when I was 25 years old, 

I had the unique experience of being both a first-time candidate for 

the Maine House running under the public financing system, and 

also working as a full-time fundraiser for my mother’s campaign for 

U.S. Senate. It opened my eyes to the glaring differences between 

the two worlds. I could conduct my house campaign by knocking on 

doors in the rural towns of my island district, attending public 

functions, and stopping to speak with voters along the way. 

On the other hand, my mother was forced to pass up forums and 

cut short conversations so she could get back to the phone and dial 

for dollars. She had to spend the majority of her time fundraising 

to raise the millions of dollars needed to wage a TV campaign that 

a U.S. Senate race requires. That campaign cycle for me highlighted what is wrong with our Federal campaign system. 

The Maine Clean Elections Act was passed by a wide margin of 

Maine voters in a citizen-initiated referendum in 1996, and became 

available for candidates in 2000. Since that time, running clean 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
70 

has become the norm for State house and Senate candidates and 

statewide races. 

In 2000, 33 percent of legislative candidates participated in the 

voluntary system. By 2008, that number had risen to 81 percent, 

including the vast majority of candidates in both parties. And candidates who accept public financing are competitive; 85 percent of 

the winners in 2008 were publicly financed. 

The Maine Clean Elections Act works like this. For a State house 

races, I need to collect $5 contributions from 50 registered voters 

in my district in order to qualify for about $5,000 to run my campaign in my small district of 8,500 people. I can also raise up to 

$500 in seed money to start my campaign in the $100 or less donations. Once I have done this, I cannot accept any other donations 

to my campaign, although a third party can still spend money independently. 

If my opponent spends over a certain level, or if a third party 

spends to support or oppose me, the amount of money I receive 

later in the race is adjusted up or down. 

As the Speaker of the House, I am engaged in recruiting candidates to run for the legislature, and with 8-year term limits, we 

are constantly recruiting for open seats. I am certain that many 

candidates would not be able to run for office without the public 

financing option. The idea of raising funds, even the small amount 

necessary for a state house campaign, is daunting for many people, 

especially those from rural or poor districts. 

As I found out the first time I ran, people were excited to support 

my campaign, and they were thrilled that even with modest means, 

they could help me qualify as a candidate for public financing with 

just a $5 check. Whether it was a senior citizen or a hardworking 

lobsterman, they could participate in my campaign, which for many 

of them was a first. More importantly, after I qualified for clean 

elections, I could spend the majority of my time talking to my constituents, actually listening to their concerns, without the pressure 

of needing to fundraise or find new donors. 

Because public financing makes the entry process into politics 

more doable, it has become an important tool for recruiting. From 

my limited experience with Federal elections, you can contrast 

Maine’s system with Federal recruiting, where self-funded candidates are often preferable. You have to question a system where 

great personal wealth can make someone more attractive to party 

groups simply because they won’t require as much funding help. 

I also believe that policy and process implications for Maine’s 

clean elections system have been significant. In my time as a legislator, I have watched Maine take on numerous issues, from tax reform to health care expansions to environmental policies. And despite spending by out-of-State industries, we have passed some 

first-in-the-Nation laws. In many other States, passing reforms on 

these same issues would be uphill battles. This doesn’t mean our 

Maine Legislature has become more liberal or more conservative 

under clean elections, it means that legislators are more apt to 

make decisions based on a bill’s potential impact on their district 

and less based on heavy lobbying or campaign support. 

For example, I sponsored a major chemical reform bill in 2007 

which sought to take a comprehensive look at regulating chemicals 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
71 

in consumer products, especially children’s products. We had a very 

fierce lobbying effort against the bill in the State house and in the 

media by the chemical and consumer products industry. And yet it 

passed with overwhelming bipartisan margins because it was the 

right policy. It was a clear case where the voice of the public was 

stronger than the lobby and their millions of dollars of spending. 

Overall, the Maine Clean Elections Act has been a tremendous 

success. In the five elections since its inception, it has allowed candidates the time to focus on their constituents rather than contributors, and it has increased the diversity of representatives in the 

legislature, and I believe it has allowed Maine legislators the time 

to focus on the best policies for their constituents rather than worrying about upsetting the entrenched lobbying interests. 

I urge the committee’s support, and I am happy to answer your 

questions later. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Pingree follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
72 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here 52711A.041
73 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here 52711A.042
74 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here 52711A.043
75 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 here 52711A.044
76 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 here 52711A.045
77 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 here 52711A.046
78 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 here 52711A.047
79 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 here 52711A.048
80 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 here 52711A.049
81 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 here 52711A.050
82 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 here 52711A.051
83 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 here 52711A.052
84 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 here 52711A.053
85 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 here 52711A.054
86 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 here 52711A.055
87 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 here 52711A.056
88 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 here 52711A.057
89 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 here 52711A.058
90 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 here 52711A.059
91 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 here 52711A.060
92 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 here 52711A.061
93 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 here 52711A.062
94 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 here 52711A.063
95 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 here 52711A.064
96 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 here 52711A.065
97 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 here 52711A.066
98 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 here 52711A.067
99 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 here 52711A.068
100 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 here 52711A.069
101 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 here 52711A.070
102 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 here 52711A.071
103 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 here 52711A.072
104 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 here 52711A.073
105 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 here 52711A.074
106 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 here 52711A.075
107 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 here 52711A.076
108 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 here 52711A.077
109 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 here 52711A.078
110 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 here 52711A.079
111 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 here 52711A.080
112 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 here 52711A.081
113 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 here 52711A.082
114 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 here 52711A.083
115 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 here 52711A.084
116 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 here 52711A.085
117 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 here 52711A.086
118 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 here 52711A.087
119 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 here 52711A.088
120 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 here 52711A.089
121 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 here 52711A.090
122 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 here 52711A.091
123 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 here 52711A.092
124 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 here 52711A.093
125 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 here 52711A.094
126 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 here 52711A.095
127 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 here 52711A.096
128 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here 52711A.097
129 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here 52711A.098
130 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here 52711A.099
131 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 here 52711A.100
132 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 here 52711A.101
133 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here 52711A.102
134 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 here 52711A.103
135 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 here 52711A.104
136 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here 52711A.105
137 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 here 52711A.106
138 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here 52711A.107
139 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here 52711A.108
140 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here 52711A.109
141 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here 52711A.110
142 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here 52711A.111
143 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here 52711A.112
144 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here 52711A.113
145 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here 52711A.114
146 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here 52711A.115
147 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here 52711A.116
148 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here 52711A.117
149 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here 52711A.118
150 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here 52711A.119
151 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here 52711A.120
152 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here 52711A.121
153 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here 52711A.122
154 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here 52711A.123
155 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here 52711A.124
156 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here 52711A.125
157 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 52711A.126
158 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 52711A.127
159 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here 52711A.128
160 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here 52711A.129
161 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here 52711A.130
162 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here 52711A.131
163 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here 52711A.132
164 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here 52711A.133
165 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here 52711A.134
166 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here 52711A.135
167 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here 52711A.136
168 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here 52711A.137
169 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 here 52711A.138
170 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 here 52711A.139
171 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 here 52711A.140
172 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 here 52711A.141
173 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 here 52711A.142
174 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 here 52711A.143
175 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 here 52711A.144
176 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 here 52711A.145
177 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 here 52711A.146
178 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 here 52711A.147
179 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 here 52711A.148
180 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 here 52711A.149
181 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 here 52711A.150
182 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 here 52711A.151
183 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 here 52711A.152
184 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 here 52711A.153
185 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 here 52711A.154
186 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 here 52711A.155
187 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 here 52711A.156
188 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 here 52711A.157
189 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 here 52711A.158
190 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 here 52711A.159
191 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 here 52711A.160
192 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 here 52711A.161
193 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 here 52711A.162
194 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 here 52711A.163
195 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 here 52711A.164
196 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 here 52711A.165
197 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 here 52711A.166
198 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 here 52711A.167
199 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 here 52711A.168
200 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Garfield. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY GARFIELD 

Mr. GARFIELD. Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Lungren and 

distinguished members on House Administration, good afternoon. 

My name is Jeffrey Garfield, and I am the executive director and 

general counsel for the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement 

Commission, and I have served in that capacity for 30 years. 

I am honored to appear before this committee today to testify 

concerning H.R. 1826, sponsored by Connecticut’s own Congressman Larson; and more particularly to discuss Connecticut’s positive 

experience with the implementation of a full public financing program for legislative elections in 2008. 

With me today is Beth Rotman, the director of Connecticut’s Citizen Election Program, who was an integral part of implementing 

the program. 

I am proud to say that Connecticut was the first State to adopt 

a full public financing program by an act of its legislature, combining it with complete bans on contributions by lobbyists and 

State contractors. Connecticut’s comprehensive reform would not 

have occurred but for strong bipartisan leadership and courage of 

our Governor M. Jodi Rell and legislative leaders. 

Connecticut’s voluntary Citizen Election Program has several 

features akin to H.R. 1826. To establish eligibility for a public 

grant, a candidate must meet a two-part threshold by raising qualifying contributions between $5 and $100 from individual donors. 

There is an aggregate dollar contribution requirement, and an indistrict requirement for legislative candidates and an instate requirement for statewide candidates. All of these qualifying contributions must come from individuals; no PAC, no entity contributions are permitted. I have provided a detailed overview of Connecticut’s program as part of my written testimony, and I ask that 

it be made part of the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Connecticut’s campaign finance reform was 

brought about by scandals involving several elected officials, including our Governor, who resigned from office under threat of impeachment and served a year in prison for public corruption. According to the polls at the time, Connecticut citizens’ confidence in 

their government and elected officials were virtually eradicated. 

Campaign finance reform was the cornerstone of the reforms aimed 

at restoring that confidence. Connecticut’s public campaign financing program was an unqualified success in the first run for the 

2008 legislative elections. 

For the reform to be successful, participation in it by candidates 

must be incentivized. Our participation rate was an extraordinary 

75 percent of all State legislative candidates. Moreover, approximately 78 percent of the current legislature ran under the program. By comparison, Maine and Arizona in their first runs had 

participation rates of one-third and one-quarter respectively. 

Special-interest money was virtually eliminated from the 2008 

State legislative campaigns. Ninety-seven percent of all contributions raised by candidates were from individuals. In eliminating 

virtually all special-interest money from campaigns, Connecticut 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
201 

has addressed the concern that its political culture fostered actual 

or perceived conflicts of interest. By comparison, in the 2006 legislative elections, candidates received approximately one-half of the 

money, of the $9.3 million raised from PAC’s entities and lobbyists. 

The high participation rate of legislative candidates resulted in 

most contributions derived from small individual donors and the 

remaining nonparticipating candidates received approximately 

$60,000 from PACs. Candidates believe that the CEP reduced the 

appearance of special-interest influence. Sixty-six percent of the 

candidates in the 2008 legislative elections found that public financing reduced even the appearance that a candidate would be 

beholden to large donors or special interests. 

The availability of public funds encouraged new candidates to 

join the electoral process in 2008. Approximately 78 percent of 

first-time candidates in the 2008 legislative elections indicated that 

the availability of a public campaign grant was an important factor 

in their decision to run for office. 

One such candidate, Karen Houghtaling, is a 41-year-old grandmother holding two jobs as a receptionist and a waitress, who nearly upset a three-term incumbent in a Democratic primary. Ms. 

Houghtaling said, ‘‘What I can tell you is this: I would not have 

run for State representative this past August were it not for the 

new Citizen Election Program. I might have been a new kid on the 

block when it comes to running for public office, but I knew I could 

never be competitive in a system where someone was essentially 

encouraged to rely on big private-money contributions.’’ 

The program encouraged electoral competition. There was an increase of primaries under the CEP. While the number of unopposed 

races was not diminished in the first year under the program, challengers fared better under the program in 2008 than they did without it in 2006. All successful challengers participated in the program. Moreover, there were closer races in 2008 than in 2006. The 

program freed candidates from spending too much time fundraising, affording more candidates greater opportunity to communicate with constituents, and gave value to small $5 contributions. 

Cicero Booker, an African American and third-party candidate 

who ran for the State senate under the program, said he was 

happy that even disadvantaged people in his community could get 

involved and know that even their $5 donation was significant. 

Many people in the district had never donated to a political committee. Candidates were satisfied that they did not have to spend 

endless time having fundraisers. 

Matthew Lesser, a first-time candidate, who at age 25 upset a 

long-term incumbent, stated, ‘‘I believe that having a chance to 

meet so many of my constituents will make me a better legislator. 

The result of public financing is a more in touch, more competitive, 

and more independent legislature which finds itself accountable to 

our voters, and to the voters alone.’’ 

The number of female candidates in 2008 was 102, more than 

any other previous year. The percentage of women in the State legislature is now a record, almost 32 percent. 

Why did the Connecticut program succeed? Because the law 

incentivizes participation by providing candidates with generous 

grants with which to wage effective campaigns. Eligibility for pubVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:30 Oct 17, 2009 Jkt 52711 PO 00000 Frm 000205 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06602 E:\HR\OC\A711.XXX A711

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
202 

lic grants are also set at reasonable thresholds of support, while 

both incumbents and challengers alike are able to qualify for public 

grants. In fact, 93 percent of all participating candidates receive 

grants. 

Let me close by saying this. In its inaugural year, the Citizen 

Election Program earned the respect and praise of candidates who 

opted to participate. We hope that Connecticut’s experience is one 

that this committee will closely consider as you move ahead. 

One story I would like to share in closing by Democratic State 

Representative Chris Caruso, who said, ‘‘Some people think that it 

is impossible to blunt the influence of lobbyists and big donors, but 

that is exactly what happened here in Connecticut this year. For 

many years environmentalists have tried to expand the bottle bill 

recycling program to include 5 cent deposits on plastic water bottles. But the powerful beverage industry and paid lobbyists were 

able to stop every effort at reform because they gave thousands of 

dollars to legislators. This year, the legislature voted to expand the 

bottle bill. We voted to reclaim millions of dollars’ worth of unclaimed bottle deposits, which take approximately $25 million a 

year out of the pockets of the beverage industry and puts that 

money into the general fund where it belongs. This alone recoups 

more money than the Citizens’ Election Program costs. This is just 

the beginning.’’ 

Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer any questions 

you have later on. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

[The statement of Mr. Garfield follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
203 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 52711A.169
204 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 52711A.170
205 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 52711A.171
206 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 52711A.172
207 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 52711A.173
208 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 52711A.174
209 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 52711A.175
210 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 52711A.176
211 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 52711A.177
212 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
213 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 52711A.178
214 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 52711A.179
215 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 52711A.180
216 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 52711A.181
217 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 52711A.182
218 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 52711A.183
219 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 52711A.184
220 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 52711A.185
221 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 52711A.186
222 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 52711A.187
223 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 52711A.188
224 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 52711A.189
225 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 52711A.190
226 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 52711A.191
227 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 52711A.192
228 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 52711A.193
229 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 52711A.194
230 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 52711A.195
231 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 52711A.196
232 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 52711A.197
233 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 52711A.198
234 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 52711A.199
235 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 52711A.200
236 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF BRADLEY SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Lungren. I should note as well that I am testifying on behalf of the 

Center for Competitive Politics, which is an organization I founded 

in 2005 after I left the Federal Election Commission. I want to 

thank you for inviting me to be here. 

I don’t like fundraising either. I hate it. After this meeting, I am 

going to go back to a lonely room and make phone calls to raise 

money. That is what we do in the nonprofit world. We don’t like 

it. So if you want to give me $3.3 million in matching funds at a 

four-to-one match, I would be very, very grateful. We all have 

things in our jobs that we don’t like and that we need to deal with. 

My question when it comes to this issue becomes one of: Where 

is the beef? We are all old enough to remember that saying. 

We have heard repeatedly how good this is working. It is an unqualified success. It has been so successful. Really? I mean, we 

have heard some bad things about California today, but at least 

you are not selling off your State capitol like Arizona is; right? 

Where is the success in Arizona? They have the second biggest 

budget deficit as a percentage of the total budget of any State in 

the country, and this week they are auctioning off their capitol. 

Where is the success in Maine? When I was a young man, I used 

to go canoeing on the lakes and rivers of Maine. It is a beautiful 

State, but despite all of that physical beauty, it is one of the highest States in the Nation in terms of the percentage of residents 

who are leaving the State. 

Where is the evidence that suddenly these States are better governed and better run than other States that exist; States such as 

Utah or Virginia, which have unlimited corporate contributions, 

and are rated by Governing Magazine as the two best-governed 

States in the country? Where is the beef? 

I think when we begin to get past the sort of platitudes—and we 

heard a couple of stories about legislation that legislators who favored were glad passed. I am sure that legislators who opposed 

that might say that the old system was better for the State. So 

where is the actual evidence in terms of what is helping the residents and that is improving their lives? 

If we look realistically at campaign financing, taxpayer financing, 

it has consistently failed to deliver what it promises to do. For example, it does not save governments money. Both Arizona and 

Maine in the 8 years before they had public financing, or what they 

call clean elections of campaigns, had spending rates that were 

below the national average in growth. And in the 8 years since 

they have had government financing of campaigns, their spending 

rates have gone above the national average in the rate of growth. 

So it doesn’t look to me like we are really saving a bunch of money. 

Just off the top, we don’t even have a correlation there. 

Let us talk about things like the question of influence of the 

wealthy, another one of the stated goals of this program, right? 

Well, one of the things that we know, and it has been noted repeatedly, is that there are other ways for people to participate, through 

527s and independent expenditures and so on. But there are yet 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
237 

other ways. For example, I note that one person who has been promoting this is Steven Kirsch. Now, Steven Kirsch gives away millions of dollars a year in various political causes, maybe not directly into races, but it is not like it is going to kill his influence. 

If anything, I think it will give him as much or more influence. 

The founders of Ben & Jerry’s, they are on board. Well, they 

have been giving away for years 5 percent, or whatever it is, of the 

company’s profit to various political causes that they believe in. 

Their influence is not going to be dropped down. 

We had Sam Waterston up here the other day. He can come up 

here and he can speak on anything that he wants. He would draw 

an audience. He is Sam Waterston. Me or some ordinary citizen 

schlepping around back in Granville, Ohio, where I come from, he 

can’t come here and get an audience, right? He may know as much 

or more about it as Sam Waterston. Sam Waterston’s influence is 

not going to be tailed off here, and my guess is that he is among 

the wealthy Americans. 

It is suggested that we want to build confidence in government. 

There actually is data on this. These are things that have been 

studied, and it doesn’t happen. There is polling data. There are 

studies by Jeffrey Milyo at the University of Missouri; David Primo 

at Rochester University; Beth Rosensen and Nate Persily at the 

University of Pennsylvania that doesn’t show that campaign finance regulation of this type, or public financing, create a better 

view of the legislature. In fact, public financing, in Milyo’s research, has been shown to actually lead to lower opinions of the 

legislature, and there may be reasons for that. 

For example, one of the things we see is that it opens new elements of corruption. If you have a four-to-one match, it is like a 

money-making machine. I get my friends to each give me 100 

bucks. I have three of them. They each give me 100 bucks, and I 

get another 1,200 bucks from the government. I have got 1,500 

bucks. I give them a $1,000 contract. I got a few hundred bucks 

for my campaign, I don’t really care about winning, and we all 

come out ahead. 

I didn’t bring a copy today, but with permission, I would like to 

offer for the record an article from the Phoenix New Times from 

April 2, 2009, which explains some of these episodes of corruption 

in the Arizona program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
238 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 52711A.201
239 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 52711A.202
240 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 52711A.203
241 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 52711A.204
242 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 52711A.205
243 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 52711A.206
244 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 52711A.207
245 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 52711A.208
246 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 52711A.209
247 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 52711A.210
248 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 52711A.211
249 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 52711A.212
250 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 52711A.213
251 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 52711A.214
252 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 52711A.215
253 

Mr. SMITH. Seeing that my time is up, I won’t go further other 

than to say I will be happy to answer questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
254 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 52711A.216
255 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 52711A.217
256 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 52711A.218
257 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 52711A.219
258 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 52711A.220
259 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 52711A.221
260 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 52711A.222
261 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 52711A.223
262 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 52711A.224
263 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 52711A.225
264 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 52711A.226
265 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 52711A.227
266 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 52711A.228
267 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 52711A.229
268 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 52711A.230
269 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 52711A.231
270 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 52711A.232
271 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 52711A.233
272 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 52711A.234
273 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 52711A.235
274 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 52711A.236
275 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Samples. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN SAMPLES 

Mr. SAMPLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Lungren. I appreciate the opportunity to come here and testify on 

behalf of the CATO Institute in regard to this bill. 

I begin my analysis, as you can see from my testimony, with the 

source of funding for the bill. And it is somewhat complicated, but 

as I argue it, the ultimate source is the taxpayer, or voluntary contributions, which hasn’t worked out well with the Presidential system. 

But it is also difficult to find out what the source of funding for 

this bill is, and I wonder why that is the case. That is to say, why, 

if all of the things that are promised for this bill are so good, and 

they benefit democracy, and the words ‘‘undermine democracy’’ and 

‘‘build up democracy’’ are used, if those are true, why not simply 

say to people, look, we are going to do this great thing for democracy, and we are going to tax you for it? Why obscure the sources 

of the taxation? 

I think the reason is pretty clear: The public historically and 

down to this moment does not support public financing of campaigns. They support something called campaign finance reform by 

60/40 numbers. They oppose, generally speaking, and have historically, public financing by the same numbers. 

I think they do so for a number of reasons. One is that, in fact, 

they understand that this kind of program compels taxpayers to 

support candidates that they would not otherwise support or that 

they are indifferent to. This goes to the question of whether or not 

the system is voluntary. That has been hashed out a little bit already. It is clear that it is not voluntary for taxpayers. Why is that 

important? It is important because what you are doing here is forcing people to support political candidates and causes they don’t 

want to support. It is more like forcing someone to confess a religion than it is like forcing someone to pay for a road. This is fundamentally different than the normal sort of politics. It goes to 

questions of conscience, not just questions of money being paid for 

some other kind of public good or something like that. 

We also have to raise the question, given the lack of public support, why are we spending this extra money, and what would your 

constituents think of that at a time of unprecedented deficits? 

It says it will save money. I don’t believe that. Many people here 

today have said campaign contributions have little influence over 

their votes. I believe that. Many people don’t. I do. The reason I 

believe that is because I have read the studies that have been done 

over time about the influence of contributions that show they come 

in second behind party ideology and so on. 

Public confidence, Professor Smith has laid that out for you. In 

fact, the campaign finance system doesn’t really have any effect on 

public confidence. Public confidence in government has been going 

down over time, but it is not because of the campaign finance system. 

Let me go to something that I think is very important for Members, which is the unusual points about this legislation. Generally 

speaking, when you have public financing legislation, something is 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
276 

done, something bad, to people who don’t participate in the system. 

Sometimes they are forced to pay the public money or whatever. In 

this case nothing bad is done to nonparticipating candidates at this 

point. Their contributions limits are not lowered. There is nothing 

done to make their life harder. 

Given that, all things being equal, I would expect that this will, 

in fact, lead to more challengers. In particular, I don’t think it will 

lead to more challengers in marginal districts. In marginal districts, those will be so hard fought over that everybody will defect. 

Everybody will be raising private money, I would expect. However, 

I expect in the 55 to 65 percent range, that is where you won your 

last election 55 to 65, I think that you will see many more challengers than you would otherwise in this undertaking. 

Mr. SAMPLES. So it would expect that that is what you will see. 

I would say, however, that those candidates in those districts 

would be expected to raise more money than they do now to try to 

restore the gap that previously existed before this legislation was 

passed. So it is not the case that if you are in a 55–65 district that 

you won last time, that you can expect to do less fundraising. You 

are going to have to do more, or you are going to have to live with 

the fact the gap no longer exists. 

Finally, on the question of fundraising, since that does seem to 

be a major concern for many Members, I would say there is an alternative to you, which is twofold. One is to raise the party limits, 

or get rid of them, so your party can help you. Remember, that was 

the effect of McCain-Feingold. The only thing that is going to stand 

out of that was prohibiting party leaders from raising soft money 

to help you with your campaigns. And, second, raise contribution 

limits. 

The reason you have to raise so much money now and spend so 

much time is because the limits are so low. They are still lower 

than they were in 1974, when you take inflation into account. That 

is easier than doing this, which public confidence, your constituent 

confidence in you, if you do this and force them to support people 

they don’t want to support, is going to be pretty low. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Samples follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
277 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 52711A.237
278 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 52711A.238
279 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 52711A.239
280 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 52711A.240
281 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 52711A.241
282 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pearson, we have an arrangement for you. 

We don’t make deals, we make arrangements. If you can get your 

testimony done in 5 minutes, we will have questions submitted to 

all of you on the record, and you can submit them back to us instead of having to stay here for another hour and a half before we 

come back to vote and then answer questions for another hour and 

a half. 

So if you can get it in in 5 minutes, we will submit questions for 

the record and have you get back to us in writing. 

Mr. Pearson, it is your choice. You are on. 

STATEMENT OF ARN PEARSON 

Mr. PEARSON. Five minutes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lungren, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. My 

name is Arn Pearson. I am vice president for programs at Common 

Cause. For almost 40 years, Common Cause has worked as a nonpartisan voice for reforms that make the government more open, 

honest and accountable to the American people, and, in the wake 

of the Watergate scandal, we were one of the leading voices in 

crafting the Federal Election Campaign Act, which is the system 

that you all have worked under for the last generation. But times 

have changed, and that system is in bad need of an upgrade. 

I would say that the answer is not to go back to the six-figure 

campaign contributions and slush funds of the 1960s and 1970s, 

but to move ahead for a new system for the 21st century that restores the quality of campaigns, gives you more time to do the job 

you are supposed to do, and restores public confidence in the integrity of Congress. 

Let us face it, these are hard times for Congress. Your job is not 

an easy one. The problems facing America are extremely difficult. 

Yet you are expected to spend more than a quarter of your time 

fundraising, often from those who have a direct financial stake in 

what you do. 

There is a steady drumbeat of pay-to-play scandals and daily stories about the conflicts of interest in the current system, and it is 

no wonder that public confidence in government is at an all-time 

low. 

We did a poll in February and found 79 percent of people were 

concerned that large campaign contributions would be an obstacle 

to progress and would keep you from tackling the big issues that 

face this country, like energy, health care, and the financial crisis. 

A poll by Pew done in 2006 found that 81 percent of people believed that lobbyists bribing Members of Congress is commonplace. 

These cynical public sentiments do a profound disservice to good 

people who go into the public life, and undermine public confidence 

in the core institutions of American democracy. 

I doubt this is what you had in mind when you decided to run 

for Congress, and certainly the people did not send Mr. Smith to 

Washington to raise money. They expect more and deserve more, 

and so do you. This current system is a mess. I think everybody 

has pretty much described the problem. 

I want to paraphrase our founder, John Gardner, who said that 

opportunities are often disguised as insoluble problems. There is a 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
283 

way out of the current mess. There is a better way to design a system. And you have before you a bill that will do that. 

The Fair Elections Now Act offers a promising, effective and voluntary alternative to the current mess. It is based on the best experiences in a number of States, as well as lessons learned in the 

2008 elections and the rise of the role of small donors. It provides 

a new system for a new generation of candidates based on a blend 

of small-donor democracy and limited public funds. 

This is not a partisan issue. I realize the Minority has chosen a 

couple of people to speak here who are opposed to this. But if you 

look around the country, there are literally hundreds of candidates 

for statewide legislative and judicial offices from both parties who 

have used this system and who think very highly of it. We now 

have solid majorities of the legislatures and statewide offices in 

Maine, Connecticut, Arizona, and North Carolina who have used 

this system and think very highly of it. 

I have spent the last 12 years working to implement and refine 

these types of systems and have worked with a number of States 

and now Congress to tailor programs that work. And I want to just 

say this is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. These are pragmatic 

programs tailored to the realities of the campaigns for different 

public offices and jurisdictions. They are not a panacea. They do 

not solve all problems, but everybody here has laid out some very 

concrete problems that can be addressed, and we can create significant improvements in our democracy. 

I would urge you to take ownership of this bill and work together 

to craft the specifics so that this works for Congress. 

In the States, both candidates and voters have given these systems very high marks. I won’t go through all the polling numbers. 

They are in my testimony. The reforms are on solid constitutional 

ground. 

In closing, I would just say that there has been a lot of reference 

to problems with the current regulatory system and independent 

spending. The fact of the matter is that the current Court has 

made it very difficult to do much about spending. It is unconstitutional to limit spending. 

What this bill does is, instead of taking a regulatory approach to 

try and clamp down in one place only to see it pop up somewhere 

else, it creates an alternative floor for folks to run under that provides resources for vigorous campaigns without having to rely on 

wealthy special interests. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Pearson follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
284 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 here 52711A.242
285 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 here 52711A.243
286 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 350 here 52711A.244
287 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 351 here 52711A.245
288 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 352 here 52711A.246
289 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 353 here 52711A.247
290 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 354 here 52711A.248
291 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 355 here 52711A.249
292 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 356 here 52711A.250
293 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 357 here 52711A.251
294 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 358 here 52711A.252
295 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 359 here 52711A.253
296 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 360 here 52711A.254
297 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 361 here 52711A.255
298 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 362 here 52711A.256
299 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 363 here 52711A.257
300 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 364 here 52711A.258
301 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 365 here 52711A.259
302 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 366 here 52711A.260
303 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 367 here 52711A.261
304 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 368 here 52711A.262
305 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 369 here 52711A.263
306 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 370 here 52711A.264
307 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 371 here 52711A.265
308 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 372 here 52711A.266
309 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 373 here 52711A.267
310 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 374 here 52711A.268
311 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 375 here 52711A.269
312 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 376 here 52711A.270
313 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 377 here 52711A.271
314 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 378 here 52711A.272
315 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 here 52711A.273
316 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 here 52711A.274
317 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 381 here 52711A.275
318 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 382 here 52711A.276
319 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 383 here 52711A.277
320 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 384 here 52711A.278
321 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 385 here 52711A.279
322 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 386 here 52711A.280
323 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 387 here 52711A.281
324 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 388 here 52711A.282
325 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 389 here 52711A.283
326 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 390 here 52711A.284
327 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 391 here 52711A.285
328 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 here 52711A.286
329 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 here 52711A.287
330 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 394 here 52711A.288
331 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 395 here 52711A.289
332 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 396 here 52711A.290
333 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 397 here 52711A.291
334 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 398 here 52711A.292
335 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 399 here 52711A.293
336 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 400 here 52711A.294
337 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 401 here 52711A.295
338 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 402 here 52711A.296
339 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 403 here 52711A.297
340 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 404 here 52711A.298
341 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to explain we have 

13 votes called on the floor; we have a motion to recommit, discussion on that, which means we won’t be back here for a long time. 

So, in consultation with the Chairman, we agreed that rather than 

try and hold you back here and see when we could come back, if 

we could submit questions to you, and you answer. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
342 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 406 here 52711A.299
343 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 52711A.300
344 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 52711A.301
345 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 52711A.302
346 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 52711A.303
347 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 52711A.304
348 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 412 here 52711A.305
349 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 413 here 52711A.306
350 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 414 here 52711A.307
351 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 415 here 52711A.308
352 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 416 here 52711A.309
353 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 417 here 52711A.310
354 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 418 here 52711A.311
355 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 52711A.312
356 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 52711A.313
357 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 421 here 52711A.314
358 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 422 here 52711A.315
359 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 52711A.316
360 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 52711A.317
361 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 52711A.318
362 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 52711A.319
363 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 52711A.320
364 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 52711A.321
365 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 52711A.322
366 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 52711A.323
367 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 52711A.324
368 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 52711A.325
369 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 52711A.326
370 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 52711A.327
371 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 52711A.328
372 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 52711A.329
373 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 52711A.330
374 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 52711A.331
375 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 52711A.332
376 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 52711A.333
377 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 52711A.334
378 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 52711A.335
379 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 52711A.336
380 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 52711A.337
381 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 52711A.338
382 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 52711A.339
383 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 52711A.340
384 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 52711A.341
385 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 52711A.342
386 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 52711A.343
387 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 52711A.344
388 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 52711A.345
389 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 52711A.346
390 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 52711A.347
391 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 52711A.348
392 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 52711A.349
393 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 52711A.350
394 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 52711A.351
395 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 52711A.352
396 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 52711A.353
397 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 52711A.354
398 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 52711A.355
399 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 52711A.356
400 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 52711A.357
401 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 52711A.358
402 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 52711A.359
403 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 52711A.360
404 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 52711A.361
405 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 52711A.362
406 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 470 here 52711A.363
407 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 471 here 52711A.364
408 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here 52711A.365
409 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here 52711A.366
410 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here 52711A.367
411 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here 52711A.368
412 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 476 here 52711A.369
413 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 477 here 52711A.370
414 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 478 here 52711A.371
415 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 479 here 52711A.372
416 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 480 here 52711A.373
417 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 52711A.374
418 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 52711A.375
419 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here 52711A.376
420 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 484 here 52711A.377
421 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we can have 

another panel and have President McCain and Senator Obama testify as to how well the public funding worked. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the panel again. 

Madam Speaker, will you please tell your Governor that I said 

hello. He was my roommate when he was here. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
422 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 486 here 52711A.378
423 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 487 here 52711A.379
424 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here 52711A.380
425 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here 52711A.381
426 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here 52711A.382
427 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here 52711A.383
428 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here 52711A.384
429 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here 52711A.385
430 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 52711A.386
431 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 52711A.387
432 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 52711A.388
433 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here 52711A.389
434 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here 52711A.390
435 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 499 here 52711A.391
436 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 500 here 52711A.392
437 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here 52711A.393
438 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 52711A.394
439 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 52711A.395
440 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 52711A.396
441 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 52711A.397
442 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 52711A.398
443 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 52711A.399
444 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 52711A.400
445 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 52711A.401
446 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 52711A.402
447 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 52711A.403
448 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 52711A.404
449 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 52711A.405
450 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 52711A.406
451 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 52711A.407
452 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 52711A.408
453 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 52711A.409
454 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 52711A.410
455 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 52711A.411
456 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 52711A.412
457 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 52711A.413
458 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 52711A.414
459 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 52711A.415
460 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 52711A.416
461 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 52711A.417
462 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 52711A.418
463 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 52711A.419
464 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 52711A.420
465 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 52711A.421
466 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here 52711A.422
467 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 52711A.423
468 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 52711A.424
469 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 52711A.425
470 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 52711A.426
471 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 52711A.427
472 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 52711A.428
473 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 52711A.429
474 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 52711A.430
475 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 52711A.431
476 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 52711A.432
477 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541/700 here 52711A.433