Date: 2011-01-26
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chair. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 359. terminating voluntary taxpayer financing of presidential elections. This legislation seeks to end a 35yearold program that uses money taxpayers choose to help pay for presidential campaigns and political conventions. The impetus for creating this publicfinancing system was the 1970s Watergate scandal and the desire to make fundraising for presidential elections more transparent. This bill would terminate the taxpayer option to designate a mere $3 of income taxes to the financing of presidential campaigns. thereby also eliminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account. Currently. taxpayers can designate a $3 contribution to the publicfinancing system by checking a box on their federal income tax form. The money comes from taxes paid to the U.S. Treasury and does not affect a persons tax refund or payment. Passing this legislation would do irreparable harm to our presidential election system by preventing everyday Americans from having their voices heard while opening the door for special interests and large corporations to dominate presidential elections even more. This legislation would prevent patriotic. taxpaying grandmothers who may not be technologically savvy enough to go to the Web site of a presidential campaign but who have for years and decades checked this box from expressing their civic right to support a presidential campaign. I think we should all stand up for grandmothers throughout this great Nation and oppose this legislation. Furthermore. this attempt to fasttrack a bill that will destroy the presidential public finance system and privatize election fundraising is highly irresponsible. This violates recent pledges by the GOPs leadership of increased transparency. accountability and debate in Congress. Not one hearing has been held on the legislation. nor has a single committee debated its merits at a markup. If it passes. this legislation will roll back more than 30 years of law born out of the Watergate scandal. eviscerating one of the few remaining protections stopping corporations from heavily influencing American elections even more. The Supreme Court already opened the floodgates to unrestricted special interest spending in our elections and over our public policy debate in the Citizens United case. this legislation would pave the way for special interest groups. large corporations. and other large donors to dominate the political landscape even more at the expense of everyday. hardworking. taxpaying Americans. House Republicans muchtouted "Pledge to America" criticized Democrats for "limiting openness and debate" during the legislative process and vowed to "ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square." The pledge says the GOP "will fight to ensure transparency and accountability in Congress and throughout government." And in Speaker JOHN BOEHNERs first remarks after taking control of the House. he spoke of a greater emphasis on "real transparency" and "greater accountability." He went on. "Above all else. we will welcome the battle of ideas. encourage it. and engage in itopenly. honestly. and respectfully." Bringing forth such sweeping legislation without committee hearings and markups completely contradicts these promises. Public financing of presidential campaigns provides matching tax dollars to the small donations received by candidates who agree to publicly finance their campaigns. instead of relying on private donations. The intent is to encourage small donations and the burden on taxpayers is not much: Americans can voluntarily contribute $3 to the fund on their federal tax filings. The public finance system was created in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the mid1970s. After President Richard Nixons reelection campaign was found to have illegally accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from big corporations. Congress created a public financing system so that candidates would not have to rely on corporations and deep pocketed donors to finance their campaigns. Legislation to make presidential public financing more competitive has won support from both parties in the past. In 2003. Senators Russ Feingold and JOHN MCCAIN introduced a bill that would reform the public financing system. Reps. Christopher Shays and Marty Meehan filed a companion bill in the House. "The public financing system for presidential elections. which aims to allow candidates to run competitive campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. is a system worth improving and preserving." the lawmakers said in a joint statement. More recently. Rep. DAVID PRICE introduced the Presidential Fund Act. which would notably increase the funds available to candidates who opt in to public financing. In 2007. when PRICE introduced his bill. cosponsors included three RepublicansReps. Mike Castle of Delaware. TODD PLAnTS of Pennsylvania. and Shays. Rep. PRICE has offered the bill again in the 112th Congress with Rep. VAN HOLLEN. Since 1976. every Democratic and Republican presidential candidate has used the public financing system except Barack Obamas 2008 campaign. The way reformers see it. the presidential public financing system needs repair. not repeal. This legislation has drawn sharp criticism from campaign- finance watchdog groups who argue that the program should be expanded. not eliminated. to reduce specialinterest money in elections. Meredith McGehee. policy director at the Campaign Legal Center. says the amount of public funds currently available to candidates is too small to be competitive in modern presidential races. She says lawmakers need to update the system to better emphasize small donations to candidates and raise the total amount of public funding available. "Imagine if you didnt make any changes to the tax code since 1976. Of course public financing is outdated. The issue. then. is not to get rid of. but how to fix." Craig Holman from the public interest group Public Citizen says his organization and others like it will urge lawmakers to oppose the GOPs bill because it violates the GOPs transparency promises. both on the 2010 campaign trail and now as the House majority. "This just came out of the blue. has had no deliberation and no discussion within the Republican and Democratic conferences." Holman says. "They have just been seated and theyre already breaking the ground rules on how theyll do business." This legislation is strongly opposed by Americans for Campaign Reform. the Brennan Center for Justice. Common Cause. Democracy 21. the League of Women Voters. People for the American Way. and U.S. PIRG. to name a few. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. which would be damaging to our democracy.