Date: 2011-01-26
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 359. which terminates the taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions. At the outset. I just want to mention in response to something that was said by the other side. this has absolutely nothing to do with the Citizens United case decided by the Supreme Court. That changed not one iota of campaign finance law. Corporations still cannot make contributions to campaigns or candidates. It does not change that. Citizens United had to do with the question of whether or not one loses his or her First Amendment protections of free speech. particularly with respect to expressions of political nature. merely because they associate with another person. The Supreme Court told us that you do not in fact lose your First Amendment rights because you happen to say it jointly with someone else. As a matter of fact. they pointed out that some people with the least amount of influence in a society actually expand their influence in the political debate by joining with others. And then the question that the Supreme Court answered was. if that association happens to be corporate in nature. happens to be a union. happens to be a forprofit. happens to be a notforprofit. whether that changes the dynamic as contemplated by the First Amendment protections. and they told us it did not. So lets get rid of that canard here on the floor right away. This has absolutely nothing to do with that. This has absolutely nothing to do with corporate contributions to campaigns or foreign contributions to campaigns. both of which remain illegal. with criminal sanctions. under the law. So lets get that out of the way to begin with so we dont have a lot of debate here that has nothing to do with the bill before us. Mr. Chairman. we find ourselves at a unique juncture in the longstanding debate over this issue. but. frankly. in reality. it is a juncture no longer. Taxpayer financing of Presidential elections and party conventions of the two major parties is simply no longer defensible. The first tax liability contributions from American taxpayers to be diverted toward the funding of Presidential elections began 35 years ago in 1976. This new practice was. as we were told by the other side. supposed to raise the publics trust in their government as well as increase both the number of candidates and. thus. electoral competition and the financial footing between parties. I believe. Mr. Chairman. it has failed on all accounts. It did allow us to have Lyndon LaRouche be a participant in the Presidential elections. I am not sure when we have had someone who had been subjected to a criminal conviction and actually conducted part of his campaign while still incarcerated. but that was brought to us by way of this fine law. Since 1976. approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on this system. As we speak. there is a balance of $195 million sitting in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund at the U.S. Treasury Department. And yet this system of electoral subsidization has not changed the publics perception of our Presidential elections or our politics. According to one survey after another. Americans continue to harbor deep distrust of their elected officials. So does anyone think that our Presidential elections over the past 35 years have shown a virtuous progression toward more accuracy and more honesty? Mr. Chairman. prominent Presidential candidates. candidates who even supposedly believe in this system. have opted out of this taxpayer financing scheme in recent years. In 2004 and 2008. several candidates declined public financing for their primary campaigns. And as was mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois. during the most recent Presidential election. for the first time. a nominee of one of our two major political parties withdrew from the public financing during the general election and instead went on to raise record amounts of money for his campaign. And I recall when I thought we heard a pledge to participate in this program because of the virtuous nature of the program. Somehow that was lost along the campaign trail. One of the things I would like to point out is this: There is this idea that somehow we are going to be able to suppress money that goes into politics. The fact of the matter is it is like a balloon. a water balloon. If you squeeze it on one side. it comes out on the other side. The question is: How do we get it within the system? We should be talking about the idea of this silly demarcation between our parties and our candidates where we limit in extreme fashion the amount of money that can be transferred or coordinated. as if somehow that corrupts the candidate to have him or her identified with the very party they represent. We ought to be working towards those kinds of changes that will allow a greater responsibility on the party and the candidates to express their positions and to hold to their positions. be responsible for their positions. But no. we talk about these ways of how we are going to somehow reduce the impact of money in campaigns. It hasnt worked under this system. It hasnt worked. In addition to Presidential primaries and general elections. if there is anything the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing. I would sayas much as I enjoy themit is the weeklong Presidential conventions. On our side of the aisle. in our party. I think weve had some indications of what I consider to be wasteful spending in preparation for our upcoming convention. and to say to the taxpayer that. in light of that. we ought to continue to subsidize the production of our Presidential conventions by the two major parties. it is very difficult to articulate and even to understand. They are. as I say. grand fun. wonderful occasionsweeklong party gatherings that are. unfortunately. in this day and age. largely symbolic. One cant even argue something important is being decided because. unfortunately. they ceased to have real significance sometime ago. and that was part of our effort to try and cleanse the system. Rather than having people selected by these delegates that come to these conventions. we should move more and more to the primary operation and. of course. then earlier and earlier in the season so that somehow it becomes a 2year event. I guess were already in that. Taxpayers would be shocked. if not outraged. to discover that they have been funding these extravagant photo ops. Mr. Chairman. as I mentioned. since 1976. approximately $1.5 billion has been spent on publicly funding our Presidential primaries. our Presidential general elections. and our Presidential party conventions. The American taxpayer has paid enough for this unwise experiment. I think it should be ended and the balance in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account returned to the Treasury to be used for deficit reduction. I think wed actually have the American people cheering us for that. According to a 2010 Congressional Budget Office estimate. the elimination of this program will save American taxpayers $617 million over the next 10 years. Now. some could say. Well. thats your opinion. We have our opinion. Why change things? Well. why dont we look to the opinion of the American people. Not a bad idea in this House. Simply put. this program does not have the support of the American people. Taxpayer support has declined precipitously over time. I remember. years ago. I thought it was a good experiment. I thought it was a good idea. I checked off for some of my taxes to go to this program. I was in hopes that it would actually prove to be a good change. I. like most Americans. though. who contributed to that in the past. have given up on the program. We dont believe it gave us what we thought it might. In 1980. for instance. the percentage of taxpayers participating through their tax form checkoffs was 28.7 percent. It was so popular that in 1985 it was 23 percent. It proved so successful that in 1990 it was 19.5 percent. Boy. it really proved itself by the year 1995. because then 12.9 percent of the American taxpayers decided theyd participate. In the year 2000. it dropped to 11.5 percent. In 2005. it was 9.1 percent. According to the IRS data obtained from the FEC. the checkoff rate in 2010 was 7.3 percent. In other words. on a direct vote. a plebiscite taken by the taxpayers of America. 92.7 percent reject the notion. Now. where I come from. thats a landslide. I think even in Chicago it would be a landslideeven if you paid your taxes only once. Mr. Chairman. this candidate and convention subsidy is obviously unpopular. To paraphrase one former member of the Federal Election Commission. "Any system of public financing must have popular support to succeed. Todays low taxpayer checkoff rates cast serious doubt on whether the public financing system has this support. When only one in 13 taxpayers are participating. it is very difficult to conclude that the public financing system has broad popular support." Mr. Chairman. as we promised in the Pledge to America and as we have promised here on the floor during these initial weeks of the 112th Congress and as we have verified by our transparencyenhancing rules package. our bipartisan votes to trim Congress budget and end excessive congressional printing. by our determination to return discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less and now through this bill. the Republican majority is committed to fiscal stewardship. to having a relentless eye on waste and inefficiency. and to a continued commitment through this 112th Congress to reduce spending. to create private sector jobs. and to produce meaningful legislation that makes longlasting reforms. Mr. Chairman. if we. in fact. mean what we say when we say we are willing to look at those programs that already exist and to judge whether or not they have proven to be efficacious. or efficient or successful. in promoting the principles that underlie their passage in the first place. we ought to start with this. This is a program that almost 93 percent of the American people who pay taxes reject. and were asking them to participate. Maybe we ought to listen to what they are saying and. instead. allow the savings garnered by this particular bill to go toward deficit reduction. This bill. introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma. should garner overwhelming bipartisan support. We should thank him for introducing itand I doand for his commitment to a more responsible and efficient stewardship of taxpayer dollars. I would urge my colleagues to understand what this bill is and understand what it is not and to support H.R. 359. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.