Good morning, and welcome to the first in a series of hearings the Rules Committee will be conducting this spring to explore the many facets of the campaign finance debate. The backdrop for these hearings is an emerging proposal put forth by Senator Chuck Hagel, who has bravely sought to step into the breech and try to bridge the differences of opinion on this issue.

He may earn another purple heart in the process.

It is with some dismay that I have noted reform groups and their advocates in the media sniping at the Hagel-Kerrey bill for its supposed deficiencies. It is with not a little irony that I also note the phenomenal pragmatism these same so-called reform groups displayed when it was the McCain-Feingold bill being pared back and pared back -- finally stripped of so many of its original provisions that were one more to be jettisoned, even I could cosponsor because there would be nothing left but the effective date.

Indeed, it was just three years ago that we were still being told by these same reform groups that there could be no reform without candidate spending limits -- all these other provisions we hear about now were ancillary, their sole purpose to make the candidate spending limits function. The spending limits -- the reformer end all-be all -- were tossed out like so much garbage in 1997.

So let us be clear that the reform groups proved a long time ago just how malleable they can be where their "principles" are concerned. We are often counseled in this debate, by reformers, to not "let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Yet, reform groups have been trying to cut down the Hagel bill before it can get too much traction. It is a curious hypocrisy.

I have not, and do not, endorse the Hagel bill. To the reform groups, my non-endorsement should auger well for the Hagel bill. It should be considered a compliment. I am not keen on capping party soft money. I think the parties would suffer and so-called special interests would just move their money elsewhere, into the completely unregulated, and unregulatable, non-party soft money arena. But I do advocate hard money increases, so I see much to like in the Hagel bill. But on balance, as it presently is written, I do not support it. It is a starting point, not an end point. We'll have more on that in the weeks ahead in our other hearings.

Since taking over as Chairman of this committee, and particularly since I announced last November that we would have these hearings, I have looked forward to utilizing this venue for a thorough discussion of campaign finance. To consider what is "reform;" delve behind the sound bites; to explore the assumptions on which the reform debate has been predicated; examine the legislative remedies being advanced, and; most importantly, fully vet the implications in terms of constitutionally-protected political freedoms of citizens, groups, candidates and parties.

"Soft money," "hard money," "issue advocacy," "express advocacy," "independent expenditures," "bundling," "PACs" - and all the other terms of art tossed about in this debate -- are euphemisms for Constitutionally-protected means of political speech and association.

It is no more complicated than that.

To illustrate that point, I would urge everyone -- especially those in the media who cover the campaign finance debate -- to contemplate the ramifications of repealing Section 431(9)(B)(i) of the current federal election law. In playful moments, I refer to this as the "Media Loophole:"

The term expenditure does not include --

any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee or candidate;

Why? A thoughtful observer might ask, why does federal campaign finance law include an explicit exemption for the media?

The answer is: because without the media exemption, the media's own political issue advocacy, contributions and independent expenditures could be regulated by zealous federal bureaucrats.

With the media exemption, federal campaign finance law makes a distinction where there is no real difference. If the RNC bought NBC from GE, suddenly Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric would have to watch what they say. And if so-called reformers had there way, Mr. Brokaw and Ms. Couric would have to watch not only what they say, but when they say it -- proximity to an election being one of the reformers' criteria for inflicting the federal speech police on citizen groups.

Make no mistake, the campaign finance debate is a battle over constitutional freedom -- of private citizens and groups as well as politicians and political parties, to participate in our democracy. That is why we are leading off with this hearing, and why I am so grateful for the efforts of our witnesses, even the ones with whom I disagree, in being here this morning.