I want to again thank the Chairman for holding this series of hearings on the important issue of campaign finance.

Today's topic of Presidential Primaries is particularly timely given the events of the past several months that highlight the need for meaningful reform of the campaign finance system.

I am one who believes there is simply too much money in our elections. Last week, I mentioned the vast increases in soft money contributions to political parties. Today, I want to highlight the increased spending in Presidential primaries.

During the 1991-92 Presidential election cycle, $118 million was spent during the primaries. In the 1995-96 race, that amount more than doubled to $248 million. For the 2000 elections, more than $210 million was spent through the first month of this year, before the first Primary vote was even cast. Obviously, the final spending figures are not available, but it is clear this year's primaries will be the most costly ever.

This year's primaries exemplify what is wrong with the political process. A sizable percentage of the millions of dollars raised has been spent on negative attack ads. While many believe these ads are an effective tactic to win elections, they are actually undermining the public's confidence in government and enforcing the view that all politicians are scoundrels. That is not good for our democracy.

Order of Primary Dates

Another concern I have with the current Primary system is the frontloading of primaries. We are seeing states leapfrog each other in order to ensure their voters have an opportunity to effect the nominating process. This year, the State of California moved its primary from the end of June to the so-called "Super Primary" of March 7 for that very purpose.

This trend has had several consequences. First, bunching large numbers of primaries on fewer days means that candidates have less time to spend in each state and, therefore, become more reliant on television advertisements. The dependence on paid media advertisement raises the costs of elections and encourages negative campaigns. This year's primaries prove this point.

A second problem is that moving primaries forward has not resulted in all voters have a voice in the nominating process.

For all intents and purposes, the nominations for both parties was decided on March 7. Ten states have held their primaries since March 7 and another fifteen states and the District of Columbia have yet to hold their elections. Voters in these states are not given a choice on who will be their parties' candidate. Their only role is to rubber stamp the victor.

The public's interest in the political process has dwindled in recent years. One way to reverse this trend is to make voters feel more involved in the process. That includes meaningful primary elections.

I know the Senator from Washington has a proposal to reform the nominating process. I look forward to his testimony and the rest of the panelist's.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.