Good morning, and welcome to the last in a series of hearings the Rules Committee has held this spring to examine the many aspects of campaign finance. This hearing will be followed by a markup next month, what you could call the grand finale to these proceedings.

Return to Hearings List

In advance of today's testimony and questioning, I would like to thank all the Senators who are taking time out to appear before this committee today. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Senators on the Rules Committee who have participated in these discussions and have helped make these hearings a meaningful and certainly edifying endeavor.

This spring, we have built an excellent hearing record. One which I hope will be utilized now and in the future, to get us out of this rut in which there is a lot of talking past one another on the subject of reform, but little real engagement on just what are the problems we need to solve through "reform" and what the practical, political and constitutional ramifications are of proposed reforms.

Since our last hearing two weeks ago, the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a dramatic reminder of the constitutional dimension to the campaign finance debate as it struck down the circa-1970s limit on what political parties may spend in coordination with their candidates. The gist of that decision -- 14 years in the making -- is the fundamental truth that parties don't corrupt candidates. Opening up the hard money side of the ledger for parties in this way, combined with the Hagel-Kerrey bill's inflation-adjustment of the hard money party contribution limits, would make soft money less attractive and less necessary.

On the first panel today, we have Senators who have had the courage -- some might say "temerity" -- to step into the breech separating political freedom advocates like myself, from those who support the traditional regulatory approaches embodied by McCain-Feingold, its earlier incarnation, Boren-Mitchell, and the speech-suppression schemes of the 1970s. Those efforts epitomize The Old Way of approaching reform.

The New Way of reform, of which I am an advocate, is to trust people to decide what levels of campaign spending and contributions are acceptable and to what degree it is appropriate to associate with so-called special interests. The Internet -- the revolutionary new communications medium with the potential to put information at peoples' fingertips and allow anyone with a modicum of initiative to become a publisher or broadcaster adding to the political debate -- is a key to empowering people to make informed political decisions.

Toward that end, this Committee last year authorized computer software and communications equipment to enable the Senate Office of Public Records to transmit to the Federal Election Commission electronic images of Senate campaign finance reports for posting on the FEC's Internet web page.

I have the greatest respect for the Senators who are advancing the Hagel-Kerrey effort, not least of all Senators Hagel and Kerrey themselves. And Senator Abraham, Senator Hutchison and Senator Landrieu -- I thank you for stepping forward to advance this alternative reform bill.

Unfortunately, but perhaps predictably, your effort has not been warmly embraced by the old-paradigm reform groups who have devolved into a self-perpetuating industry. Indeed, they have aggressively sought to choke any life out of your effort to bridge the gap.

For my part, it is no secret that I am not keen on capping party soft money. I think the parties would suffer and so-called special interests would just shift their efforts to the non-party soft money arena. But I see great merit in adjusting the hard money limits to reflect the quarter-century of inflation that has eroded those levels down to the point of absurdity.

Last November when I announced these hearings and the coming markup of the Hagel-Kerrey bill, I was optimistic that we might finally have a vehicle for some truly bipartisan reform, that respects the Constitution and recognizes the reality of American politics: that people who have a stake in our government -- and everybody does -- will not be deterred by even the most comprehensive campaign finance schemes reformers could devise.

I remain optimistic, despite the reform industry's concerted effort to sabotage your effort. I fervently hope you will persevere. I cannot endorse your legislation in its current form, but heartily endorse your initiative and willingness to explore a reform regime that does not conform to the traditional, discredited, reform dogma.

We also have with us today Senator Hollings. We have engaged in many spirited debates on the floor pertaining to this issue. He is a great fan of hound dogs -- I say facetiously, as the one who injected those noble beasts into the political debate sixteen years ago. This committee looks forward to Senator Hollings' contribution to this discussion.

We will also hear from Senator Reed from Rhode Island, who has been a forceful advocate for his point of view on reform.

###