Providing for Consideration of H.R. 513, 527 Reform Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 513, 527 REFORM ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 05, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the 527 Reform Act. This legislation will strengthen our political parties while subjecting 527s to the same regulations as other actors under our campaign finance system.

One of the most important provisions in this bill is the elimination of the limit on expenditures coordinated between party committees and candidates. That limit as it currently exists is unquestionably one of the worst features of our campaign finance system. It creates a needless barrier between parties and their candidates. The first step towards a better, cleaner campaign reform system that places candidates in control of their own campaigns is repealing of that provision as this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, political parties, other than perhaps the candidates themselves, are the most accountable actors in our campaign finance system. They have to answer to their members, to their donors, to the media, and most importantly of all, to the voters. Their activities are disclosed and well documented. National parties in particular seldom violate either the letter or the spirit of the law. They are responsible participants in the political process, unlike many 527s.

Additionally, parties serve a very useful role in our political process. One essential thing they have historically done is to rechannel factions of narrow special interests into broader, more public-spirited coalitions. Although not foreseen by our Founders, it is impossible to imagine the success of our democracy without the vital role parties have played.

As Clinton Rossiter, the scholar of American politics, once put it, No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, and no politics without parties.

Past efforts at reforming the campaign finance system often have had the unintended consequence of weakening political parties. The understandable desire of citizens to influence the outcome of elections does not go away with campaign restrictions.

Instead, the money they contribute sometimes flows from candidates and parties to unaccountable actors like 527s. This bill will help impede that process.

In 2004, after the passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, there was more money in politics than ever before, with just 25 wealthy individuals accounting for $146 million raised by 527 groups to influence that year's elections. That is not removing big money from politics. That is the manipulation of the political process by a wealthy elite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word to those who spoke so eloquently in favor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. If that law was not intended to limit the influence of money from unaccountable actors like 527s, then what was its purpose? And yet, many who voted for the McCain-Feingold bill will today vote against reforming 527s. That is, to put it politely, inconsistent.

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a fine American, many of the opponents of 527 reform are effectively saying: ``I voted for campaign finance reform before I voted against it.'' Today, the supporters of the McCain-Feingold bill have an opportunity to pass real reform in a bipartisan way. McCain-Feingold supporters can choose between the principles they profess to hold or they can vote for what many believe is to their own short-term, partisan political advantage. And if they vote for the latter, after previously claiming to vote for the former, they will set off a political finance ``arms race'' that will flood the American political system with tens of millions of dollars from a few fabulously wealthy individuals.

That is an outcome we should all seek to oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov