Touche. This seems like well a supported and "fair minded" observation,
doesn't it?




-----Original Message-----
From: Svoboda, Brian-WDC <BSvoboda@perkinscoie.com>
To: 'Thomas Mann' <TMANN@brookings.edu>; Rick.Hasen@lls.edu
<Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>; Bauer, Bob-WDC <RBauer@perkinscoie.com>
Sent: Thu May 20 14:40:04 2004
Subject: RE: news of the day 5/20/04

I believe any fair-minded reading of the legislative history of BCRA
will conclude that reducing the overall amount of money in federal
campaigns was not a serious objective of the legislation, even if some
members who voted for it (or against it) mentioned this is their floor
speeches.

A Westlaw search of the Congressional Record for the phrase "money in
politics" turns up 347 hits.  Time prevents me from listing all of them.
Some of them obviously are not relevant.  But taken together, they show that
rising levels of political spending were a major preoccupation of reform
proponents in Congress.  To wit:  

* Senator Chris Dodd, 147 Cong. Rec. S2806 (Mar. 23, 2001): "The underlying
purpose of McCain-Feingold is to try and reduce the amount of money in
politics." 

* Rep. John Lewis, 148 Cong. Rec. H342 (Feb. 13, 2002): "There is too much
money in politics. Political candidates should not be up for sale to the
highest bidder. Too many of us spend too much of our time dialing for
dollars. We should not be elected this way. This should not be the essence
of our democracy."

* Senator Byron Dorgan, 147 Cong. Rec. S3079 (Mar. 29, 2001): "I ask the
American people if they think, in September or October of an election year
as they turn on their television sets, that there is too little politics or
too little money in politics. They understand there is far too much money in
this political system. We ought to change it."

* Senator Tom Daschle, 146 Cong. Rec. S4354 (May 24, 2000): "Every election
cycle, the cost of campaigns goes up and the number of people who vote goes
down. If we really want to increase voter participation, we have to address
that reality. The reality is, there is simply too much money in politics. We
all know, whether we admit it or not, that the current system is broken. We
have a choice: Do we reduce the influence of special interests money in
Washington? Do we want to wink and nod at the few flimsy campaign laws we
have?"

These comments, and others like them, were not random asides offered by
people who were peripheral to the legislation.  They were made by people who
were extremely active in the development and support of the legislation.
Senators Daschle and Dorgan were leaders of a Democratic Senate caucus that
mustered almost unanimous support for the bill.  Senator Dodd was the
ranking Member of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill.  All three
Senators were co-sponsors.

Moreover, these comments were made by design.  It was recognized that, to
the extent the public was concerned about the campaign finance system at all
and could be motivated to support reform, attacking the amount of money in
politics was among the best available arguments.  If the rising level of
political spending was not a significant subject in the debate, or a
significant motivator for Congressional support, it's hard to see what was.
Certainly it was not a desire to change the threshold for political
committee registration; or a zeal for the "promote, support, attack or
oppose" standard.  These matters did not come up at all.  Yet they are at
the center of the current debate over the direction of the legislation, and
contrary positions are being cited as signifying a lack of fidelity to
Congressional intent.

=B.