Rhetoric around Money Influencing Elections

From OpenCongress Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Elected Office

  • Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) House Minority Leader (1/17/2012)
"A critical part of the status quo is how campaigns are financed...a problem exacerbated by the...miserable decision by the supreme court [Citizens United] to allow any and all...secret large special interest contributions" "Right now we want to disclose...where is this money coming from...Reform the system and then try to amend the constitution to change the ridiculous notion that any and all kinds of money can weigh into...campaigns" [on Stewart and Colbert] "I think it's great...want to be sure that the message is clear that this really makes a complete difference in our political system. We've tried over time...to have new politics, free of special interest, so that we're not talking about just big money"
“It’s simple—any company that is paid with taxpayer dollars should be required to disclose political contributions,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California, who has pushed for the White House to issue the order. “With public dollars come public responsibilities, and I hope President Obama will issue his executive order right away.”
  • Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) House Majority Whip (1/11/2012)
"I'm for greater reporting, report every 48 hours," the Bakersfield Republican told an audience of several hundred people at a speech to the Public Policy Institute of California on Monday in Sacramento.
  • Newt Gingrich - National Journal (1/10/2012)
On going negative/super pacs: In an environment where he is faced with negative ads from other candidates, Gingrich argued that he didn’t have a choice but to play the game with everybody else. "If you unilaterally disarm, you might as well drop out of the race,” he said.
Still, Gingrich distanced himself from the "King of Bain" ad and its corresponding super PAC, saying he has “no direct relationship with them.”
“I’ve never seen the film,” he said. “My hope is that it's totally factually accurate, that it can be totally defended. I wouldn't like to see something be put up to attack any of the candidates that isn't factually correct.”
  • Sean Duffy (R-WI) - Wasau Daily Herald (1/9/2012)
Q: As a result of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, (corporations) can pour essentially unlimited amounts of money into election coffers. What can Congress do to address that?
A: I would prefer to take all that money out -- from corporations, from unions, from these super PACs. Get rid of it all. Take it away. It goes on both sides and I don't think it's healthy campaigning. What did we see in the recalls? Crazy ads coming from different organizations you've never heard of. And unless you have a constitutional amendment -- which, those are pretty tough to do, I don't know that that's going to happen -- you have a free speech issue. Q: Is a constitutional amendment in principle an idea you'd be open to? A: Absolutely. But it has to be fair to everybody.
"Now it's the system under which we operate, which leads to this kind of campaigning and will lead to corruption and scandals. I guarantee it." Calling it the "worst decision in the last 50 years," McCain said the Supreme Court "basically unleashed–without transparency and without accountability–huge amounts of money from these so-called 'independent campaigns'." "But, look, I lost my general election campaign, so I'm a little bit reluctant to tell people how they should campaign," McCain said.
That defies credulity, asserted Buddy Roemer, the former Louisiana governor who has based his longshot campaign for the GOP nomination on a platform of reducing the role of big money in politics. “The law is that the super PAC must be independent of the candidate. It says it clearly in the Supreme Court ruling, called Citizens United. Is that independent?” he said last month in New Hampshire, according to MSNBC.com. “I mean I have a big imagination but I just can’t imagine that father and son don’t talk.”
Yet asked about the group’s tough ads last month, Romney labeled the super PAC explosion “a disaster” and seemed to call for the complete abolition of the groups. “Campaign finance law has made a mockery of our political campaign season,” he told MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough. “We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super PACs.”
  • Dick Durbin - Chicago Business (1/4/2012)
"We're in this brave new world in which any group can spend anything with abandon, and often with no accounting," says U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. All of it is enough for Mr. Durbin, a longtime campaign finance reformer, to say he'd "entertain" legislation that at least would require disclosure of donors, without any limits on what they can spend.
  • Mike Huckabee - Think Progress (1/3/2012)
And I think one of the worst things that ever happened in American politics is the rise of the independent expenditure groups that really don’t have accountability. You don’t know where this money is coming from. You don’t know where the accountability is coming from, and the candidates have no coordination. [...]

I wish that every person who gives any money [to fund an ad] that mentions any candidate by name would have to put their name on it and be held responsible and accountable for it. And its killing any sense of civility in politics because the cheap shots that can be made from the trees by snipers that you never can identify. It’s just the worst part of this process.

  • Mike Huckabee - People for the American Way (1/3/2012)
Today, Mike Huckabee, who recently teamed up with Citizens United itself for a film promoting “fetal personhood” laws, called the rise of unaccountable Super PACs “One of the worst things that ever happened in American politics.”


 "What is happening now is what I predicted. .. The United States Supreme Court -- in what I think is one of the worst decisions in history -- struck down the restrictions in the so-called McCain-Feingold Law," McCain said. "And a lot of people don't agree with that, but I predicted when the United States Supreme Court, with their absolute ignorance of what happens in politics, struck down that law, that there would be a flood of money into campaigns, not transparent, unaccounted for, and this is exactly what is happening. And those are the rules and everybody is playing by those rules, and I predict to you that, in the future, there will be scandals, because there is too much money washing around political campaigns now that nobody knows where it came from and nobody knows where it's going."
“Campaign finance law has made a mockery of our political campaign season,” he told MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough. “We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super PACs.”
  • Mitt Romney - People for the American Way (1/3/2012)
Mitt Romney, who has been the biggest beneficiary of Super PAC cash so far in the GOP primaries, has called their rise a “disaster.”
  • Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge & Jon Huntsman - Huffington Post (1/5/2012)
"I've talked to Jon about this and he and I are like-minded," said Ridge. "He has a modest super PAC [supporting him]. I have felt for the longest time, it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court of the United States would put financial limits on free speech. But I think it is within the power of the president and the Congress to say: 'Guess what? Any contribution in excess of $500 to $1,000 to you personally or the super PAC, it is on the Internet within 24 hours, so people can know.' Not quarterly. Transparency now, it is the best antiseptic."
"In a 21st century world, if anybody wants to give a candidate one million or two million dollars, give it. But I want every journalist, every opponent, every taxpayer, every citizen to know that that's who gave it," said Ridge. "They may draw no conclusions. They may draw the wrong conclusion. They may draw the right conclusion."
"I asked Jon if he had thought about it," Ridge added. "He said, 'I'm there.'"
Noting that the six largest banks on Wall Street have assets equal to 65 percent of the national gross domestic product, he asked what happens in Congress “when an issue comes up and impacts Wall Street … to break up these huge banks and members walk up to the desk and have to decide [whether] to vote against it with full knowledge that if they vote against the interest of Wall Street that two weeks later there may be ads coming down into their state attacking them. Every member of the Senate, every member of the House, in the back of their minds, will be thinking … ‘If I cast a vote this way, if I take on the big money interest, am I going to be punished … will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state?’ Every member knows this is true. It is not just taking on Wall Street, maybe it’s taking on the drug companies, maybe it’s taking on the private insurance companies, maybe it’s taking on the military-industrial complex. … You’re going to think twice about how you cast that vote.” “Make no mistake. The Citizens United ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy, further tilting the balance of power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when already the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good.”
  • Senator Schumer - Schumer Press Release (4/29/2010)
“At a time when the public's fears about the influence of special interests were already high, the Court’s decision stacks the deck against the average American even more. Our bill will follow the money. In cases where corporations try to mask their activities through shadow groups, we drill down so that ultimate funder of the expenditure is disclosed. If we don’t act quickly to confront this ruling, we will have let the Supreme Court predetermine the outcome of next November’s elections. It won’t be Republicans or Democrats; it will be Corporate America and other special interests.”
  • Senator Feingold - Schumer Press Release (4/29/2010)
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United was a tragic error. While the core of the McCain-Feingold law was left intact, the results of the decision are far reaching, giving big corporations greater power to sway elections and drown out the voices of average Americans. While no bill can reverse the Court’s mistake, we need to make sure that the public can follow the money and see exactly who is behind the onslaught of political advertising that the decision has unleashed. That is why this bill is so important.”
  • Senator Wyden - Schumer Press Release (4/29/2010)
"I wish Congress didn't have to take action to ensure that a citizen's voice doesn't get buried by new and larger mountains of corporate cash; but that is what our legislation will do. If the Supreme Court wants to treat corporations as individuals then we will hold those entities to the same standards of accountability that we do individuals, which means requiring that CEO's, labor leaders and even political consultants stand by their ads."
  • Senator Bayh - Schumer Press Release (4/29/2010)
"By opening the floodgates to unlimited spending by special interests, this Supreme Court decision has made it even more difficult to achieve the principled compromise that our country so desperately needs at this moment in time. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make lawmakers more beholden to the most ideological and partisan members of their party and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies. If fundraising is constantly on members’ minds, it’s difficult for policy compromise to trump political calculation. This legislation is needed to prevent an already bad campaign finance system from getting even worse."
  • Senator Franken - Schumer Press Release (4/29/2010)
“Citizens United was an incredible act of judicial activism. It turned back a century of federal law, and it nullified Minnesota’s twenty-year-old ban on corporate spending in elections. The DISCLOSE Act will make sure that voters and shareholders know who is funding election advertising. My provisions make sure that American-based subsidiaries controlled by foreign companies or governments won’t ever spend money on Minnesota or federal elections. Minnesota’s elections should be controlled by Minnesotans.”
  • Rep. John Boehner- Meet the Press (02/11/2007)
“I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
  • Rep. John Boehner- Boehner Press Conference (3/30/2006)
“The House is going to take up 527 legislation next week. And there may be several proposals on the floor in terms of how we rein in their activity. I think this was a gaping loophole in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I think it needs to be fixed. To have all of this unregulated campaign cash going to these organizations and allowing them to engage in campaign activities without any disclosure is -- it's wrong. And so we've worked closely with Senator McCain. The House needs to deal with this, and we will next week.”
  • Rep. John Boehner- Boehner Remarks (3/16/2006)
The 527s were created out of the bipartisan campaign finance reform, something that many of us foresaw, that we were pushing money out of a regulated system into an unregulated system. You know, most people wanted to get rid of soft money because they didn't think it was regulated, even though soft money had to be disclosed in terms of who gave it, what amounts, and how you spent it -- and there were rules around how you could spend it. And when you look at what happened after campaign reform passed, these 527 organizations erupted. There is no disclosure of where their money comes from or how they spend it or what they do with it. And they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to influence federal elections. And I believe that these organizations ought to be covered under the same kind of regulations that govern political parties.
“We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so that you include the major political players in America. Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?”
“Anything that moves us back towards that notion of transparency and real-time reporting of donations and contributions I think would be a helpful move towards restoring confidence of voters.” 
  • Sen. Lamar Alexander- Washinton Post (5/19/1999)
“I support campaign finance reform, but to me that means individual contributions, free speech and full disclosure. In other words, any individual can give whatever they want as long as it is disclosed every day on the Internet. Otherwise, you restrict free speech and favor super-rich candidates -- candidates with famous names, the media and special interest groups, all of whom can spend unlimited money."
  • Sen. John McCain- Congressional Record (02/04/2004)
“This is not a partisan issue. It should not advantage one party over the other. What reform does is create transparency, equality, and participation, and inspire confidence in those we represent. The strength and real muscle in this fight lies with the American people. During the long battle in the Senate to pass campaign finance reform, we called on the American public to make their voices heard on Capitol Hill. They answered, and the impact was astounding.”
“I think the system needs more transparency, so people can more easily reach their own conclusions.”
“Sen. Collins…believes that it is important that any future campaign finance laws include strong transparency provisions so the American public knows who is contributing to a candidate’s campaign, as well as who is funding communications in support of or in opposition to a political candidate or issue.” 
“I don’t like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable… To the extent we can, I tend to favor disclosure.”
“We are Senators with varying political views, but we agree that the public has a right to expect electronic filing and online disclosure of campaign finance records.” 
“The best way, the fairest way, is greater transparency. Let people understand where it is going and what's happening.”
  • Rep. Fred Upton- Newport News Daily Press (6/10/2000)
“But advocates of full disclosure say the groups skirt the law with barely concealed electioneering, such as messages that encourage viewers to call a certain lawmaker if they agree with the group's views. "It's a gigantic loophole that needs to be closed," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., a moderate who supports campaign finance reform.” 
  • Rep. David Dreier- NPR (1/6/27)
 “Well, let me just say at the outset, Ray, that I, I agree with him that we need to move ahead with campaign finance reform. I'm one who wants to empower the voters and have greater disclosure, that's really my priority when it comes to campaign finance reform.” 
  • Rep. David Dreier- MSNBC (2/15/2000)
“Well, the fact of the matter is George Bush has, in fact, reformed. He's reformed frivolous lawsuits, he's reformed education, he's reformed taxes, he's reformed patient protection. He's done all that as the governor of Texas. Now, there has not been a lot of attention focused on it, but that's something to which we can all look and be extremely proud. On the issue of campaign finance reform, he's been out there arguing vigorously for full disclosure. He wants to make sure that we have parity established, if we eliminate soft money for both unions and businesses. And so Yes, he's been reforming. He's been doing it and he's got proposals for when he gets to the White House that he wants us to move.”
  • Rep. Vern Ehlers- Congressional Quarterly (6/29/05)
“Republican Vernon J. Ehlers of Michigan, called 527s "a curse to the political process" that lacks accountability.”

Press

  • In the super PAC era, do handshakes even matter?- AP (1/17/2012)
"Forget kissing babies on the campaign trail. The millions of dollars' worth of political advertisements airing before the early primary elections are turning out to be money well spent: The ads have affected primary results more than other forms of campaigning, including personal appearances by candidates, stump speeches or town hall meetings, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. "
  • St. Louis Post Dispatch Editorial (1/17/2012)
The court said that the government could impose disclosure requirements enabling "the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages." But political operatives quickly found a loophole in what the Internal Revenue Service classifies as 501(c)4 "social welfare" corporations that don't require disclosure of donors' names. Congressional Republicans have continued to block efforts to mandate disclosure.

Citizens United had an immediate impact in the 2010 elections, when $30.6 million, most of it from anonymous sources, was spent to influence elections by outside organizations unaffiliated with political parties. All of this is shameful in many ways. Corporations are not people, and money is not speech. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, effectively disenfranchising most Americans. The disclosure loopholes allow politicians to buy government in secret. And anyone who thinks candidate committees aren't illegally coordinating activities with "independent" super PACs is simply näive.
  • Santa Rosa Press Democrat Editorial (1/6/2012)
Disclosure is a second major problem. In the Citizens United ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy said disclosure rules would allow voters to assess whether candidates were being bought. What he didn't count on was Congress and the FEC dragging their heels. Most super PACs haven't reported on their contributions and expenditures for six months, and the next deadline is almost two weeks after Saturday's primary in South Carolina. Some other political committees are organized to avoid any disclosure.

For now, fast and full disclosure is the best option for ensuring the integrity of the system.
Disclosure is another problem. The last time super PACs had to publicly list donors and their gifts was six months ago, and new reports are not due until the end of this month, well into the presidential primary season. Super PAC supporters insist with a straight face that these money-churning monsters improve the electoral system. For example, they say increased political advertising will generate more voter interest and that could boost election turnout. That’s a reach, but you have to admire their audacity for defending the indefensible. Super PACs increase the potential for corruption, make the campaign finance system more opaque than it already is, and diminish the influence that ordinary Americans have on elections.
Think about it: Would a president refuse to take a phone call from someone who gave "his" Super PAC $5 million? Does anyone seriously believe money doesn't at least buy access, and at worst buy results? Or signal voters that the voices that really count are the ones who write the biggest checks? In the meantime, there is no obvious, constitutional way to disarm the Super PACs. Perhaps the most that can be done is to require them to disclose their donors in real time. That way, even if candidates aren't directly approving the message, voters will know who is.


Other

  • Paul Begala - Democratic Operative (1/18/2012)
“Super PACs are like guns,” said Begala, hours after returning from his family deer hunt in Texas. “In the right hands, a gun is useful, essential for defending your country and perfectly acceptable. In the wrong hands, they kill people. … My goal is to make sure the president doesn’t get outgunned.”
  • Dick Harpootlian - Former South Carolina Democratic Chairman, Member of Obama's campaign finance team (1/18/2012)
“I don’t think the president is just ambivalent about his super PAC. He’s flat-out opposed to it,” said former South Carolina Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian, a member of the Obama campaign’s national finance committee who has raised more than $200,000 for the president’s Chicago-based campaign so far this cycle.
  • Valerie Jarrett - Senior White House Advisor (1/17/2012)
"I leave it to the people that are running the campaigns...what I think is very important is transparency and openness and everybody understanding where the money comes from...making sure everyone who is watching an election gets to see exactly who is standing behind people." [on loopholes that prevent full transparency] "You know a lot more about the super PACs than I do...The president obviously and the administration oppose citizens united...we wanted to make sure that we were keeping all of those corporate donations out of the arena and to have the transparency that is important."
So why not at least require disclosure of those who contribute to super PACs? The First Amendment probably allows that, and some voters want to know. Well, the pro-Gingrich donor’s name was leaked, and an aggressive media can put pressure on candidates to disclose. But publicity will discourage some well-meaning donors. It also diverts voters’ attention from relevant questions (Did Gingrich get rich from Freddie Mac?) to less relevant ones (Who funded the ad saying Gingrich got rich from Freddie Mac?). Denouncing money in elections is a hardy perennial in America. But the early Republican primaries, far from being an embarrassment to democracy, are something to be proud of. Voters need to hear the worst about candidates to make the best choice on Election Day.

Foreign Money in Elections 

Dan Burton, Chair of House Investigation

House Hearing

Foreign money was funneled to straw donors. Straw donors gave money to the DNC and other campaigns. Campaign officials claimed to have no idea anything suspicious was going on. It happened time and time again with John Huang, James Riady, Charlie Trie, Pauline Kanchanalak, Ted Sioeng, Johnny Chung, and Mark Jimenez.
Some people say the American people don't care anymore, that they don't want to know the facts. Well, I don't think that is true, but the fact of the matter is we have a responsibility on this committee to get to the bottom of it, because illegal campaign contributions coming from foreign sources and foreign governments were given to influence the outcome of the elections in 1996 and 1992.
I think the American people really want to know if foreign governments and foreign individuals are trying to influence our elections. I think they want to know who their government is beholden to. I think we have an obligation to finish what we started. We have an obligation to the history books to get the facts on the record.

Washington Post

Burton deplored the fact that partisanship had come to overshadow "very serious allegations" about the 1996 presidential elections, including reports that the Chinese government "had developed and implemented a plan" to funnel money into the United States "to influence our elections."

Capitol Words

“The Attorney General ignored his compelling and sound advice. Then the investigation continued to limp along with the Attorney General failing to focus on any of the key White House and DNC officials or even John Huang, the individual who solicited millions in illegal foreign money after being personally placed at the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, by Bill Clinton.
In fact, the core of the investigation should be focused on all of the foreign money that flowed into the DNC conference from around the world. Illegal campaign contributions from Macao, China, Taiwan, Egypt, Indonesia, and South America.”

Fred Thompson, Chair of Committee on Government Affairs

PBS

I speak of allegations concerning a plan hatched during the last election cycle by the Chinese government and designed to pour illegal money into American political campaigns. The plan had a goal: to buy access and influence in furtherance of Chinese government interests.

Washington Post

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), who denounced alleged Chinese involvement in the U.S. election but was unable to bring out direct evidence of it during hearings last year by his Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, claimed vindication in the news of Chung's charges. "The new information shows that the 'China Plan' the committee investigated last year was carried out in some form," said Thompson, who along with other senior legislators was briefed by the FBI on Chung's allegations this week.

Washington Post

"There apparently was a systematic influx of illegal money in our presidential race last year," Thompson said. "We will be wanting to know: Who knew about it? Who should have known about it? And was there an attempt to cover it up?"

Washington Post

"It is clear that there was an unprecedented and systematic effort to bring in illegal money into the Democratic National Committee, into the Clinton-Gore campaign, much of it foreign money, much of it by people who had free and ready access to the White House."

Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House

Sun Sentinel

"What we're seeing here is the opening phase of what will turn into being the largest scandal in American history ... because it involves foreigners being directly involved in the American political system, the American government, the American criminal justice system," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

Baltimore Sun

Instead, he has focused his invective on the 1996 campaign finance scandal and what he called "the most systematic, deliberate obstruction of justice, cover-up and effort to avoid the truth we have ever seen in American history."
The attacks have been launched at partisan affairs, like Republican fund-raisers, where Gingrich can play to the party's conservative base in an election year. Yesterday, at a Republican women's conference, he spoke of "an enormous scandal" whose "ramifications are historic."

New York Times

It's unavoidable that there will be Congressional investigations; it is unavoidable that there will be a special counsel, Mr. Gingrich said. This makes Watergate look tiny. I mean, this is a potential abuse of the American system on behalf of an Indonesian billionaire in a way that we have never seen in American history. How many green-card holders have been solicited by the Clinton Administration and are funneling Asian money from China, from Korea, from Indonesia into the Democratic Party to try to buy an election? Mr. Gingrich said.

Philly.com

``This is a potential abuse of the American system on behalf of an Indonesian billionaire in a way that we have never seen in American history, said Gingrich, interviewed on Face the Nation on CBS. ``It's almost unthinkable.

The Toledo Blade

“One would prefer not not have non americans buying their way into american politics... we need to know to what extent the information we were being given by this administration was tainted with indonesian interests and tainted by the Riadys and the Lippo Group” - Gingrich

LA Times

House Republican leaders decided Wednesday to shift at least part of the troubled 16-month investigation of Democratic campaign fund-raising out of the hands of Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has directed an inquiry beset by partisanship and personal rancor.
"We've tried to avoid having to shift this investigation," Gingrich said. "But we'll do whatever we have to to ensure that the American people have the right to know."

Houston Chronicle

"I believe that this is a growing scandal which should trouble every American at the spectacle of the most powerful nation on earth having its president pander to a foreign billionaire and raise money from people who are legally not allowed to participate in the American system," said Gingrich.
"It's a very serious problem," he said. ""If we ever lose control of this country to foreign influence peddling then we are in for some very real difficulties.
"The negative advertising that you're seeing (about Dole) which is factually false is actually being paid for by foreigners who are funneling money to the Clinton administration," Gingrich said.

New York Times

"The president has been soliciting money from foreign nationals?" Mr. Gingrich asked rhetorically on CBS-TV. "The greatest power in the world being rented to foreigners? This is a scandal that has historic implications." The Georgia Republican implied a link between donations from a wealthy Indonesian family and alleged efforts by the White House to keep a lid on the Whitewater affair. He also implied that America's China policy might have been influenced by questionable donations from abroad.
Mr. Gingrich said it was inevitable that there would be congressional investigations. He added that if it were learned that Mr. Hubbell had used the money from Mr. Lippo to pay off legal expenses linked to the Whitewater affair, "you have a scandal that truly would be unparalleled in American history."

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)

Washington Post

"We are here today largely because of an ethical indifference which some in the Democratic National Committee and the White House displayed toward fund-raising in the 1996 presidential campaign," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) urged Democrats on the panel to "go where the evidence leads."
"The White House and others under scrutiny must be more forthcoming," she added. "The president cannot credibly preach the gospel of campaign finance reform unless his aides and supporters are prepared to let the light of day shine on their activities."

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Capitol Words

“If we do nothing, we will see a repeat--or likely an even worse scenario--of what we saw in 1996, which confirmed all the reasons why it is imperative to be strong proponents of campaign finance reform. We saw over $223.4 million in soft money raised by the two national parties--three times more than in the last Presidential election. We saw more than $150 million--we do not know the precise amount because it is not disclosed--spent on attack ads paid with unlimited funds by third-party groups that made candidates largely incidental to their own campaigns.
We saw an electorate that was, to put it bluntly, disgusted by the spectacle. And the 1996 elections were barely over when allegations were made of illegal and improper activities, centered around the issues of so-called ``soft money and foreign influence peddling through campaign contributions, all egregious abuses highlighted by the Senate Governmental Affairs hearings.
All of this has only served to further undermine public confidence and underscore the importance of enacting meaningful and achievable campaign finance reform this year.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

Capitol Words

“This is the same Justice Department that has botched up the investigation of the theft of information on the W-88 warhead, that has refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign fundraising illegalities, and that continues to cover up vital information in defiantly refusing to release the LaBella and Freeh memos suggesting that crimes may have been committed in the Chinagate scandal.”

Capitol Words

“FBI Director Freeh has testified that the public knows only about one percent of what the FBI knows about the Chinagate scandal. It is time for the truth to come out. It is time for the public to get some sense of the other 99 percent which is contained in the LaBella memo.”

Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA)

Capitol Words

“Actually, I am a Republican. I do not know that much about money laundering, particularly foreign money.”

Capitol Words

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to talk about Chinagate figure John Huang because he had a real tough job. As the president of his holding company, Hip Hing, a subsidiary of Lippo Group, he had to work many, many long hours. See, when one's only asset is a vacant parking lot, we would not believe the pressures they are under. Nevertheless he had the time to get deeply involved in Democrat politics, and when he donated $50,000, no one raised an eye about how a vacant parking lot attendant could afford such largess. Of course they did not know he was reimbursed by his parent company, the one-half Chinese Communist government owned Lippo Group, but now even Democrats admit this was an illegal donation and apparently only the tip of the egg roll.”

Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA)

Capitol Words

“Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot lately about campaign finance reform. However, some of those pushing for new laws fail to mention the fact that our existing laws have been broken. It is against the law to use foreign money in election campaigns in America. It is against the law to launder money in election campaigns. It is against the law to sell access to your office or influence or even seats on a foreign trade mission to highest bidders”

Capitol Words

“We have heard some great excuses, from ``everybody does it, to ``we had to cheat. Otherwise, Republicans would have won. Maybe some of the best excuses are these two: ``Sure, I broke the law, but it is the system's fault, and we need to reform it. Then there is this one: ``I don't care if they broke the law. The Republicans are on a witch hunt. Right. I wonder if the reforms the other side has in mind will continue to consider taking foreign money as a crime.”

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Capitol Words

“The bill attempts to tighten the restrictions on fundraising on federal property and strengthen the restriction on foreign money ban. Both of these provisions would address some of the Clinton-Gore campaign finance improprieties.”

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Capitol Words

“First, Mr. President, I would like to submit a sampling of the opinion pieces I have authored in the past year. One is from January of this year, published by the Washington Times, in which I had a premonition that President Clinton, as his own campaign finance scandal deepened, would become campaign finance reform's No. 1 fan. Frankly, it's not that I am particularly clairvoyant, but rather that they are so predictable.
As the Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee have sunk in a scandalous quicksand of their own making, the more they publicly thrashed around groping for a campaign finance bill as if it were a life preserver. Unfortunately for America, the President and Vice President Gore seek to save themselves from their own embarrassing malfeasance in raising money from foreigners and the other episodes which have been so much in the newspapers. They want to save themselves at the expense of core constitutional freedoms for all Americans.”

Meet the Press, 2000

SEN. McCONNELL: Well, the problem is this: Republicans are in favor of disclosure. There's a serious constitutional question, whether you can require people engaged in what's called issue advocacy to disclose. But if you're going to do that, and the Senate voted to do that, and I'm prepared to go down that road, then it needs to be meaningful disclosure, Tim. 527s are just a handful of groups. We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so that you include the major political players in America. Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?
MR. RUSSERT: Senator John McCain had this to say about your proposal. And I'll put it on the screen for you. "I'm all for expanding it, but not at the price of bipartisanship. It's a scam. They want to include labor unions and trial lawyers, but they don't want to go after the tax section that covers the National Right to Life committee." That's your good friend, John McCain.
SEN. McCONNELL: Well, my good friend John McCain's staff is also negotiating with us because he's apparently interested in this broadening proposal, but in order to catch Right to Life, you'd also have to catch the disabled American veterans, the NAACP, the AARP, and as the reformers often like to say, "Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?" I mean, if you go into the C-3 and C-4 category, you step on an awful lot of people that I think probably are not entitled to be stepped on. Why not just include labor and business and trial lawyers and broaden it to the real players in American politics?

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Capitol Words

“Indeed, the legacy of the administration may prove to be that its most significant exploits--infamous or otherwise--were accomplished by warping the law for blatant political purposes. Here are just a few of the most notorious examples: Attorney General Reno both misapplied and ignored the Independent Counsel Act in order to prevent the appointment of an independent counsel in the campaign finance investigation; the 1996 election fundraising scandal where soft money prohibitions were ignored and foreign donations were illegally and eagerly accepted”

Washington Post

The Ickes investigation "should be followed by a broad-based request for an independent counsel to investigate the entirety of the Democratic campaign finance scandal."

Senator Larry Craig (ID)

Capitol Words

“Mr. President, Cable News Network announced this week that it would provide live television coverage of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearings on campaign finance activities. But, Mr. President, their decision was based only on the fact that former Republican National Committee chairman, Haley Barbour, is scheduled to testify.
CNN has been suspiciously absent in its live coverage of the hearings, only allowing its viewers to see the opening statements of the chairman and the ranking member during the past 2 weeks of the hearings… And furthermore, the campaign finance hearings have uncovered much more serious charges and allegations. They include: Espionage, foreign influence peddling, campaign corruption and even money laundering. Just look at this summary by the staff of the Governmental Affairs Committee on what has been revealed so far during 2 weeks of hearings.”

Senator Roger Wicker (MS)

Capitol Words

“If you are not a United States citizen, or a United States national, you should not be able to influence the electoral process. It is wrong and dangerous to allow a potential to exist for undue foreign influence in electing Federal officials. That is what the debate on this amendment is about, undue foreign influence in our election process.
The American people have witnessed in the last two Clinton-Gore campaigns a breathtaking willingness to solicit money from non-citizens. We have all seen the video of Vice President Gore soliciting money from Buddhist monks who had taken a vow of poverty.
The Bereuter-Wicker amendment would address this problem by removing any ambiguity in the law, ambiguities which today allow foreign money to be funneled through U.S. addresses.”

Senator Rob Portman (OH)

Capitol Words

“However, while the Shays-Meehan bill makes some needed changes, it fails to go far enough in addressing what I believe are real problems with our current campaign finance system. Shays-Meehan fails to address the underlying problems of special interest influence, foreign influence and built-in incumbent advantages that plague our current system. Moreover, soft money provision, while well-intentioned, raise serious Constitutional concerns. Most seriously, the bill does nothing to address the problem posed by special interest PACs, which contribute overwhelmingly to incumbents and discourage individuals from getting involved in the political process.
During the last Congress, I introduced campaign finance legislation containing limitations and increased disclosure for soft money, and other key provisions that go further than the Shays-Meehan bill. Among other features, the Restoring Trust in Government Act would have: banned the activities of special interest Political Action Committees (PACs); required 60% of campaign funds to be raided within a House candidate's district or a Senate candidate's state; clearly prohibited contributions by non-citizens; limited the ``bundling of campaign contributions; and completely banned taxpayer-financed unsolicited mass mailings by Members of Congress.
I believe these are all common sense changes that deserve consideration in the context of campaign finance reform.”

Bob Dole

Citation: Lewis, C & The Center for Public Integrity. (2000). The Buying of the President 2000. Washington, DC: The Center for Public Integrity.

"PACs give to incumbents, and that is me and the other incumbents in this chamber, because access to an officeholder is more important than a Member [of Congress]'s party, ideology, or even voting record on the issues." (p. 271)

 

Retrieved from "http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Rhetoric_around_Money_Influencing_Elections"
Toolbox

OpenCongress is a joint project of the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. Questions? Comments? Contact Us