Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What our law seeks to do is enforce the 1907 law banning corporate treasury money, the 1947 law that bans union dues money, and enforces the 1974 campaign finance reform law. That is what our bill seeks to do. It allows people to speak out using the hard money 60 days before an election, and, frankly, they can use all that other money 60 days before an election. That is what your bill seeks to do. We are getting closer and closer to seeing that happen. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am getting a little concerned because some people are getting a little cocky here, and we have two amendments to go, and I cannot tell my colleagues the outcome. But I can tell my colleagues this: In 1974, the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974 provided an exemption to allow political parties to raise soft money to purchase or construct a building. It has existed since 1974. In fact, that was the way soft money kind of entered its way in. It was to build buildings; it was not really for campaigns, it was ultimately to get out the vote. It was not for races. What this provision does in our bill is say that if a party has any soft money left on November 6, they can only use it to build or purchase a building. Our bill makes it very clear that they cannot raise any more soft money for this or any purpose after November 6. Now, my logic was, if Terry McAuliffe and the Democratic side of the aisle wants to use soft money to build a building and not use it to run against candidates, I am happy to have them do it. That was my simple logic. I am curious as to why our side of the aisle wants him to use this money only to run against us. So that is the way my simple mind is working, I guess, at 1 o'clock in the morning. I am hoping this amendment is defeated. I hope Terry McAuliffe and anybody else he can convince will build buildings instead of running races.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This has been a spirited debate. We did not put it in our substitute so we would, in fact, have this debate. We are going to live with whatever the decision is afterwards, whether this amendment fails or succeeds. I hope this amendment succeeds with all that I can urge. It is not a question of going from the $1,000 to $2,000, it is a question of going from $2 million to $2,000, or a half a million to $2,000, or $200,000 to $2,000. We have gotten elected in part because of all of this soft money which we are going to see disappear. We are going to return it back to individual Americans. Mr. Chairman, $2,000 is more than $1,000, but it should be $3,500 if we were looking at 1974. I urge my colleagues as Democrats and Republicans to support this amendment. This bill may become law. We are going to have to live with it for the next many, many years, and I think my colleagues will agree that $2,000 will be better in the years to come than $1,000 and will make it equal to the Senate.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, the Senate has what they refer to as a ``millionaire's amendment'' or a level playing field amendment. They allow for three times the amount of hard money at a certain level, and then at a certain point they allow 10 times the amount. But each Senate district is different. So they did it for each Senate territory. The States have different populations and so on. So what was done by the gentlewoman from West Virginia is an amendment that allows House Members to have the same kind of amendment. It would be compatible with the Senate amendment. It works in harmony with it. We have this as what we refer to as a neutral amendment. The Senate does not care whether we pass it or not. We want to make sure that the House does its will. I support this amendment with all my heart. I think the one weakness in our bill is that when you run against someone wealthy, you cannot get the same resources and you are put at a disadvantage, and especially if we are going to take away soft money.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would like to start by saying I have a number of heroes in this House. One of them is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), right over there, the best reason why we should not ever think of having term limits. Another hero is sitting right there. When I was elected, I wanted to meet the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) more than almost anyone else, but after I was elected, when I heard that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) won, I wanted to meet him more than anyone else. I went to him and asked him if I could get his book and pay for it, and he did not make me pay for it, but I read that book, and I figuratively bended my knees in gratitude for his service. So I say that because I think he believes that his amendment is needed, but his amendment is not needed, and his veterans have all the voice they need. What we are doing in our substitute is we are saying the 1907 law banning corporate treasury money will be enforced, the 1947 law banning union dues money will be enforced, and the 1974 law that says individual contributions can have limits unless it is just one individual who is spending it. We allow for people to speak out. Sixty days before an election, soft money can be used. Sixty days to an election, it is hard money contributions. All of the money that individual veterans raise can be spent and can be advertised. So I know he believes in this amendment, but I can tell my colleagues, we have had a lot of groups that have voiced concern, but the veterans are not one of them. They know in this country they have a voice, and they know in this Congress they have a lot of people who listen. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Arizona, but I totally disagree with his analysis. The reason why we are opposing this amendment is because we do not believe that the amendment is needed because we know that first amendment rights are not threatened. One of the curious things here is that this does not just involve veterans, it involves senior citizens. Senior citizens. AARP supports and has asked for this amendment, asked for our bill, our substitute, because they think their voice is being drowned out by large corporate interests and large union dues interests, as do some veterans. Some veterans think their voice has been drowned out by the voice of large corporations. My party for some reason has given the impression that this is doomsday if this bill passes. The thing that they are really saying is that they cannot exist unless they have large corporate contributions. I do not believe it, and I do not think it is true. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are more than halfway through our legislation. We have worked very hard on it. This is one of the last amendments alleging that somehow people's voices are not going to be able to be heard. There is no truth to that at all, but the allegations are made. This is a bill that enforces the 1907 law banning corporate treasury money, the 1947 law banning union dues money, and enforces the 1974 reform laws. Now, one of the allegations is that because we cannot use soft money, we cannot use that corporate treasury money and the union dues money, that somehow veterans do not have a voice. That is an absurdity. They have a voice as individuals, and they have a voice to pool their resources and to advertise. They just cannot do it with corporate treasury money and union dues money. Most veterans think that makes sense, because they do not have a lot of corporate treasury money and a lot of union dues money. They do not get it. They do not have a lot of wealthy people allowing them to advertise. What they have is a lot of numbers of small contributions, of hard money, that enables them to have quite a voice. I would just make the point to my colleagues that this amendment is dearly a threat to our legislation because it suggests something that is not true. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of whatever time I have to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) so that he can close. Mr. Chairman, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will yield further, I would cite to the gentleman the entire law. It is illegal to use soft money for hard money. I would just answer this one question you asked me. Please allow me this opportunity, if I could. If there was a vehicle that we can satisfy your ambiguity, the ambiguity that you thinks exists, I would be eager to settle this and to adopt it. Eager to.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss an issue in the Shays- Meehan bill that has prompted some questions--what fundraising activities may federal candidates and officeholders engage in. These are important and legitimate questions, and I intend here to clarify the lines drawn in the bill. It is a key purpose of the bill to stop the use of soft money as a means of buying influence and access with federal officials. As an important part of this goal, we have taken federal officials, including Members of Congress, out of the business of raising soft money for political parties, political committees and candidates. Federal candidates and officeholders, furthermore, cannot establish or control political committees that raise or spend soft money. We recognize that Federal officeholders and candidates raise money for nonprofit organizations. The bill applies some restrictions to such fundraising activities when the principal purpose of the organization involves get-out-the-vote and voter registration activities, or where the solicitation is specifically for the purpose of the funds being used for GOTV and voter registration activities. In addition, federal officeholders and candidates cannot raise money for nonprofit organizations to use on public communications that mention a federal candidate. solicitations for party committees The basic rule in the bill is that federal candidates and officials cannot raise non-federal (or soft) money donations--that is, funds that do not comply with federal contribution limits and source prohibitions. Thus, the rule for solicitations by federal officeholders or candidates for party committees is simple: federal candidates and officeholders cannot solicit soft money funds for any party committee-- national, state or local. Federal candidates and officeholders also cannot raise funds in connection with a non-Federal election, unless those funds comply with federal contribution limits and source prohibitions. Thus, if a Federal candidate or officeholder raises money for a state candidate, the amounts solicited need to comply with the source and amount limitations in federal law. This, of course, means that a federal candidate or official can continue to solicit hard money for party committees. So a federal officeholder can, on behalf of his or her national party committees, including their congressional campaign committees, solicit individuals for contributions of up to $25,000 per year, or $50,000 per election cycle, per committee (subject, of course, to a donor's aggregate hard money contribution limit of $57,500 to all party committees in a two- year cycle). A federal official can also solicit individuals for hard money donations to state party committees--under the bill of up to $10,000 per year, or $20,000 per cycle, from an individual subject again to the donor's aggregate contribution limit, and up to $5,000 per year or $10,000 per cycle from a federal PAC. These funds can be spent by the state party for activities in connection with a federal election, including for federal election activities. A federal official can, in addition, solicit money for a state party to spend on non-federal elections, as long as the funds comply with federal limits and source prohibitions. This would allow a federal official to solicit up to $10,000 a year from an individual, or up to $5,000 per year from a PAC, to donate to the state party non-federal account, even if that same individual has already given a similar amount to the state party hard money account. The Levin amendment expressly provides that federal candidates and officeholders can not solicit the funds authorized to be spent under the Levin amendment. Similarly, a federal official can solicit money for state candidates, but such solicitations would be subject to the federal contribution limits and source prohibitions--$2,000 per election from individuals and $5,000 per election from PACs, and no contributions from corporations or labor unions. solicitations for outside groups The bill allows federal officials and candidates to make general solicitations without restriction for outside non-profit groups (those exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code, such as 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) groups), so long as the group is not one with a principal purpose of conducting get-out-the-vote or voter registration activities, and so long as the money is not solicited specifically for the purpose of conducting GOTV and voter registration activities. The general solicitation cannot specify how the funds will or should be spent. An official can also make a solicitation for non-profit groups that do principally engage in such voter activities, or for funds specifically to be spent for GOTV or voter registration activities, but the solicitation must be made only to individuals, and is no more than $20,000 per year. An official cannot solicit funds from a corporation or labor union for such purposes. These restrictions apply to the solicitation of funds by a federal candidate or official. A federal official can sit on the board of a non-profit or otherwise participate in the activities of the nonprofit, so long as he or she was not engaged in raising money for the non- profit on election-related activities. A federal candidate or officeholder cannot direct the expenditure of such funds.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, we do not agree with the gentleman's analysis, but I want to answer the question.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. SHAYS. I did read it. That is what I gave you.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, I do.

Mr. SHAYS. I do not disagree with the gentleman's words. I do not disagree. But may I have a chance to respond? Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. SHAYS. It was not in the Senate bill; that is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to myself to correct the ``hmm'' of my colleague, who basically said something that simply was not accurate. They cannot use soft money to pay off a hard-money debt. That is simply not true. This bill is different. Our bill is different than it was because a funny thing happened. The Senate got to look at our bill and they made some changes. They added the Levin amendment, which allows soft money, no more than $10,000 if a State allows it, not for Federal elections, and it cannot be used for any campaigns. That is what they do. So the Levin amendment makes our bill different. Then we have the Snow-Jeffords amendment in the Senate which says 60 days to an election. So that is why, in fact, the bill is different. The bill is different because the Senate changed it, and we want a bill similar to what the Senate has done.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would point out that in conversation with Trevor Potter, who had just been recently discussed, he pointed out that he totally disagrees with what was said by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and the reference to his Website was, in fact, not even his Website. And that this $40 million fund that is being described, Democrats have $3.2 million in their building fund and Republicans have $1.8 million in their building fund. So if the Democrats have $40 million, they would have to raise from this point on the difference, basically $36.8 million, and then not spend it against candidates who are running for office. Again, I just repeat, if the Democrats want to raise $36.8 million and spend it on a building fund instead of campaigns, I think Republicans should probably encourage them to do that. I would like to also point out that our bill is, in fact, a compromise. It is a compromise.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself to just say my colleagues have to read the bill and know the law. The law makes it illegal to use soft money for a hard-money expenditure. The purpose of this is if they incurred a soft-money expenditure before the election day and the person wants to get paid afterwards, they get paid up to the date of January. A soft-money expense for a soft-money expenditure, a hard-money expense for a hard-money expenditure; but one does not always pay the bill before the expense.