Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323150554
label
Library of Congress 6/29/89 [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323150554
contentType
document
title
Library of Congress 6/29/89 [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13493-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Draft Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323150554
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e932971620778720
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Draft Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13493
Folder ID Number:
13493-005
Folder Title:
Library of Congress 6/29/89 [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
25
6
3
6
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
JUNE 29, 1989/2 P.M.
THANK YOU.
((I HAVE TO ADMIT, I FEEL A LITTLE AWKWARD GIVING A
SPEECH AT THIS PARTICULAR PLACE
ALL THOSE YEARS
OF BEING TOLD NOT TO SPEAK OUT-LOUD IN A LIBRARY.))
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN CALLED THE DIARY
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
- 2 -
IN TRUTH, IT IS A DIARY OF THE HUMAN RACE. AND IN THE
MILLION STORIES OF ACHIEVEMENT IT HAS To TELL, ONE
TRUTH IS REVEALED ABOVE ALL OTHERS: THAT FOR ALL ITS
BLEMISHES, GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE IS THE GREATEST
ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL.
As I LOOK AROUND ME, I SEE THE BEST AND THE
BRIGHTEST OF A NEW GENERATION. FOR YOU, THIS SUMMER OF
INDEPENDENCE IS JUST A SWEET TASTE OF ADULTHOOD. TRUST
ME, FREEDOM IS NOT AS FAR-OFF AS IT SEEMS.
- 3 -
WHATEVER YOU DO IN WASHINGTON -- PAGE OR INTERN -- YOU
ARE APPRENTICES IN A NOBLE PROFESSION -- PUBLIC
SERVICE.
WE EXALT PUBLIC SERVICE BECAUSE WE DO NOT EXALT OUR
GOVERNMENT. WE KEEP GOVERNMENT CLOSE, CLOSE TO THE
PEOPLE IT IS MEANT TO SERVE. AND THERE IS ANOTHER
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN OUR WAY OF GOVERNING -- REFORM.
OURS IS NOT A PERFECT GOVERNMENT. IT IS A GOVERNMENT
CONSTANTLY PERFECTED.
- 4 -
A STEADILY IMPROVING GOVERNMENT IS THE RESULT OF
OUR OPEN POLITICAL SYSTEM. AND IN THIS SYSTEM,
ELECTIONS ARE MORE THAN THE DEADLINES OF DEMOCRACY;
THEY ARE THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS. THEY ARE NOT JUST
CONTESTS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS -- THEY ARE CONTESTS
BETWEEN PHILOSOPHIES. WHEN THIS SHARP EDGE OF
COMPETITION IS DULLED, DEMOCRACY LOSES.
- 5 -
STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES
IN APRIL, I PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ETHICS
LEGISLATION FOR ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. TODAY, I
CALL ON CONGRESS TO PASS THAT PACKAGE. BUT I ALSO WANT
TO ADDRESS OTHER PROBLEMS -- HOW TO FREE OUR ELECTORAL
SYSTEM FROM THE GRIP OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, HOW TO SPUR
THE FREE COMPETITION OF IDEAS.
- 6 -
You HAVE OFTEN HEARD ME SPEAK OF THE NECESSITY OF
BIPARTISANSHIP. AND I DO STRONGLY BELIEVE WE MUST WORK
TOGETHER WHEN DEALING WITH THE MOST DIFFICULT
CHALLENGES FACING OUR COUNTRY -- NOT AS PARTISANS --
BUT AS AMERICANS.
BUT WE WILL NOT -- AND SHOULD NOT -- CEASE TO BE
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. TRUE, THE FOUNDING FATHERS
ENVISIONED NO ROLE FOR PARTIES. YET 200 YEARS OF
POLITICAL EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THEIR VALUE.
- 7 -
POLITICAL PARTIES CLARIFY AND SHARPEN DEBATE. THEY
SHAPE COALITIONS OF LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE, GIVING MILLIONS
OF WORKING AMERICANS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO SUPPORT THEIR
BELIEFS AND ADVANCE THEIR CANDIDATES. PARTIES ARE THE
INDISPENSABLE ORGANIZERS OF DEMOCRACY.
YET TIMES HAVE CHANGED. TODAY'S SPECIAL-INTEREST
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AND THEIR $160 MILLION
WARCHEST OVERSHADOW THE GREAT PARTIES OF THOMAS
JEFFERSON AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
- 8 -
As THE STRENGTH OF OUR PARTIES ERODES, so DOES THE
STRENGTH OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
CANDIDATES BECOME MUDDLED, AND CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
LACKS COHERENCE AND DISCIPLINE. BY NECESSITY, MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS ENGAGE IN TIME-CONSUMING AND OFTEN
DEGRADING APPEALS FOR MONEY OUTSIDE THE PARTY
STRUCTURE. As VIGOROUS COMPETITION BETWEEN CANDIDATES,
AND BETWEEN IDEAS, WANES, THE CLEAR WINNER IN THE RACE
FOR PAC DOLLARS IS INCUMBENCY.
- 9 -
SOME BELIEVE PUBLIC -- OR TAXPAYER -- FINANCING IS
THE BEST ANSWER. I DO NOT. IF WE EXCLUDE INDIVIDUALS
FROM THE PROCESS, WE EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC. THIS IS THE
IRONIC RESULT OF TAXPAYER FINANCING. IT WOULD FORCE
TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT EXTREMIST CANDIDATES THEY ABHOR.
IT WOULD BE A SIPHON FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, ALREADY IN
DEFICIT, TO CAMPAIGN COFFERS.
- 10 -
TAXPAYER FINANCING WOULD DO NOTHING TO STRENGTHEN THE
PARTIES; IF ANYTHING, IT WOULD STRENGTHEN THE STATUS
QUO. WHAT THE VOTERS REALLY NEED IS MORE CHOICE.
SPENDING LIMITS ARE NOT THE ANSWER EITHER. IF WE
ARE TO ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUALS To PARTICIPATE IN THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS, IF WE ARE TO ENCOURAGE CANDIDATES To
BRING THEIR MESSAGE To AS MANY VOTERS AS POSSIBLE, WE
SHOULD NOT HAVE ABSOLUTE LIMITS ON SPENDING.
- 11 -
THE ANSWER IS REFORM. WE NEED REFORMS THAT CURTAIL
THE ROLE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, ENHANCE THE ROLE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL AND STRENGTHEN THE PARTIES. So TODAY, I
PROPOSE JUST THAT -- A SWEEPING REFORM OF OUR SYSTEM.
MORE THAN 90 PERCENT OF ALL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS COME FROM
PACs SPONSORED BY CORPORATIONS, UNIONS AND TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS. So THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR REFORM IS THE
ELIMINATION OF THOSE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES.
- 12 -
*** I PROPOSE To CURTAIL THE PROLIFERATION OF
LEADERSHIP PACs BY LIMITING ALL CANDIDATES FOR FEDERAL
OFFICE To ONE FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE. AND, BY ALSO
BARRING TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES, WE
WILL FURTHER REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL-INTEREST
MONEY IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.
- 13 -
*** I PROPOSE TO END A PRACTICE KNOWN AS
"BUNDLING," WHERE BUSINESS AND UNIONS ENCOURAGE OR
COERCE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EMPLOYEES OR MEMBERS, AND
THEN GIVE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS AS A SINGLE DONATION.
As THESE REFORMS CURTAIL SPECIAL-INTEREST MONEY, WE
MUST ENCOURAGE THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES. I PROPOSE TO
MORE THAN DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PARTIES MAY DONATE
TO CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS.
- 14 -
INCREASING PARTY DONATIONS TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES WILL
ALLOW LEGISLATORS TO SPEND MORE TIME LEGISLATING AND
LESS TIME RAISING MONEY. IT WILL GIVE CHALLENGERS THE
MEANS TO COMPETE WITH INCUMBENTS. AND IT WILL ALLOW
ALL CANDIDATES TO AVOID HAVING TO RAISE MONEY FROM
SPECIAL INTERESTS.
STILL, SOME PACs MUST REMAIN BECAUSE THEY ARE
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
- 15 -
THESE INDEPENDENT PACs ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT TEN PERCENT OF
ALL CONTRIBUTIONS. BUT EVEN THESE I WOULD LIMIT, BY
HALVING THEIR ALLOWABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL
CANDIDATES FROM $5,000 TO $2,500. AND NEW LAWS MUST
KEEP SUCH PACs UNAFFILIATED AND INDEPENDENT, so A
BUSINESS OR LABOR GROUP COULD NOT USE THEM AS A
BACKDOOR MEANS OF INFLUENCING THE PROCESS.
- 16 -
I ALSO PROPOSE TO STRENGTHEN THE SUPREME COURT'S
BECK DECISION, WHICH HELD THAT UNION MEMBERS CAN'T BE
FORCED TO HAVE THEIR DUES GO TO POLITICAL CAUSES OR
ORGANIZATIONS THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. No AMERICAN SHOULD
BE COMPELLED TO GIVE MONEY TO A CANDIDATE AGAINST HIS
OR HER WILL.
CLEANING UP THE SYSTEM
WE MUST DO MORE TO TRULY CLEAN UP THE SYSTEM. THE
BASIC STRENGTH OF TODAY'S SYSTEM IS DISCLOSURE.
- 17 -
YET MOST MONEY SPENT IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS IS NOT
DISCLOSED. THIS LITTLE KNOWN AREA OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE
LAW CALLED "SOFT MONEY" CONCERNS DOLLARS SPENT ON VOTER
TURNOUT AND REGISTRATION EFFORTS. I CALL ON CONGRESS
TO JOIN ME IN MANDATING FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL SOFT
MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE POLITICAL PARTIES, AS WELL
AS CORPORATIONS, UNIONS AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS.
- 18 -
OTHER LAWS GOVERN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE GROUPS,
WHICH CAN SPEND ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY To ELECT OR DEFEAT
A CANDIDATE so LONG AS THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE NOT
COORDINATED WITH THOSE OF A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE.
WHILE SOME OF THESE GROUPS PERFORM A PUBLIC SERVICE,
TOO OFTEN THEY MASK THE MOTIVES OF HIDDEN CONTRIBUTORS,
ACTING AS MERCENARY CHARACTER ASSASSINS. OFTEN, THEY
DECEIVE THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING THAT THEY ARE A
CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN.
- 19 -
YET ALL INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE GROUPS -- THE GOOD AND
THE BAD ALIKE -- ARE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION TO THE PÚBLIC, I
PROPOSE THAT SUCH GROUPS BE REQUIRED TO MORE CLEARLY
IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION BEHIND THEM.
REDRESSING THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
THE THIRD, AND FINAL AREA OF REFORM DIRECTLY
CONCERNS THE POWERS OF INCUMBENCY.
- 20 -
JEFFERSON ENVISIONED A CONGRESS OF CITIZEN-POLITICIANS,
WHO SUSPENDED THEIR CAREERS IN LAW, MEDICINE AND
AGRICULTURE TO SERVE THE NATION. How FAR WE'VE COME
FROM THAT SIMPLE VISION. TODAY, INCUMBENTS STAY IN
OFFICE FOR DECADES, AMASSING HUGE WARCHESTS TO SCARE
OFF STRONG CHALLENGES IN ELECTION AFTER ELECTION.
THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY IN THE SPIRIT OF MADISON AND
JEFFERSON. THIS IS NOT THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY AT ALL.
- 21 -
I PROPOSE TO END THE "ROLLOVER" OF CAMPAIGN WARCHESTS,
REQUIRING ANY EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO BE DONATED TO
THE PARTIES, TO A FUND TO RETIRE THE NATIONAL DEBT OR
BE GIVEN BACK TO THE CONTRIBUTORS. THIS WOULD APPLY TO
ALL UNSPENT CAMPAIGN FUNDS -- WHETHER IT IS A RACE FOR
CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENCY.
- 22 -
UNDER OUR CURRENT LAW, 190 HOUSE MEMBERS IN OFFICE
IN 1980 CAN ALSO USE THEIR LEFTOVER CAMPAIGN MONEY AS A
PERSONAL RETIREMENT FUND -- POCKETING HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS -- EVEN MILLIONS -- OF DOLLARS WHEN THEY
LEAVE OFFICE. SENATORS ARE ALLOWED TO CONVERT THESE
FUNDS FOR OFFICIAL USE. THIS PRACTICE MUST END
AND THIS SAME PRINCIPLE SHOULD APPLY TO PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES AS WELL.
- 23 -
ANOTHER ADVANTAGE OF INCUMBENCY ARISES FROM THE WAY
IN WHICH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS USE THE PUBLIC FRANK TO
PAY FOR MASS MAILINGS THAT AMOUNT TO POLITICAL
ADVERTISING. THE COST TO THE TAXPAYERS RUNS INTO THE
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THE COST TO OUR
DEMOCRACY IS ALSO STEEP. I PROPOSE TO PROHIBIT THE USE
OF THE FRANK FOR UNSOLICITED MASS MAILINGS.
- 24 -
YET ANOTHER AREA IN NEED OF REFORM IS REDISTRICTING
-- THE WAY IN WHICH PARTIES IN POWER IGNORE COMMUNITY
BOUNDARIES AND DRAW DISTRICT LINES FAVORABLE TO THEIR
CANDIDATES. No SINGLE FACTOR IS MORE BASIC To
RESTORING COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS THAN ENSURING FAIR
REDISTRICTING IN 1991. I PROPOSE A NEW CRITERIA FOR
REDISTRICTING, WITHOUT FAVOR TO PARTY, TO RESPECT
ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES.
- 25 -
WE MUST DRAW DISTRICT LINES THAT RESPECT THE NEEDS OF
THE PEOPLE, NOT TAILOR THEM TO THE POLITICAL NEEDS OF
EITHER PARTY.
FINALLY, IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS I WILL ALSO SEND UP
LEGISLATION TO BAN HONORARIA AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS.
- 26 -
THIS PACKAGE WILL INCLUDE A 25 PERCENT PAY INCREASE FOR
JUDGES, WHICH I HAVE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED, AND AN
INCREASE FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF SPECIALIZED
PROFESSIONALS -- SUCH AS SCIENTISTS AND SURGEONS --
WHERE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS NOT COMPETITIVE. I WILL
ALSO WORK WITH CONGRESS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILS
FOR INCREASING THE PAY OF THOSE IN THE CONGRESS, AS
WELL AS OTHER SENIOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
- 27 -
CONCLUSION
THIS YEAR, AS CONGRESS OBSERVES ITS 200TH
ANNIVERSARY, ELEVEN THOUSAND AMERICANS HAVE SERVED IN
THE HOUSE AND SENATE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC.
MOST HAVE SERVED IN THE GREAT TRADITION OF RUSSELL AND
RAYBURN, DIRKSEN AND MANSFIELD, DOLE AND MITCHELL,
FOLEY AND MICHEL. SOME DAY, YOU MAY FOLLOW THIS PATH,
THE PATH TO GREATNESS AND ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PUBLIC
SERVICE.
- 28 -
AND IF YOU DO, I HOPE THE LAWS THAT GOVERN OUR
CAMPAIGNS AND OUR CONGRESS -- AS WELL AS OUR EXECUTIVE
BRANCH -- ARE AS JUST AND HONEST AS THE MAJORITY OF
THOSE WHO SERVE THE PUBLIC.
THIS VAST AND HONEST MAJORITY IN CONGRESS LIVE THE
WORDS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, WHO SAID THE NOBLEST TITLE
IN THE WORLD ISN'T PRESIDENT, OR SENATOR, OR
CONGRESSMAN -- BUT "HONEST MAN."
- 29 -
WHATEVER YOU DO IN LIFE, YOU CAN HAVE NO HIGHER
TITLE THAN THAT. THANK YOU, GOD BLESS YOU AND God
BLESS AMERICA.
#
#
#
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
JUNE 29, 1989/2 P.M.
THANK YOU.
((I HAVE TO ADMIT, I FEEL A LITTLE AWKWARD GIVING
A SPEECH AT THIS PARTICULAR PLACE
ALL THOSE YEARS
OF BEING TOLD NOT TO SPEAK OUT-LOUD IN A LIBRARY.)
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN CALLED THE DIARY
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IN TRUTH, IT IS A DIARY OF THE
HUMAN RACE. AND IN THE MILLION STORIES OF ACHIEVEMENT
IT HAS TO TELL, ONE TRUTH IS REVEALED ABOVE ALL OTHERS:
THAT FOR ALL ITS BLEMISHES, GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE IS
THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL.
AS I LOOK AROUND ME, I SEE THE BEST AND THE
BRIGHTEST OF A NEW GENERATION. FOR YOU, THIS SUMMER OF
INDEPENDENCE IS JUST A SWEET TASTE OF ADULTHOOD. TRUST
ME, FREEDOM IS NOT AS FAR-OFF AS IT SEEMS. WHATEVER
YOU DO IN WASHINGTON -- PAGE OR INTERN -- YOU ARE
APPRENTICES IN A NOBLE PROFESSION -- PUBLIC SERVICE.
- 2 -
The
WE EXALT PUBLIC SERVICE BECAUSE WE DO NOT EXALT
A
primacy
of
OUR GOVERNMENT. WE KEEP GOVERNMENT CLOSE, CLOSE TO THE
PEOPLE IT IS MEANT TO SERVE. AND THERE IS ANOTHER
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT IN OUR WAY OF GOVERNING -- REFORM:
OURS IS NOT A PERFECT GOVERNMENT. IT IS A GOVERNMENT
CONSTANTLY PERFECTED.
A STEADILY IMPROVING GOVERNMENT IS THE RESULT OF
OUR OPEN POLITICAL SYSTEM. AND IN THIS SYSTEM,
ELECTIONS ARE MORE THAN THE DEADLINES OF DEMOCRACY;
THEY ARE THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS. THEY ARE NOT JUST
CONTESTS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS -- THEY ARE CONTESTS
BETWEEN PHILOSOPHIES. WHEN THIS SHARP EDGE OF
COMPETITION IS DULLED, DEMOCRACY LOSES.
STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES
IN APRIL, I PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ETHICS
LEGISLATION FOR ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. TODAY, I
CALL ON CONGRESS TO PASS THAT PACKAGE. BUT I ALSO WANT
TO ADDRESS OTHER PROBLEMS -- HOW TO FREE OUR ELECTORAL
SYSTEM FROM THE GRIP OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, HOW TO SPUR
THE FREE COMPETITION OF IDEAS.
- 3 -
YOU HAVE OFTEN HEARD ME SPEAK OF THE NECESSITY OF
BIPARTISANSHIP. AND I DO STRONGLY BELIEVE WE MUST WORK
TOGETHER WHEN DEALING WITH THE MOST DIFFICULT
CHALLENGES FACING OUR COUNTRY -- NOT AS PARTISANS --
BUT AS AMERICANS.
BUT WE WILL NOT -- AND SHOULD NOT -- CEASE TO BE
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. TRUE, THE FOUNDING FATHERS
ENVISIONED NO ROLE FOR PARTIES. YET 200 YEARS OF
POLITICAL EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THEIR VALUE. POLITICAL
PARTIES CLARIFY AND SHARPEN DEBATE. THEY SHAPE
COALITIONS OF LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE, GIVING MILLIONS OF
WORKING AMERICANS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO SUPPORT THEIR
BELIEFS AND ADVANCE THEIR CANDIDATES. PARTIES ARE THE
INDISPENSABLE ORGANIZERS OF DEMOCRACY.
- 4 -
YET TIMES HAVE CHANGED. TODAY'S SPECIAL-INTEREST
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES AND THEIR $160 MILLION
WARCHEST OVERSHADOW THE GREAT PARTIES OF THOMAS
JEFFERSON AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN. AS THE STRENGTH OF OUR
PARTIES ERODES, SO DOES THE STRENGTH OF OUR POLITICAL
SYSTEM. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CANDIDATES BECOME
MUDDLED, AND CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE LACKS COHERENCE AND
DISCIPLINE. BY NECESSITY, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ENGAGE
IN TIME-CONSUMING AND OFTEN DEGRADING APPEALS FOR MONEY
OUTSIDE THE PARTY STRUCTURE. AS VIGOROUS COMPETITION
BETWEEN CANDIDATES, AND BETWEEN IDEAS, WANES, THE CLEAR
WINNER IN THE RACE FOR PAC DOLLARS IS INCUMBENCY.
SOME BELIEVE PUBLIC -- OR TAXPAYER FINANCING IS
THE BEST ANSWER. I DO NOT. IF WE EXCLUDE INDIVIDUALS
FROM THE PROCESS, WE EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC. THIS IS THE
IRONIC RESULT OF TAXPAYER FINANCING. IT WOULD FORCE
TAXPAYERS TO SUPPORT EXTREMIST CANDIDATES THEY ABHOR.
IT WOULD BE A SIPHON FROM THE U.S. TREASURY, ALREADY IN
DEFICIT, TO CAMPAIGN COFFERS. TAXPAYER FINANCING WOULD
DO NOTHING TO STRENGTHEN THE PARTIES; IF ANYTHING, IT
WOULD STRENGTHEN THE STATUS QUO. WHAT THE VOTERS
REALLY NEED IS MORE CHOICE.
- 5 -
SPENDING LIMITS ARE NOT THE ANSWER EITHER. IF WE
ARE TO ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUALS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS, IF WE ARE TO ENCOURAGE CANDIDATES TO
BRING THEIR MESSAGE TO AS MANY VOTERS AS POSSIBLE, WE
SHOULD HAVE ABSOLUTE LIMITS ON SPENDING.
NOT
THE ANSWER IS REFORM. WE NEED REFORMS THAT
CURTAIL THE ROLE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS, ENHANCE THE ROLE
OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND STRENGTHEN THE PARTIES. SO
TODAY, I PROPOSE JUST THAT -- A SWEEPING REFORM OF OUR
SYSTEM. MORE THAN 90 PERCENT OF ALL PAC CONTRIBUTIONS
COME FROM PACS SPONSORED BY CORPORATIONS, UNIONS AND
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS. SO THE CORNERSTONE OF OUR REFORM
IS THE ELIMINATION OF THOSE POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEES.
*** I PROPOSE TO CURTAIL THE PROLIFERATION OF
LEADERSHIP PACS BY LIMITING ALL CANDIDATES FOR FEDERAL
OFFICE TO ONE FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE. AND, BY ALSO
BARRING TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES, WE
WILL FURTHER REDUCE THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL-INTEREST
MONEY IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.
- 6 -
*** I PROPOSE TO END A PRACTICE KNOWN AS
"BUNDLING," WHERE BUSINESS AND UNIONS ENCOURAGE OR
COERCE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM EMPLOYEES OR MEMBERS, AND
THEN GIVE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS AS A SINGLE DONATION.
AS THESE REFORMS CURTAIL SPECIAL-INTEREST MONEY,
WE MUST ENCOURAGE THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES. I PROPOSE
TO MORE THAN DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PARTIES MAY
DONATE TO CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS. INCREASING PARTY
DONATIONS TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES WILL ALLOW LEGISLATORS
TO SPEND MORE TIME LEGISLATING AND LESS TIME RAISING
MONEY. IT WILL GIVE CHALLENGERS THE MEANS TO COMPETE
WITH INCUMBENTS. AND IT WILL ALLOW ALL CANDIDATES TO
AVOID HAVING TO RAISE MONEY FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS.
STILL, SOME PACS MUST REMAIN BECAUSE THEY ARE
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THESE INDEPENDENT
PACS ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT TEN PERCENT OF ALL
CONTRIBUTIONS. BUT EVEN THESE I WOULD LIMIT, BY
HALVING THEIR ALLOWABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL
CANDIDATES FROM $5,000 TO $2,500. AND NEW LAWS MUST
KEEP SUCH PACS UNAFFILIATED AND INDEPENDENT, SO A
BUSINESS OR LABOR GROUP COULD NOT USE THEM AS A
BACKDOOR MEANS OF INFLUENCING THE PROCESS.
- 7 -
I ALSO PROPOSE TO STRENGTHEN THE SUPREME COURT'S
BECK DECISION, WHICH HELD THAT UNION MEMBERS CAN'T BE
FORCED TO HAVE THEIR DUES GO TO POLITICAL CAUSES OR
ORGANIZATIONS THEY DO NOT SUPPORT. NO AMERICAN SHOULD
BE COMPELLED TO GIVE MONEY TO A CANDIDATE AGAINST HIS
OR HER WILL.
CLEANING UP THE SYSTEM
WE MUST DO MORE TO TRULY CLEAN UP THE SYSTEM. THE
BASIC STRENGTH OF TODAY'S SYSTEM IS DISCLOSURE. YET
MOST MONEY SPENT IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS IS NOT
DISCLOSED. THIS LITTLE KNOWN AREA OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE
LAW CALLED "SOFT MONEY" CONCERNS DOLLARS SPENT ON VOTER
TURNOUT AND REGISTRATION EFFORTS. I CALL ON CONGRESS
TO JOIN ME IN MANDATING FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL SOFT
MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE POLITICAL PARTIES, AS WELL
AS CORPORATIONS, UNIONS AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS.
- 8 -
OTHER LAWS GOVERN INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE GROUPS,
WHICH CAN SPEND ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY TO ELECT OR DEFEAT
A CANDIDATE SO LONG AS THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE NOT
COORDINATED WITH THOSE OF A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE.
WHILE SOME OF THESE GROUPS PERFORM A PUBLIC SERVICE,
TOO OFTEN THEY MASK THE MOTIVES OF HIDDEN CONTRIBUTORS,
ACTING AS MERCENARY CHARACTER ASSASSINS. OFTEN, THEY
DECEIVE THE PUBLIC INTO THINKING THAT THEY ARE A
CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN. YET ALL INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
GROUPS -- THE GOOD AND THE BAD ALIKE -- ARE PROTECTED
BY THE CONSTITUTION. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE MORE
INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC, I PROPOSE THAT SUCH GROUPS
BE REQUIRED TO MORE CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION BEHIND THEM.
- 9 -
REDRESSING THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
THE THIRD, AND FINAL AREA OF REFORM DIRECTLY
CONCERNS THE POWERS OF INCUMBENCY. JEFFERSON
ENVISIONED A CONGRESS OF CITIZEN-POLITICIANS, WHO
SUSPENDED THEIR CAREERS IN LAW, MEDICINE AND
AGRICULTURE TO SERVE THE NATION. HOW FAR WE'VE COME
FROM THAT SIMPLE VISION. TODAY, INCUMBENTS STAY IN
OFFICE FOR DECADES, AMASSING HUGE WARCHESTS TO SCARE
OFF STRONG CHALLENGES IN ELECTION AFTER ELECTION.
THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY IN THE SPIRIT OF MADISON AND
JEFFERSON. THIS IS NOT THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY AT ALL.
I PROPOSE TO END THE "ROLLOVER" OF CAMPAIGN WARCHESTS,
REQUIRING ANY EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO BE DONATED TO
THE PARTIES, TO A FUND TO RETIRE THE NATIONAL DEBT OR
BE GIVEN BACK TO THE CONTRIBUTORS. THIS WOULD APPLY TO
ALL UNSPENT CAMPAIGN FUNDS -- WHETHER IT IS A RACE FOR
CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENCY.
- 10 -
UNDER OUR CURRENT LAW, 190 HOUSE MEMBERS IN OFFICE
IN 1980 CAN ALSO USE THEIR LEFTOVER CAMPAIGN MONEY AS A
PERSONAL RETIREMENT FUND -- POCKETING HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS -- EVEN MILLIONS -- OF DOLLARS WHEN THEY
LEAVE OFFICE. SENATORS ARE ALLOWED TO CONVERT THESE
FUNDS FOR OFFICIAL USE. THIS PRACTICE MUST END
AND THIS SAME PRINCIPLE SHOULD APPLY TO PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES AS WELL.
ANOTHER ADVANTAGE OF INCUMBENCY ARISES FROM THE
WAY IN WHICH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS USE THE PUBLIC FRANK
TO PAY FOR MASS MAILINGS THAT AMOUNT TO POLITICAL
ADVERTISING. THE COST TO THE TAXPAYERS RUNS INTO THE
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THE COST TO OUR
DEMOCRACY IS ALSO STEEP. I PROPOSE TO PROHIBIT THE USE
OF THE FRANK FOR UNSOLICITED MASS MAILINGS.
- 11 -
YET ANOTHER AREA IN NEED OF REFORM IS
REDISTRICTING -- THE WAY IN WHICH PARTIES IN POWER
IGNORE COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES AND DRAW DISTRICT LINES
FAVORABLE TO THEIR CANDIDATES. NO SINGLE FACTOR IS
MORE BASIC TO RESTORING COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS THAN
ENSURING FAIR REDISTRICTING IN 1991. I PROPOSE A NEW
CRITERIA FOR REDISTRICTING, WITHOUT FAVOR TO PARTY, TO
RESPECT ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES. WE MUST DRAW
DISTRICT LINES THAT RESPECT THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE,
NOT TAILOR THEM TO THE POLITICAL NEEDS OF EITHER PARTY.
FINALLY, IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS I WILL ALSO SEND UP
LEGISLATION TO BAN HONORARIA AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS. THIS
PACKAGE WILL INCLUDE A 25 PERCENT PAY INCREASE FOR
JUDGES, WHICH I HAVE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED, AND AN
INCREASE FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF SPECIALIZED
PROFESSIONALS -- SUCH AS SCIENTISTS AND SURGEONS --
WHERE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS NOT COMPETITIVE. I WILL
ALSO WORK WITH CONGRESS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF DETAILS
FOR INCREASING THE PAY OF THOSE IN THE CONGRESS, AS
WELL AS OTHER SENIOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
- 12 -
CONCLUSION
THIS YEAR, AS CONGRESS OBSERVES ITS 200TH
ANNIVERSARY, ELEVEN THOUSAND AMERICANS HAVE SERVED IN
THE HOUSE AND SENATE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC.
MOST HAVE SERVED IN THE GREAT TRADITION OF RUSSELL AND
RAYBURN, DIRKSEN AND MANSFIELD, DOLE AND MITCHELL, Foley michel. and
SOME DAY, YOU MAY FOLLOW THIS PATH, THE PATH TO
GREATNESS AND ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH PUBLIC SERVICE. AND
IF YOU DO, I HOPE THE LAWS THAT GOVERN OUR CAMPAIGNS
AND OUR CONGRESS -- AS WELL AS OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH --
ARE AS JUST AND HONEST AS THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO
SERVE THE PUBLIC.
THIS VAST AND HONEST MAJORITY IN CONGRESS LIVE THE
WORDS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, WHO SAID THE NOBLEST TITLE
IN THE WORLD ISN'T PRESIDENT, OR SENATOR, OR
CONGRESSMAN -- BUT "HONEST MAN."
WHATEVER YOU DO IN LIFE, YOU CAN HAVE NO HIGHER
TITLE THAN THAT. THANK YOU, GOD BLESS YOU AND GOD
BLESS AMERICA.
#
#
#
President has
admin time
at 15pm. 15
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
6/29/89
----
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
PRESIDENT BUSH'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROPOSALS
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
9
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
ROGERS
BREEDEN
CARD
WINSTON
CICCONI
PINKERTON
DEMAREST
WRAY
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
The attached has been released to the press.
RESPONSE:
James W. Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
fn fu
WASHINGTON
1989 JUN 28 PM 3.2
June 28, 1989
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
CHRISS WINSTON
FROM:
MARK DAVIS MD
SUBJECT:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SPEECH
I. SUMMARY
On Thursday, June 29, 1989, you will address an audience of
400 congressional, executive and Administration interns at the
Library on Congress. The purpose of this speech is to announce
the new campaign finance reform package. You will speak for
approximately 15 to 20 minutes from a teleprompted text.
II. DISCUSSION
These remarks cover the topics of contributions limits by
PACs, political parties and individuals; the incumbency advantage
(including the use of excess campaign funds, and perpetuation of
incumbency through redistricting) ; soft money and the need for
full disclosure, and banning honoraria.
Davis/Martin
June 28, 1989
Draft: Four
Title: Campaign
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
JUNE 29, 1989/2 p.m.
Thank you. ((Acknowledgements)
((I have to admit, I feel a little awkward giving a speech
at this particular place
all those years of being told not
to speak out-loud in a library. ))
The Library of Congress has been called the diary of the
American people. In truth, it is a diary of the human race. And
in the million stories of achievement it has to tell, one truth
is revealed above all others: That for all its blemishes,
government of the people is the greatest achievement of all.
As I look around me, I see the best and the brightest of a
new generation. For you, this summer of independence is just a
sweet taste of adulthood. Trust me, freedom is not as far-off as
it seems. Whatever you do in Washington -- page or intern -- you
are apprentices in a noble profession -- public service.
We exalt public service because we do not exalt our
government. We keep government close, close to the people it is
meant to serve. And there is another fundamental concept in our
2
way of governing -- reform. Ours is not a perfect government.
It is a government constantly perfected.
A steadily improving government is the result of our open
political system. And in this system, elections are more than
the deadlines of democracy; they are the marketplace of ideas.
They are not just contests between individuals -- they are
contests between philosophies. When this sharp edge of
competition is dulled, democracy loses.
STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES
In April, I proposed comprehensive ethics legislation for
all branches of government. Today, I call on Congress to pass
that package. But I also want to address other problems -- how
to free our electoral system from the grip of special interests,
how to spur the free competition of ideas.
You have often heard me speak of the necessity of
bipartisanship. And I do strongly believe we must work together
when dealing with the most difficult challenges facing our
country -- not as partisans -- but as Americans.
But we will not -- and should not -- cease to be Republicans
and Democrats. True, the Founding Fathers envisioned no role for
parties. Yet 200 years of political experience has shown their
value. Political parties clarify and sharpen debate. They shape
3
coalitions of like-minded people, giving millions of working
Americans an effective way to support their beliefs and advance
their candidates. Parties are the indispensable organizers of
democracy.
Yet times have changed. Today's special-interest Political
Action Committees and their $160 million warchest overshadow the
great parties of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. As the
strength of our parties erodes, so does the strength of our
political system. Distinctions between candidates become
muddled, and Congressional debate lacks coherence and discipline.
By necessity, Members of Congress engage in time-consuming and
often degrading appeals for money outside the party structure.
As vigorous competition between candidates, and between ideas,
wanes, the clear winner in the race for PAC dollars is
incumbency.
Some believe public financing is the best answer. I do not.
If we exclude individuals from the process, we exclude the
public. Ironically, this is the end result of public financing.
It also would force taxpayers to support extremist candidates
they abhor. It would be a siphon from the U.S. Treasury, already
in deficit, to campaign coffers. Public financing would do
nothing to strengthen the parties; if anything, it would
strengthen the status quo. We don't need more money in the
system. We need to offer the voters more choice.
4
Spending limits are not the answer either. Spending limits
are nothing but incumbent protection plans. If candidates have
equal resources, incumbents will hold a tremendous advantage.
The answer is reform. We need reforms that curtail the role
of special interests, enhance the role of the individual and
strengthen the parties. So today, I propose just that -- a
sweeping reform of our system. More than 90 percent of all PAC
contributions come from PACs sponsored by corporations, unions
and trade associations. So the cornerstone of our reform is the
elimination of all special-interest Political Action Committees.
*** I propose the elimination of Congressional leadership
PACs, through which Members of Congress bid for the loyalty of
their colleagues.
*** I propose to end a practice known as "bundling," where
business and unions encourage or coerce contributions from
employees or members, and then give these contributions as a
single donation.
As these reforms curtail special-interest money, we must
increase the role of the parties. I propose to more than double
the amount of money parties may donate to congressional
campaigns. Increasing party donations to federal candidates will
5
allow legislators to spend more time legislating and less time
raising money. It will give challengers the means to compete
with incumbents. And it will allow all candidates to avoid
having to raise money from special interests.
Still, some PACs should remain because they are protected by
the First Amendment. These independent PACs account for about
ten percent of all contributions. But even these I would limit,
by reducing their allowable contributions to federal candidates
from $5,000 to the same as individuals -- $1,000. And new laws
must keep such PACs unaffiliated and independent, so a business
or labor group could not use them as a backdoor means of
influencing the process.
CLEANING UP THE SYSTEM
We must do more to truly clean up the system. The basic
strength of today's system is disclosure. Yet most money spent
in American elections is not disclosed. This little known area
of campaign finance law called "soft money" concerns dollars
spent on voter turnout efforts.
I call on Congress to join me in mandating full disclosure
of all soft money contributions by the political parties, as well
as corporations, unions and trade associations.
6
Other laws govern independent expenditure groups, which can
spend any amount of money to elect or defeat a candidate so long
as their activities are not coordinated with those of a
particular candidate. While scme of these groups perform a
public service, too often they mask the motives of hidden
contributors, acting as mercenary character assassins. Often,
they deceive the public into thinking that they are a candidate's
campaign. Yet all independent expenditure groups -- the good and
the bad alike -- are protected by the Constitution. In order to
provide more information to the public, I propose that such
groups should be required to more clearly identify the person or
organization behind them.
I also propose to strengthen the Supreme Court's Beck
decision, so that no member of a union can be forced to
contribute dues to political activities he or she doesn't
support. To coerce political donations from working men and
women is unfair and un-American. This practice must stop.
REDRESSING THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
The third, and final area of reform directly concerns
Congressional conduct. Jefferson envisioned a Congress of
citizen-politicians, who suspended their careers in law, medicine
and agriculture to serve the nation. How far we've come from
that simple vision. Today, incumbents stay in office for
7
decades, amassing huge warchests to scare off strong challenges
in election after election.
This is not democracy in the spirit of Madison and
Jefferson. This is not the spirit of democracy at all. I renew
my proposal to end the "rollover" of campaign warchests,
requiring all excess campaign funds to be donated to the parties,
to a fund to retire the national debt or be given back to the
contributors.
Under our current law, 190 House Members in office in 1980
can also use their leftover campaign money as a personal
retirement fund -- pocketing hundreds of thousands -- even
millions -- of dollars when they leave office. Senators are
allowed to convert these funds for official use. Congress should
pack up this golden parachute.
Another area in need of reform is redistricting -- the way
in which parties in power ignore community boundaries and draw
district lines favorable to their candidates. This
gerrymandering is why many Congressional Districts look like
creatures my youngest grandchildren would draw.
The permanent majority that results from non-competitive
elections is rock solid. Despite the stark differences between
the two national parties, of the 435 seats in the House, 387 --
8
or 90 percent -- have not switched parties since 1982. Perhaps
California provides the best example, where only one seat in 135
elections changed parties in the 1980s.
No single factor is more basic to restoring competitive
elections than ensuring fair redistricting in 1990. I propose a
new criteria for redistricting, without favor to party, to
respect community and traditional lines. We must draw district
lines that respect the needs of the people, not tailor them to
the political needs of the parties.
Finally, I propose to go a step further to solve the most
egregious wrong in American public life. As it stands, members
of Congress can supplement their incomes by as much as 40 percent
by making speeches before special-interest groups. This is
wrong. That's why I said on April 12 I would support a ban on
honoraria. I continue to oppose this practice.
Furthermore, I will send to the Congress next week a
separate proposal outlining an orderly process for phasing out
honoraria and addressing the thorny problem of compensation. I
have already stated my support for a 25 percent increase for
judges and look forward to productive work with the congressional
leadership regarding Congressional and Executive pay.
9
CONCLUSION
This year, as Congress observes its 200th anniversary.
( (Number)) thousand Americans have served in the House and Senate
in the history of our Republic. A few names on this roster are
infamous, associated with scandal or remembered as demagogues.
But the Bilbos and the McCarthys are few. Most have served in
the greater tradition of Russell and Rayburn, Dirksen and
Mansfield, Dole and Mitchell. Some day, you may follow this
path, the path to greatness and achievement through public
service. And if you do, I hope the laws that govern our
campaigns and our Congress are as just and honest as the majority
of those who serve the public.
This vast and honest majority in Congress live the words of
George Washington, who said the noblest title in the world isn't
President, or Senator, or Congressman -- but "Honest Man. "
Whatever you do in life, you can have no higher title than
that. Thank you, God bless you and God bless America.
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1989
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
CHRISS WINSTON
FROM:
MARK DAVIS
SUBJECT:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SPEECH
I. SUMMARY
On Thursday, June 29, 1989, you will address an audience of
400 congressional, executive and Administration interns at the
Library of Congress. The purpose of this speech is to announce
the new campaign finance reform package. You will speak for
approximately 15 to 20 minutes from a teleprompted text.
II. DISCUSSION
These remarks cover the topics of contributions limits by
PACs, political parties and individuals; the incumbency advantage
(including the use of excess campaign funds, and perpetuation of
incumbency through redistricting) ; soft money and the need for
full disclosure, and banning honoraria.
6/28/89
mark,
Check facts -- - -
addition page 7
Thanks - -
Patty
Davis/Martin
June 28, 1989
Draft: Five
Title: Campaign
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
JUNE 29, 1989/2 p.m.
Thank you. ((Acknowledgements))
((I have to admit, I feel a little awkward giving a speech
at this particular place
all those years of being told not
to speak out-loud in a library.) )
The Library of Congress has been called the diary of the
American people. In truth, it is a diary of the human race. And
in the million stories of achievement it has to tell, one truth
is revealed above all others: That for all its blemishes,
government of the people is the greatest achievement of all.
As I look around me, I see the best and the brightest of a
new generation. For you, this summer of independence is just a
sweet taste of adulthood. Trust me, freedom is not as far-off as
it seems. Whatever you do in Washington -- page or intern -- you
are apprentices in a noble profession -- public service.
We exalt public service because we do not exalt our
government. We keep government close, close to the people it is
meant to serve. And there is another fundamental concept in our
2
way of governing -- reform. Ours is not a perfect government.
It is a government constantly perfected.
A steadily improving government is the result of our open
political system. And in this system, elections are more than
the deadlines of democracy; they are the marketplace of ideas.
They are not just contests between individuals -- they are
contests between philosophies. When this sharp edge of
competition is dulled, democracy loses.
STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES
In April, I proposed comprehensive ethics legislation for
all branches of government. Today, I call on Congress to pass
that package. But I also want to address other problems -- how
to free our electoral system from the grip of special interests,
how to spur the free competition of ideas.
You have often heard me speak of the necessity of
bipartisanship. And I do strongly believe we must work together
when dealing with the most difficult challenges facing our
country -- not as partisans -- but as Americans.
But we will not -- and should not -- cease to be Republicans
and Democrats. True, the Founding Fathers envisioned no role for
parties. Yet 200 years of political experience has shown their
value. Political parties clarify and sharpen debate. They shape
3
coalitions of like-minded people, giving millions of working
Americans an effective way to support their beliefs and advance
their candidates. Parties are the indispensable organizers of
democracy.
Yet times have changed. Today's special-interest Political
Action Committees and their $160 million warchest overshadow the
great parties of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. As the
strength of our parties erodes, so does the strength of our
political system. Distinctions between candidates become
muddled, and Congressional debate lacks coherence and discipline.
By necessity, Members of Congress engage in time-consuming and
often degrading appeals for money outside the party structure.
As vigorous competition between candidates, and between ideas,
wanes, the clear winner in the race for PAC dollars is
incumbency.
Some believe public financing is the best answer. I do not.
If we exclude individuals from the process, we exclude the
public. Ironically, this is the end result of public financing.
It also would force taxpayers to support extremist candidates
they abhor. It would be a siphon from the U.S. Treasury, already
in deficit, to campaign coffers. Public financing would do
nothing to strengthen the parties; if anything, it would
strengthen the status quo. We don't need more money in the
system. We need to offer the voters more choice.
4
Spending limits are not the answer either. If candidates
have equal resources, incumbents will hold a tremendous
advantage. Spending limits amount to an incumbent protection
plan.
The answer is reform. We need reforms that curtail the role
of special interests, enhance the role of the individual and
strengthen the parties. So today, I propose just that -- a
sweeping reform of our system. More than 90 percent of all PAC
contributions come from PACs sponsored by corporations, unions
and trade associations. So the cornerstone of our reform is the
elimination of all special-interest Political Action Committees.
*** I propose the elimination of Congressional leadership
PACs, through which Members of Congress bid for the loyalty of
their colleagues.
*** I propose to end a practice known as "bundling," where
business and unions encourage or coerce contributions from
employees or members, and then give these contributions as a
single donation.
As these reforms curtail special-interest money, we must
encourage the role of the parties. I propose to more than double
the amount of money parties may donate to congressional
5
campaigns. Increasing party donations to federal candidates will
allow legislators to spend more time legislating and less time
raising money. It will give challengers the means to compete
with incumbents. And it will allow all candidates to avoid
having to raise money from special interests.
Still, some PACs should remain because they are protected by
the First Amendment. These independent PACs account for about
ten percent of all contributions. But even these I would limit,
by halving their allowable contributions to federal candidates
from $5,000 to $2,500. And new laws must keep such PACs
unaffiliated and independent, so a business or labor group could
not use them as a backdoor means of influencing the process.
CLEANING UP THE SYSTEM
We must do more to truly clean up the system. The basic
strength of today's system is disclosure. Yet most money spent
in American elections is not disclosed. This little known area
of campaign finance law called "soft money" concerns dollars
spent on voter turnout efforts. I call on Congress to join me in
mandating full disclosure of all soft money contributions by the
political parties, as well as corporations, unions and trade
associations.
Other laws govern independent expenditure groups, which can
spend any amount of money to elect or defeat a candidate so long
6
as their activities are not coordinated with those of a
particular candidate. While some of these groups perform a
public service, too often they mask the motives of hidden
contributors, acting as mercenary character assassins. Often,
they deceive the public into thinking that they are a candidate's
campaign. Yet all independent expenditure groups -- the good and
the bad alike -- are protected by the Constitution. In order to
provide more information to the public, I propose that such
groups should be required to more clearly identify the person or
organization behind them.
I also propose to strengthen the Supreme Court's Beck
decision, SO that no member of a union can be forced to
contribute dues to political activities he or she doesn't
support. To coerce political donations from working men and
women is unfair and un-American. This practice must stop.
REDRESSING THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
The third, and final area of reform directly concerns the
powers of incumbency. Jefferson envisioned a Congress of
citizen-politicians, who suspended their careers in law, medicine
and agriculture to serve the nation. How far we've come from
that simple vision. Today, incumbents stay in office for
decades, amassing huge warchests to scare off strong challenges
in election after election.
7
7953
This is not democracy in the spirit of Madison and
Jefferson. This is not the spirit of democracy at all. I renew
my proposal to end the "rollover" of campaign warchests,
requiring all excess campaign funds to be donated to the parties,
to a fund to retire the national debt or be given back to the
funds a ruce am name fouther Presideng
contributors. This would apply to unspent
Under our current law, 190 House Members in office in 1980
can also use their leftover campaign money as a personal
retirement fund -- pocketing hundreds of thousands -- even
millions of dollars when they leave office. Senators are
allowed to convert these funds for official use.
people should running
finds future races. This practice should
for President can presently use suplus
end
Another advantage of incumbency arises from the way in which
Members of Congress use the public frank to pay for mass mailings
that amount to political advertising. The cost to the taxpayers
was more than $113 million in 1988. The cost to our democracy is
also steep. I propose to prohibit the use of the frank for
unsolicited mailings.
1
Yet another area in need of reform is redistricting -- the
way in which parties in power ignore community boundaries and
Male
draw district lines favorable to their candidates. This
gerrymandering is why many Congressional Districts look like
Personal mafair
creatures my youngest grandchildren would draw.
play!
must be about par
8
The permanent majority that results fromnon-combetitive
elections is rock solid. Despite the stark differences between
the two national parties, of the 435 seats in the House, 387 --
or 90 percent -- have not switched parties since 1982. Perhaps
California provides the best example, where only one seat in 135
elections changed parties in the 1980s. No single factor is more
basic to restoring competitive elections than ensuring fair
redistricting in 1990. I propose a new criteria for
redistricting, without favor to party, to respect community and
traditional lines. We must draw district lines that respect the
needs of the people, not tailor them to the political needs of
the parties.
Finally, in the next few days I will also send up
legislation to ban honoraria and to address certain aspects of
compensation for federal officials. This package will include a
25 percent pay increase for judges, which I have previously
recommended, a 25 percent increase for the Senior Executive
Service and senior level Presidential appointees, and a
substantial increase for a limited number of specialized
professionals -- such as nuclear scientists and surgeons -- where
the Executive Branch is not competitive. I will also work with
Congress on the development of details for increasing the pay of
those in the Congress, as well as the remainder of the Executive
Branch.
9
CONCLUSION
This year, as Congress observes its 200th anniversary,
eleven thousand Americans have served in the House and Senate in
the history of our Republic. A few on this roster are
infamous with scandar or remembered as demagogues.
But the Bilbos and the McCarthys are few. Most have served in
the greater tradition of Russell and Rayburn, Dirksen and
Mansfield, Dole and Mitchell. Some day, you may follow this
path, the path to greatness and achievement through public
service. And if you do, I hope the laws that govern our
campaigns and our Congress/ are as just and honest as the majority
lof those who serve the public.
This vast and honest majority in Congress live the words of
George Washington, who said the noblest title in the world isn't
President, or Senator, or Congressman -- but "Honest Man."
Whatever you do in life, you can have no higher title than
that. Thank you, God bless you and God bless America.
#
#
#
Davis/Martin
June 28, 1989
Draft: Five
Title: Campaign
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
JUNE 29, 1989/2 p.m.
Thank you. ((Acknowledgements)
((I have to admit, I feel a little awkward giving a speech
at this particular place
all those years of being told not
to speak out-loud in a library.) )
The Library of Congress has been called the diary of the
American people. In truth, it is a diary of the human race. And
in the million stories of achievement it has to tell, one truth
is revealed above all others: That for all its blemishes,
government of the people is the greatest achievement of all.
As I look around me, I see the best and the brightest of a
new generation. For you, this summer of independence is just a
sweet taste of adulthood. Trust me, freedom is not as far-off as
it seems. Whatever you do in Washington -- page or intern -- you
are apprentices in a noble profession -- public service.
We exalt public service because we do not exalt our
government. We keep government close, close to the people it is
meant to serve. And there is another fundamental concept in our
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 28, 1989
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH:
CHRISS WINSTON
FROM:
MARK DAVIS
SUBJECT:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SPEECH
I. SUMMARY
On Thursday, June 29, 1989, you will address an audience of
400 congressional, executive and Administration interns at the
Library of Congress. The purpose of this speech is to announce
the new campaign finance reform package. You will speak for
approximately 15 to 20 minutes from a teleprompted text.
II. DISCUSSION
These remarks cover the topics of contributions limits by
PACs, political parties and individuals; the incumbency advantage
(including the use of excess campaign funds, and perpetuation of
incumbency through redistricting) ; soft money and the need for
full disclosure, and banning honoraria.
2
way of governing -- reform. Ours is not a perfect government.
It is a government constantly perfected.
A steadily improving government is the result of our open
political system. And in this system, elections are more than
the deadlines of democracy; they are the marketplace of ideas.
They are not just contests between individuals -- they are
contests between philosophies. When this sharp edge of
competition is dulled, democracy loses.
STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES
In April, I proposed comprehensive ethics legislation for
all branches of government. Today, I call on Congress to pass
that package. But I also want to address other problems -- how
to free our electoral system from the grip of special interests,
how to spur the free competition of ideas.
You have often heard me speak of the necessity of
bipartisanship. And I do strongly believe we must work together
when dealing with the most difficult challenges facing our
country -- not as partisans -- but as Americans.
But we will not -- and should not -- cease to be Republicans
and Democrats. True, the Founding Fathers envisioned no role for
parties. Yet 200 years of political experience has shown their
value. Political parties clarify and sharpen debate. They shape
3
coalitions of like-minded people, giving millions of working
Americans an effective way to support their beliefs and advance
their candidates. Parties are the indispensable organizers of
democracy.
Yet times have changed. Today's special-interest Political
Action Committees and their $160 million warchest overshadow the
great parties of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. As the
strength of our parties erodes, so does the strength of our
political system. Distinctions between candidates become
muddled, and Congressional debate lacks coherence and discipline.
By necessity, Members of Congress engage in time-consuming and
often degrading appeals for money outside the party structure.
As vigorous competition between candidates, and between ideas,
wanes, the clear winner in the race for PAC dollars is
incumbency.
Some believe public financing is the best answer. I do not.
If we exclude individuals from the process, we exclude the
public. Ironically, this is the end result of public financing.
It also would force taxpayers to support extremist candidates
they abhor. It would be a siphon from the U.S. Treasury, already
in deficit, to campaign coffers. Public financing would do
nothing to strengthen the parties; if anything, it would
strengthen the status quo. We don't need more money in the
system. We need to offer the voters more choice.
4
Spending limits are not the answer either. If candidates
have equal resources, incumbents will hold a tremendous
advantage. Spending limits amount to an incumbent protection
plan.
The answer is reform. We need reforms that curtail the role
of special interests, enhance the role of the individual and
strengthen the parties. So today, I propose just that -- a
sweeping reform of our system. More than 90 percent of all PAC
contributions come from PACs sponsored by corporations, unions
and trade associations. So the cornerstone of our reform is the
elimination of all special-interest Political Action Committees.
*** I propose the elimination of Congressional leadership
PACs, through which Members of Congress bid for the loyalty of
their colleagues.
*** I propose to end a practice known as "bundling," where
business and unions encourage or coerce contributions from
employees or members, and then give these contributions as a
single donation.
As these reforms curtail special-interest money, we must
encourage the role of the parties. I propose to more than double
the amount of money parties may donate to congressional
5
campaigns. Increasing party donations to federal candidates will
allow legislators to spend more time legislating and less time
raising money. It will give challengers the means to compete
with incumbents. And it will allow all candidates to avoid
having to raise money from special interests.
Still, some PACs should remain because they are protected by
the First Amendment. These independent PACs account for about
ten percent of all contributions. But even these I would limit,
by halving their allowable contributions to federal candidates
from $5,000 to $2,500. And new laws must keep such PACs
unaffiliated and independent, so a business or labor group could
not use them as a backdoor means of influencing the process.
CLEANING UP THE SYSTEM
We must do more to truly clean up the system. The basic
strength of today's system is disclosure. Yet most money spent
in American elections is not disclosed. This little known area
of campaign finance law called "soft money" concerns dollars
spent on voter turnout efforts. I call on Congress to join me in
mandating full disclosure of all soft money contributions by the
political parties, as well as corporations, unions and trade
associations.
Other laws govern independent expenditure groups, which can
spend any amount of money to elect or defeat a candidate so long
6
as their activities are not coordinated with those of a
particular candidate. While some of these groups perform a
public service, too often they mask the motives of hidden
contributors, acting as mercenary character assassins. Often,
they deceive the public into thinking that they are a candidate's
campaign. Yet all independent expenditure groups -- the good and
the bad alike -- are protected by the Constitution. In order to
provide more information to the public, I propose that such
groups should be required to more clearly identify the person or
organization behind them.
I also propose to strengthen the Supreme Court's Beck
decision, so that no member of a union can be forced to
contribute dues to political activities he or she doesn't
support. To coerce political donations from working men and
women is unfair and un-American. This practice must stop.
REDRESSING THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
The third, and final area of reform directly concerns the
powers of incumbency. Jefferson envisioned a Congress of
citizen-politicians, who suspended their careers in law, medicine
and agriculture to serve the nation. How far we've come from
that simple vision. Today, incumbents stay in office for
decades, amassing huge warchests to scare off strong challenges
in election after election.
7
This is not democracy in the spirit of Madison and
Jefferson. This is not the spirit of democracy at all. I renew
my proposal to end the "rollover" of campaign warchests,
requiring all excess campaign funds to be donated to the parties,
to a fund to retire the national debt or be given back to the
contributors.
Under our current law, 190 House Members in office in 1980
can also use their leftover campaign money as a personal
retirement fund -- pocketing hundreds of thousands -- even
millions -- of dollars when they leave office. Senators are
allowed to convert these funds for official use. Congress should
pack up this golden parachute.
Another advantage of incumbency arises from the way in which
Members of Congress use the public frank to pay for slick direct-
mail advertising. The cost to the taxpayers was more than $113
million in 1988. The cost to our democracy is incalculable. I
propose limiting the use of the frank by capping mass mailings
for Members to once a year -- on newsletters to be mailed only in
December, January or February.
Yet another area in need of reform is redistricting -- the
way in which parties in power ignore community boundaries and
draw district lines favorable to their candidates. This
8
gerrymandering is why many Congressional Districts look like
creatures my youngest grandchildren would draw.
The permanent majority that results from non-competitive
elections is rock solid. Despite the stark differences between
the two national parties, of the 435 seats in the House, 387 --
or 90 percent -- have not switched parties since 1982. Perhaps
California provides the best example, where only one seat in 135
elections changed parties in the 1980s. No single factor is more
basic to restoring competitive elections than ensuring fair
redistricting in 1990. I propose a new criteria for
redistricting, without favor to party, to respect community and
traditional lines. We must draw district lines that respect the
needs of the people, not tailor them to the political needs of
the parties.
Finally, in the next few days I will also send up
legislation to ban honoraria and to address certain aspects of
compensation for federal officials. This package will include a
25 percent pay increase for judges, which I have previously
recommended, a 25 percent increase for the Senior Executive
Service and senior level Presidential appointees, and a
substantial increase for a limited number of specialized
professionals -- such as nuclear scientists and surgeons -- where
the Executive Branch is not competitive. I will also work with
Congress on the development of details for increasing the pay of
1
9
those in the Congress, as well as the remainder of the Executive
Branch.
CONCLUSION
This year, as Congress observes its 200th anniversary.
Eleven thousand Americans have served in the House and Senate in
the history of our Republic. A few names on this roster are
infamous, associated with scandal or remembered as demagogues.
But the Bilbos and the McCarthys are few. Most have served in
the greater tradition of Russell and Rayburn, Dirksen and
Mansfield, Dole and Mitchell. Some day, you may follow this
path, the path to greatness and achievement through public
service. And if you do, I hope the laws that govern our
campaigns and our Congress are as just and honest as the majority
of those who serve the public.
This vast and honest majority in Congress live the words of
George Washington, who said the noblest title in the world isn't
President, or Senator, or Congressman -- but "Honest Man."
Whatever you do in life, you can have no higher title than
that. Thank you, God bless you and God bless America.
#
#
#
Document No. 04841955
CLOSE HOLD
5096
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
6/27/89
6/28/89 NOON
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
BREEDEN
ROGERS
CARD
WINSTON
CICCONI
PINKERTON
DEMAREST
WRAY
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to Chriss Winston, Rm.
122, x2930, no later than NOON, Wednesday, June 28, 1989,
with an info copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
TO: CHRISS WINSTON
June 28, 1989
The NSC concurs with Congress address with a change
on page 9.
CLOSE HOLD
Brent Retur Scowgroft
James W. Clcconi
Assistant to the President
CC: James W. Cicconi
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
Davis/Martin
June 26, 1989
Draft: Two
Title: Campaign
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
JUNE 29, 1989/2 p.m.
Thank you. ((Acknowledgements/Joke))
((I have to admit, I feel a little awkward giving a speech
at this particular place
all those years of being told not
to speak out-loud in a library.) )
The Library of Congress has been called the diary of the
American people. In truth, it is a diary of the human race. And
in the million stories of achievement it has to tell, one truth
is revealed above all others: That for all its blemishes,
government of the people is the greatest achievement of all.
As I look around me, I see the best and the brightest of a
new generation. Some of you are interns. And for you, this
summer of independence is just a sweet taste of adulthood. Trust
me, freedom is not as far-off as it seems. Others, I see, have
already embarked on the great adventure of a career. But
whatever you do in Washington -- page, intern or a Congressional
aide -- you are apprentices in a noble profession -- public
service.
2
We exalt public service precisely because we do not exalt
our government. We keep it close, close to the people it is
meant to serve. And there is another fundamental concept in our
way of governing -- reform. Ours is not a perfect government.
It is a government which is being constantly perfected.
Every abuse in our political system has been followed by
reform; and every cycle of reform has left the American political
process more honest, more democratic.
The reforms of the early seventies were a vast improvement
over the old system, bringing openness and accountability to
federal campaign finance and public ethics. But these reforms
have clearly not gone far enough. As a former Member of
Congress, I care deeply about protecting the reputation and
integrity of this institution. Recent events give us all cause
for concern.
Recent scandals are but symptoms of a pervasive disease --
the growing lack of competition within our political system. At
one time, as much as (twenty?) percent of Congressional
incumbents lost to challengers. Today, the re-election rate of
incumbents in the House of Representatives is better than 98
percent. A political body, like a river, must be in constant
flow to remain fresh and clean. But a permanent House with a
permanent majority is as unhealthy as a stagnant pond.
3
STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES
There is yet another fundamental problem -- the erosion of
the political party as a force in American political life. You
have often heard me speak of the necessity of bipartisanship.
And I do strongly believe we must work together when dealing with
the most difficult challenges facing our country -- not as
partisans -- but as Americans.
But we will not -- and should not -- cease to be Republicans
and Democrats. True, the Founding Fathers envisioned no role for
parties. Yet 200 years of political experience has taught us
that parties are the indispensable organizers of democracy. Our
political parties clarify and sharpen debate. They shape
coalitions of like-minded people, giving millions of working
Americans an effective way to support their beliefs and advance
their candidates. A political party is a meeting house for the
nation.
Yet the great parties of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln
have been overshadowed by the emergence of special interest PACs,
armed with a $160 billion warchest. As parties are weakened,
distinctions between candidates become muddled, and Congressional
policy lacks coherence. Members of Congress are forced to engage
in time-consuming and often degrading appeals for money. And
4
vigorous competition between candidates, and between ideas,
becomes muted.
Some believe public financing is the best answer. I do not.
Public financing would do nothing to strengthen the parties,
while directly involving government in the political process. It
would force taxpayers to support extremist candidates they abhor.
And it would be a siphon from the U.S. Treasury, already in
deficit, to campaign coffers. Such a public-finance regime could
be too easily subverted -- dangerous to democracy.
What, then, is the answer? Today, I propose a sweeping
reform of our system. And the cornerstone of this reform is
nothing less than the elimination of all business, union and
trade association Political Action Committees.
Some PACs will still exist because they are protected by the
First Amendment. These free-standing or ideological PACs, like
the Sierra Club or ((the National Taxpayers Union)), account for
about ten percent of all contributions. But even these I would
limit, by halving their contributions to federal candidates from
$5,000 to $2,500. And new laws must keep such PACs unaffiliated
and independent, so a business or labor group could not use them
as a backdoor means of influencing the process.
5
I also propose the elimination of Congressional leadership
PACs, through which Members of Congress bid for the loyalty of
their colleagues. In addition, all transfers between PACs must
be eliminated, and each candidate or incumbent must have only one
PAC.
We must especially eliminate a dishonest practice known as
"bundling," where business and unions encourage or coerce
contributions from employees or members, and then give these
contributions as a single donation.
As these reforms stem special-interest public finance, we
must allow the parties to make the difference. Because their
financial contributions come from many sources, parties donate
funds free of the taint of special interest. I propose to more
than double the amount of money parties may donate to
congressional campaigns, and liberalize the restrictions on party
contributions. Political parties must not be treated as if they
were mere special-interest PACs. They should resume their
fundamental role in American democracy.
CLEANING UP THE SYSTEM
But the elimination of special interest PACs still does not
go far enough in cleaning up our system of financing federal
campaigns. The basic strength of today's system is disclosure.
Why not open the books for all to see?
6
In a post-PAC era, corporations, unions and trade
associations will need an open way to participate in our
democracy. Our proposal would allow organizations to participate
in get-out-the-vote activities --- provided they make a full
disclosure of their contributions and activities.
This brings me to a little known and shadowy area of finance
law called "soft money," concerning dollars spent on voter
turnout efforts. Full disclosure is the premise behind our
federal campaign finance law. Yet most money spent in American
elections is not disclosed. I call on Congress to join me in
mandating full disclosure of all soft money contributions,
including voter registration and get-out-the vote activities.
Other laws govern independent expenditure groups, which can
spend any amount of money to elect or defeat a candidate so long
as their activities are not coordinated with those of a
particular candidate. While some of these groups perform a
public service, too often they mask the motives of hidden
contributors, acting as mercenary character assassins. Yet all
independent expenditure groups -- the good and the bad alike --
are protected by a Supreme Court ruling.
If there are to be such independent expenditure groups, at
least they should have to disclose all their expenditures. Such
7
groups should also be required to more clearly identify the
person or organization behind them. And those candidates who
believe they are victims of an illegal collusion between an
independent expenditure group and another campaign should be
guaranteed a hearing before the Federal Election Commission
within three days. At the very least, we can allow victims of
such attacks a public forum to respond.
I also propose to strengthen the Supreme Court's Beck
decision, so that no member of a union can be forced to
contribute dues to political activities he or she doesn't
support. To coerce political donations from working men and
women is unfair and un-American. This practice must stop.
The package I have outlined is comprehensive. If it is to
become law, all the major provisions must be passed -- otherwise,
our reforms, like so many of the past, will spawn further
unintended abuses.
REDRESSING THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
The third, and final area of reform directly concerns
Congressional conduct. Jefferson envisioned a Congress of
citizen-politicians, who suspended their careers in law, medicine
and agriculture to serve the nation. How far we've come from
that simple vision. Today, incumbents stay in office for
8
decades, amassing huge warchests to scare off strong challenges
in election after election.
This is not democracy in the spirit of Madison and
Jefferson. This is not the spirit of democracy at all. I renew
my proposal to end these "rollovers," requiring all excess
campaign funds to be donated to the parties, to a fund to retire
the national debt or be given back to the contributors.
Under our current law, 190 House Members who were elected
before 1980 can also use their leftover campaign money as a
personal retirement fund -- pocketing hundreds of thousands --
even millions -- of dollars when they leave office. Senators
elected before 1980 are allowed to convert these funds for
official use. Congress should bag this golden parachute.
I also propose to solve the most egregious wrong in American
public life. As it stands, members of Congress can supplement
their incomes by as much as 40 percent by making speeches before
special-interest groups. I said on April 12 I would support a
pay raise for Members of Congress. I have consulted with
Congress on such a raise. And now that I recommend a pay raise
for the executive, judicial and legislative branches, I also call
for phase out of honoraria.
9
Finally, allow me to turn your attention toward
redistricting -- the way in which parties in power ignore
community boundaries and draw district lines favorable to their
candidates. This gerrymandering (GARY-mandering) is why many
Congressional Districts look like something my youngest
grandchildren would draw.
Elections are nothing less than the marketplace of ideas
from which the people choose. They are not just contests between
individuals -- they are contests between philosophies. When this
sharp edge of competition is dulled, democracy loses. No single
factor is more basic to this competition than ensuring fair
Singular
criterion
redistricting in 1990. I propose a new criterig for
redistricting, without favor to party, to respect community and
traditional lines. We must draw district lines that are tailored
to the needs of the people, not to the political needs of
parties.
CONCLUSION
This year, as Congress observes its 200th anniversary.
( (Number)) thousand Americans have served in the House and Senate
in the history of our Republic. A few names on this roster are
infamous, associated with scandal or remembered as demagogues.
But the Bilbos and the McCarthys are few. Most have served in
the greater tradition of Clay and Webster, Dirksen and Mansfield,
Dole and Mitchell. Some day, you may follow this path, the path
10
to greatness and glory through public service. And when you do,
I hope the laws that govern our campaigns and our Congress are as
just and honest as the majority of those who serve the public.
This vast and honest majority in Congress live the words of
George Washington, who said the noblest title in the world isn't
President, or Senator, or Congressman -- but "Honest Man."
Whatever you do in life, you can have no higher title than
that. Thank you, God bless you and God bless America.
#
#
#
OLUDE HULD
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
6/27/89
6/28/89 NOON
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
SUBJECT:
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
BREEDEN
ROGERS
CARD
WINSTON
CICCONI
PINKERTON
DEMAREST
WRAY
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to Chriss Winston, (Rm.
122, x2930, no later than NOON, Wednesday, June 28, 1989,
with an info copy to my office. Thank you.
rd 68
28
RESPONSE:
No 6/28/99 CLOSE HOLD
James W. Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702