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
323154569
label
Library of Congress / PAC's 6/89 [OA 8748] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323154569
contentType
document
title
Library of Congress / PAC's 6/89 [OA 8748] [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13872-015
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Mark Davis Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323154569
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e66ed7476f92ad1f
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:
Davis, Mark, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1989-1991
OA/ID Number:
13872
Folder ID Number:
13872-015
Folder Title:
Library of Congress / PACs, 6/89 [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
19
2
6
5
Document No.
CLOSE HOLD
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
6/26/89
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL DECISIONS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
BREEDEN
WRAY
CARD
CICCONI
DEMAREST
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
CLOSE HOLD
RESPONSE:
James W, Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Memo
C. Boyden Gray to POTUS, Re: Campaign Finance Reform
06/23/89
Package. (15 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Davis, Mark William
Subseries:
Subject File
Open on Expiration of PRA
WHORM Cat.:
(Document Follows)
File Location:
Library of Congress/ PACS 6/89 [2]
By
CAP
(NLGB) on 1/19/09
Date Closed:
12/13/2004
OA/ID Number:
13872-015
FOIA/SYS Case #:
S
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0481-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
June 23, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
set
FROM:
C. BOYDEN GRAY
8th
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
WHITE HOUSE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM WORKING GROUP
SUBJECT:
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PACKAGE
ACTION-FORCING EVENT
In your April 12 address to the American Society of Newspaper
Editors, you announced that you had instructed your staff to
perform a comprehensive review of campaign finance reform. This
memorandum is a product of such a review by a White House working
group which included representatives from the Offices of Counsel
to the President, Political Affairs, Policy Development,
Legislative Affairs, and the Republican National Committee (the
"Working Group"). The Working Group has met periodically over
the past two months, both on its own to consider various
proposals, and with representatives from the Senate, the House,
corporate and trade association PACs, ideological groups, and
Republican political professionals.
The meetings with the various constituency groups produced a
consensus from Republican partisans that the President's package
should be an innovative measure which breaks through the
Republican "fat cat" stereotype and takes cutting edge positions
on specific issues for which there may not yet be a consensus on
the Hill because of the self-interests of various Members.
Our starting point for the proposals outlined below was the four
points articulated in your April 12 speech. First, you announced
that the Administration's ethics bill which went to the Hill that
day would include a prohibition against converting congressional
campaign funds to personal or office use. Second, you stressed
the need to strengthen political parties. Third, you stated
that, "I believe we should eliminate contributions to candidates
by political action committees, and I'll be consulting with
-2-
Congress about that." In that context, you noted that, "PACs
weaken the parties, restrain competition, and deaden the
political debate." Finally, you opposed public financing of
Congressional elections. The Working Group has attempted to
develop a comprehensive campaign finance reform package which is
consistent with your bold proposal on PACs and the general themes
of strengthening parties, increasing competition and fairness in
elections, and curtailing special interests.
Part of the backdrop for these deliberations is the burgeoning
ethics crisis in the House which demonstrates the inherent
dangers of a Congress too long dominated by one party. This
crisis follows the 1988 elections in which 99.2% of the
incumbents in the House who sought re-election were re-elected
under a campaign finance system where 62% of PAC contributions
went to Democrats and 76% went to incumbents. In elections
between incumbent House Democrats and Republican challengers, the
numbers are even more striking: Democrat incumbents received
$54.3 million in PAC contributions compared to the $2.4 million
for Republican challengers.
The Working Group has divided its proposals into four broad
areas: (I) Contribution Limits by PACs, Political Parties and
Individuals; (II) the Incumbency Advantage, including the use of
excess campaign funds, the political advantages of holding
office, and perpetuation of incumbency through redistricting;
(III) Soft Money and the need for full disclosure, and (IV)
Banning Honoraria.
I. CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
A. PACs
1. ANALYSIS
In your April 12 speech, you stated your belief that PAC
contributions to candidates should be eliminated. Under current
law, there are two general categories of PACs: those which are
sponsored by, or affiliated with, corporations, unions and trade
associations, and those which are not sponsored or affiliated,
the so-called "non-connected" or "ideological" PACs. The bulk of
PAC contributions come from corporate, union and trade
association PACs: they accounted for nearly 90% of total PAC
giving in 1988.
Because of freedom of association and freedom of expression
guarantees found in the First Amendment, it may be impossible to
ban all contributions to candidates from non-connected PACs.
Our proposal is to ban corporate, union, and trade association
PACs, which essentially would return the law to its pre-Federal
copt
-3-
Election Campaign Act of 1971 status. In addition, we would
reduce the contribution limit for the remaining non-connected
PACs from $5,000 to $1,000 per candidate per election. (A second
option would be to reduce the limit to $2,500. This is consistent
with some congressional proposals and is preferred by some of the
conservative ideological groups.) This proposal would sharply
reduce overall PAC giving. Using 1988 PAC contribution figures,
the effect of this proposal would have been to eliminate at least
$140 million of the $160 million in PAC contributions.
If PAC contributions were curtailed as outlined above, other
elements of this package become crucial since such a ban has the
potential of: decreasing the role of business interests in the
campaign finance system, thereby increasing the relative
influence of labor unions; encouraging corporations, unions, and
trade associations to "bundle" individual contributions through
agents as a way to circumvent the limitation; and increasing the
number of independent expenditures.
It should be noted that the Working Group does not believe this
package will significantly affect the amount of money being spent
on elections. Instead, the reforms proposed will tend to re-
channel campaign funds away from special economic interest PAC
operatives inside the Beltway, and back to (a) the parties and
(b) direct individual donations (from both union members and
corporate employees).
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to achieve your objectives while creating a sound
overall system for campaign finance, the Working Group recommends
reforms in six specific areas: (a) banning corporate, union and
trade association PACs; (b) prohibiting candidates from having
more than one committee in order to end "leadership PACs"; (c)
tightening rules prohibiting economic special interests from
"bundling" individual contributions; (d) codifying the Beck
Supreme Court decision on union dues; (e) encouraging voter
participation programs by economic special interests; and (f)
increased reporting for independent expenditures.
Because change to one part of the campaign finance system has
consequences for other parts of the system as well, the Working
Group strongly recommends that all six reforms be undertaken as a
uniform package to lessen the risk of unintended consequences.
a) Banning PACs: The Working Group recommends eliminating
corporate, union, and trade association PACs. This would include
prohibiting any union, corporation, or trade association from
using its treasury money to pay for any PAC's administrative
costs or other political activities. It would also abolish any
payroll checkoff contributions to any PAC.
We also recommend that contributions by the remaining non-
connected PACs be reduced from $5,000 to $1,000 per candidate per
election. Another option would be to reduce such contributions
-4-
to $2,500. These non-connected PACs would continue to be allowed
to contribute $15,000 per year to national and $5,000 per year to
state political parties in order to strengthen the political
party structure. Further, the non-connected PACs would be able
to continue spending unlimited amounts of money on such
participatory activities as voter registration programs,
informing members and the public about elections, and conducting
get-out-the-vote activities. These so-called "soft money"
activities would become fully reportable and would provide those
PACs remaining a vehicle to participate meaningfully in the
electoral process.
Pro: -- Reduces the role of economic special interest
money.
Pro: --
Increases the role of political parties since the
role of PACs will diminish.
Pro: --
Equalizes the roles of corporations and union in
elections.
Pro:
--
Takes the high ground on PACs which, in this
ethics climate, is likely to be popular with the
public and press.
Con:
--
Eliminating corporate, union and trade
association PACs may reduce the number of
individiuals currently participating in the
system since many individuals give only to their
company's, union's or industry's PAC.
Con:
--
Danger that cutting off PAC contributions to
candidates will tend to increase independent
expenditures and encourage "bundling" abuse.
Con:
--
May not lead to increased PAC giving to political
parties, because many PACs believe they receive
benefits only by giving directly to candidates.
Con:
--
Retaining non-connected PACs may be viewed as a
loophole; i.e., employees or members of
corporations or labor unions could ban together
to establish "non-connected" PACs with informal
corporate, union, or trade association
sponsorship.
-5-
DECISION
Banning Corporate, Union, Trade Association PACs
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
DECISION -- Reducing Non-Connected PAC Limits
Approve
Option 1 ($1,000)
Option 2 ($2,500)
V
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
b) "Leadership PACs": We recommend that any legislation also
prohibit transfers between PACs, limit all candidates to a single
committee, and prohibit candidate's campaign committees from
contributing to other candidate's committees. This would
eliminate "leadership PACs" which allow entrenched incumbents to
spread special interest contributions to other candidates.
Pro: -- Discourages the proliferation of non-connected
PACs that may otherwise occur if economic special
interest PACs are banned.
Pro: -- Stops influential congressional leaders from
using economic special interest money to fund
their personal PACs so they can seek favor from
their colleagues.
Pro: -- Reform initially recommended by the PAC community.
Con: -- Opposition from those congressional leaders who
have raised and spent significant amounts in
seeking and maintaining positions in the
congressional leadership.
-6-
DECISION Leadership PACs
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
c) Bundling: Bundling is the practice where an organization (or
its officials) solicits many contributions from its employees or
members at a central location, bundles them together and sends
them to the candidate without affecting the central
organization's contribution limits. We recommend tightening the
existing laws prohibiting bundling, except that such restrictions
would not apply to political parties.
Pro: -- Necessary to discourage economic special interests
from doing what their PACs did by instead having
corporate executives and union and trade
association officials pressure their colleagues
for individual contributions.
Con: --
It may be impossible to legislate away this
practice, so that money from economic self-
interests will still play a major role despite
PAC reform.
DECISION Bundling
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
d) Beck Codification: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Beck
should be codified so that a union member can stop his or her
mandatory dues from being used for political activities he or she
does not support. (This proposal received virtually unanimous
support from all individuals talked to by the Working Group.)
Pro:
-- Levels the playing field between union and
corporate interests.
-7-
Pro:
--
Unanimously supported by all outside groups
contacted by the Working Group.
Con:
--
Ensures strong opposition from organized labor
because of Beck codification (in conjunction with
the prohibition on labor treasury money for PAC
administrative costs).
DECISION
--
Beck Codification
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
e) Voter Participation Programs: Although corporations, unions,
and trade associations would not be permitted to sponsor PACs,
these entities would continue to be permitted to participate in
elections through voter registration programs, get-out-the-vote
activities and advocacy communications to their members.
However, this proposal would require full disclosure of all
monies spent for such activities. Under current law, such
activities are frequently not disclosed, resulting in massive
amounts of political activity and spending outside the scrutiny
of the public and the media.
Pro:
--
Encourages voter participation activities by
corporations, unions and trade associations,
which could lead to increased turnout.
Pro:
--
Increases disclosure of activities which affect
elections.
Con:
--
Full reporting will add to the regulatory burden
on corporations and labor unions.
DECISION
Voter Participation Programs
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
But will this conrect
No Action
past abuses A COPE, before abuses
that existed long
PAC problem alsze?
-8-
(f) Independent Expenditures: These expenditures could well
increase if economic special interest contributions to candidates
are barred and other PAC contributions reduced. We recommend
reporting requirements for any group conducting independent
expenditures be increased. Specifically, such groups would be
required to include additional notice throughout an ad
identifying the person or organization funding it. The Supreme
Court has ruled that independent expenditures are
constitutionally protected, so an airtight ban is impossible.
This reform would make the independent non-authorized nature of
such expenditures more public.
Pro:
:
Provides more public notice of independent
expenditures, which are often misleading and
often do not clearly include information on who
is sponsoring them.
Pro:
:
Restrictions on independent expenditures enjoy
bi-partisan support in Congress.
Con:
:
Restrictions on independent expenditures may have
a chilling effect on legitimate political debate.
DECISION
Independent Expenditures
Approve
indep. expenditure have
been abused
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
B. POLITICAL PARTIES
1. ANALYSIS
The April 12 ethics speech stressed that political parties should
be strengthened. As discussed above, proposed PAC limitations
alone may allow the political parties to regain influence.
Another way to strengthen political parties is to increase party
spending limits through increased coordinated expenditures. This
would also allow candidates to spend less time fundraising since
a larger amount of their funds could come from one set source.
Candidates would not be tainted by "special interest" money
because any such funds would come from a political party, and
candidates and contributors would have no way of knowing
precisely which special interest's money were going to which
campaign.
-9-
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group recommends increasing the coordinated expendi-
ture limits the parties may spend on behalf of congressional
candidates to 5¢ times the voting age population of the state,
adjusted for inflation (it is now 2¢ times the voting age
population, adjusted for inflation). This recommendation would
provide additional funds for the political party committees to
aid in their assuming a larger role in the process.
Pro:
Political parties would be strengthened because
they will play a larger role in funding
candidates.
Pro:
Candidates may spend less time fundraising
if the parties can contribute more.
Pro:
Individual candidates would not be tainted by
taking money from any one special interest since
funds will be provided by the parties.
Con:
--
To the extent the RNC is perceived as having an
upper hand in fundraising over the Democrats,
you could open yourself to criticism that these
recommendations simply represent political self-
interest.
3. DECISION
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
II. REFORM THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
A. EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS
1. ANALYSIS
Under the current law, incumbents amass huge war chests that
scare off challengers in election after election, thereby
insulating incumbents from competitive elections. These campaign
treasuries are also put to other uses. In the House, the
-10-
"grandfather clause" permits the 190 House Members in office on.
January 8, 1980 to convert their excess funds to personal use
upon retirement. In the Senate, the Rules ban personal use of
campaign funds, but permit the use of such funds to supplement
official accounts.
As noted above, the ethics legislation sent to the Hill on April
12 included a provision prohibiting, on the effective date of the
legislation, the conversion of excess campaign funds to personal
or office use. This would stop House Members from converting
excess campaign funds to personal use. It would also prohibit
Senators from supplementing their official accounts with campaign
funds. Republican and Democratic Senators now do this by direct
disbursement of campaign funds to cover items that can also be
paid for with official funds. Republican Senators also receive
funds from the National Republican Senatorial Committee through
the COMBO program account for the same purposes.
The issue has arisen as to whether we should go beyond the
April 12 proposal and ban all uses for excess campaign funds.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group recommends zeroing out campaign treasuries
after each election. This goes beyond the ethics package
provisions, but is certainly not inconsistent with the prior
proposal or with the theme of increasing competition in
elections. All excess campaign funds should be given to:
national and state party committees; the National Debt Retirement
Account of the United States Treasury; or all campaign
contributors as pro-rated refunds. The proposal would require
that all campaign accounts be zeroed out by January 31 following
the election.
Pro:
-- Eliminating campaign war chests will result in
more competitive elections and higher turnover.
Con:
--
Zeroing out is likely to promote early and more
intensive fundraising by incumbents.
Con:
-- Many Members of Congress feel strongly that this
kind of "insurance fund" is necessary and
appropriate.
-11-
DECISION
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
B. FUNDRAISING RESTRICTIONS
1. Analysis
In the interest of limiting the influence of economic special
interests and decreasing the amount of time Members spend
fundraising while in Washington, it has been proposed that
Members of Congress and their staffs and agents be permitted to
be involved personally in raising campaign funds only on calendar
days when Congress is not in session. The Working Group has not
reached a consensus recommendation on this option.
Pro: -- Makes it more difficult to raise money in
Washington, thereby furthering the objective of
shifting political fundraising and decisions as
to who receives contributions beyond the Beltway.
Con:
-- Will be viewed as a hinderance and inconvenience
by many Members, who will seek ways around it.
2. DECISION
Approve
Approve as Amended
X
securs a little
Disapprove
-
too much to me.
No Action
C. ADVANTAGES OF HOLDING OFFICE
1. ANALYSIS
The incumbent re-election rate in the House of Representatives is
over 99%; the re-election rate in the Senate is over 75%. As is
frequently noted, there is more turnover in the Soviet Politburo
-12-
than the U. S. Congress. Thirty-five years of Democratic rule in
the House have contributed to the ethical quagmire in which the
House is currently immersed.
This one-party domination is perpetuated by protections built in
to the current system. The root of the problem is that
incumbents -- especially in the House -- have used the system to
shield themselves from the voters. The aim of this campaign
reform package is to restore competitive elections. Accordingly,
the package takes aim at the perquisites of office and the
self-perpetuation of incumbents.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to promote fair and competitive elections and reform a.
scandal-tainted institution, reform should come in the areas of
reduced Franking and redistricting.
a) The Frank: Limit the use of the Frank by putting a cap on
the total amount available so that Members would be limited to
one postal patron a year, mailed only in December, January, or
February. (Option 1) This would allow a regular newsletter or
survey, but would restrict campaigning at public expense.
Another option is to ban Franked mass mailings of over 500 pieces
so that individually addressed computer-generated letters to all
residents of a District or State could not be used. (Option 2) A
more drastic alternative would ban unsolicited Franked mail.
(Option 3). Under any of the options, the Secretary of the
Senate and Clerk of the House should be required to report on a
quarterly basis the amounts spent by each Member. The reports
would be filed within 30 days of the end of the quarter. The
House Campaign Reform Task Force recommends that you adopt Option
3.
Pro:
|
Any of these options will result in budget
savings. The use of the Frank now costs the
taxpayers over $200 million a year.
Pro:
--
The Frank is abused by incumbents at the
taxpayers' expense.
Pro:
:
There is no way for a challenger/candidate
to respond to an incumbent's ability to use
the Frank.
Con:
:
Reduction of the Frank may reduce a
Representative's ability to communicate
with his constituents.
-13-
am way
DECISION -- The Frank
I about infinto in
Approve
Option 1 (1 annual postal patron)
getting this avea
Option 2 (ban mailings over 500 pieces)
Option 3 (ban unsolicited Franked mail)
phase
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
on
No Action
b) Redistricting: No single factor is more basic to reforming
the built-in advantages of incumbency than ensuring a fair
redistricting. This can be achieved legislatively by drafting
neutral criteria so that districts are drawn according to
non-partisan factors based on fairness, rather than partisan
self-perpetuation. While redistricting is often overlooked as a
part of the campaign finance reform debate, a gross gerrymander
insulates incumbents from the voters more than any other single
factor. For example, the California gerrymander of the 1980's
has led to only one seat changing parties in the 180
Congressional elections that have been held this decade.
Vast technological advances heighten, as never before, the chance
of similar gerrymanders in the 1991 redistricting. A
Presidential proposal endorsing non-partisan criteria based upon
the preservation of communities and the compactness of districts
Along.
is the single most important step Republicans can take to
community
heighten public awareness of this crucial issue. This can be
done by: 1) promulgating criteria for fair redistricting in
lines
federal elections, such as requiring district lines to follow
established community boundaries and standards for compactness,
and 2) emphasizing that Congressional and legislative districts
must comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Pro:
--
Will heighten the awareness of this top-
priority issue.
Pro:
-- This is a "good government" proposal which
will be widely supported.
Pro:
--
It allows the President to show strong
support for the provisions of the Voting
Rights Act.
-14-
Con:
:
Redistricting is not usually seen as part
of campaign finance reform so there may
be skepticism as to motives.
Con:
|
Democrats will strongly oppose any fair
districting criteria since they hold most
of the political cards and see neutral
criteria as an attack on their political
power base.
DECISION
Redistricting
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
III. SOFT MONEY
1. ANALYSIS
The basic premise behind the campaign finance laws is full
disclosure. However, a significant portion of the monies spent
in American elections today is not disclosed. Republicans have
always argued for full disclosure, and the President can
demonstrate this commitment again in this package.
Full disclosure should aim at two areas. First is the
well-publicized soft money fundraising in the Presidential
campaign. The RNC has already voluntarily publicly disclosed all
of its Team 100 and other soft money contributions. The
Democrats have not been so forthcoming. Public pressure is such
that full disclosure of soft money is inevitable -- and we should
take the initiative on this.
The focus on presidential political party soft money is only part
of the story, however. The same principles behind party soft
money disclosure should apply to the undisclosed political
activity of labor unions and tax-exempt groups (an estimated $20
million was spent by unions in the 1984 presidential race on
behalf of Democratic candidates).
Unless the disclosure of soft money by the political parties and
corporations, unions and trade associations is even-handed, any
bill will be subject to presidential veto.
-15-
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
First, there must be the full disclosure of all soft money
contributions and expenditures by political party committees.
Second (as discussed above in I. A. 2, P. 2), all labor unions,
corporations and trade associations must disclose fully all money
spent to influence a federal election, including voter
registration and get-out-the-vote activities, as well as any
communications which advocate the election or defeat of any
federal candidate.
Pro:
:
Full disclosure is a good government proposal
that will be popular in the press and among the
public.
Pro:
:
The Democrats and their allies abuse the
current soft money rules far more than
Republicans.
Con:
:
The unions will strongly oppose the disclosure
of their soft money activities.
Con:
|
Some Republican donors may complain at having
their contributions made public.
3. DECISION
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
IV. HONORARIA
1. ANALYSIS
The Working Group recommends that you consider a ban on
honoraria. Your legislative ethics proposal did not include a
ban on honoraria. Your April 12 speech did include a statement
that you believe honoraria for Members of Congress should be
banned. You also stated that you believe Members of Congress
should receive a pay raise and that you would not "make a formal
proposal to Congress until after I consult with the leaders of
Congress on the issue of Congressional pay.
As you will recall, the Administration was criticized in certain
quarters for not including honoraria in your April 12 ethics
legislation. The Working Group believes that now is the right
time and that this campaign finance reform package is the right
-16-
vehicle to propose such a ban on honoraria. Recent events on the
Hill make such a proposal particularly timely. We do not
recommend that a pay raise be included in the proposed
legislation, although the Working Group recommends that you link
them in your speech.
Should you decide to propose action on the honoraria issue, the
two principal options which have emerged: (1) the immediate
banning of honoraria, and (2) a phased-in approach, whereby the
percentage of a Member's salary which may be accepted as
honoraria is reduced over time. Currently, House Members may
retain honoraria fees in an amount equal to 30% of their
salaries, while Senators may accept 40% of their salaries in such
fees.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group recommends that the legislation include an
outright ban on honoraria, effective upon the date of enactment.
Pro:
-- Takes a bold and popular stand on an issue which
is currently in the limelight.
Con:
-- Will be resented by some Members of Congress,
especially if it is not coupled with a pay
increase. Most Members of Congress with whom we
consulted recommend that honoraria not be
included in the campaign finance package.
3. DECISION -- Ban Honoraria
Approve
Option 1 (immediate ban)
Option 2 (reduced over time)
what about !
judges
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
SENT BY:Republican Natl Comm ; 6-27-89 12:12PM ;
2028638820-
4566218;# 2
To: Chris Winston
From: David Winston
DRAFT (VERSION 1.1)
The fundamental principle of Democracy is free
elections of the government by the people. Elections are the
marketplace of ideas and philosophies from which the people
choose, They are not contests between people, but are the
natural focal point for the discussion of ideas. The mere
changing of faces is not democracy. The true competition of
ideas is. When this competition is lost, the key driving
dynamic behind democracy is also lost.
When the competition of ideas is impeded, Democracy
suffers. When this is done intentionally, democracy is being
subverted. When a political group in power loses the mandate
of the people for their political ideas, the only means left
to them to maintain their power is the manipulation of the
electoral process, thus subverting it. The means of
subverting the electoral process is the elimination of the
competition of ideas.
Competition in state legislative and congressional
seats has been severely limited due to the 1981
redistricting process. Skilled partisan "district builders"
fundamentally removed the voters from the electoral process
and created permanent legislative majorities. This does not
mean there are not some competitive races, but rather the
party which would control the legislative bodies was locked
into place. Control of a legislative body is much more
important than the size of a majority. Any political analyst
SENT BY:Republican Nati Comm ; 6-27-89 :12:13PM ;
2028638820->
4566218;# 3
2
would agree that if the House of Representatives had been
controlled by Republicans, the legislative behavior would
have been significantly different.
Removing the voter from the electoral process is not as
difficult as it might seem. Using previous voter behavior
patterns, skilled experts, using state of the art
technology, can build districts that will behave a certain
way politically with a reasonable level of certainty. With
that skill a "district builder" can create districts within
a legislative body that will insure the level of support
they need for a majority. The purpose is to limit the
possibility of political change and maintain a majority. The
most successful example of this is in California. since the
1982 elections, when the redistricting plan first took
effect, there have been 135 Congressional elections. In only
one race was there a change in party representation. Another
example is in 1984. Among the contested races in 1984 (367)
Republican candidates received more votes than their
Democratic opponents, yet Democrats got almost 20% more of
these seats.
With members of Congress in districts that were built
to withstand political change, we have seen the
repercussions. The lack of accountability that exists in
Congress is contrary to the concept of Democracy.
Accountability does not mean measuring the behavior of
members in terms of ethics (although it certainly includes
SENT BY:Republican Natl Comm ; 6-27-89 12:13PM ;
2028638820->
4566218;# 4
3
it). It means being accountable for political ideas, and
their success or failure.
This accountability problem is more significant at a
macro level. with a majority "locked" into place, Congress
can pursue legislation without concern of its impact when
elections occur. More importantly, without fear of
repercussion, the leadership has behaved in a high-handed
fashion, leading to what has been described as the "Imperial
Congress". Over the years Congress has intentionally eroded
Presidential responsibility to increase their own power,
while exempting themselves from requirements that they have
imposed upon the executive branch. Congress now mandates
much of the policy that is developed unless the President is
willing to go to radical extremes to exercise the
responsibility given to that office "by the people". Thus we
see the erosion of "checks and balances" that the drafters
of the constitution so carefully crafted to insure our
democracy
The key element in this situation is the concept of a
"permanent Congress". This does not mean that each
individual member is permanent, but that the majority is
permanent. Certainly after 35 years of control by the same
party the House could be considered in a state of permanent
majority. Since the 1982 elections, when the redistricting
plan defined the political landscape for the 80's,
incumbents have been returned a phenomenal 98% of the time.
There have been 1206 congressional races involving
SENT BY:Republican Natl Comm ; 6-27-89 :12:14PM ;
2028638820-
4566218;# 5
4
incumbents, and incumbents have won all but 28 of them.
Additionally, of the 1305 races that have occurred since
1982, there have been only 174 competitive races (the winner
received less than 55% of the vote). This is only 13% of all
Congressional races. During that same time period, there
have been only 51 races (out of 1305) where there was a
switch in party representation. That represents only 3.9% of
all races. Since the 1982 elections, 77% of Congressional
races were won with 60% or more, and 46% were won with 70%
or more. In 1988, 83% were won with 60% or more, and over
half were won with 70% or more. There is a clear lack of
competition.
Just how solid is this permanent majority? There are
387 seats that have not switched parties since 1982. That
represents almost 90% of the House of Representatives. of
these seats, 237 are held by Democrats, representing 54% of
Congress, or the "permanent majority". Again the function of
a skilled partisan district builder is to insure that a seat
will belong to a political party, regardless of the
individual candidate who is running. This is one of the most
important elements for a district builder. The critical
moment occurs when an incumbent retires and the seat becomes
open. As Congressman Al Swift aptly pointed out, in 1988
Republicans won one out of twelve of the seats that Democrat
incumbents had vacated. This is the sort of performance that
brings a smile to a district builder's face. Not only could
you maintain the seat for the sitting incumbent, but you
SENT BY:Republican Natl Comm ; 6-27-89 ;12:14PM
2028638820-
4566218;# 6
5
could maintain the seat when it became open for the party
and that's what the "permanent majority" is all about.
Just how low has the level of competition in House
races become? There are significantly more uncontested races
than competitive races. How can the American voter
participate in the discussion of ideas, when the electoral
process has been so effectively rigged to insure a specific
result. This is bad for democracy, and ultimately, bad for
the citizens of the country. with the use of state of the
art computers and advanced technology this situation will
only become more aggravated. The framers of the constitution
never intended for a political entity to be able to
manipulate the electoral process the way it has been. of
course, they had never heard of computers either.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
89 JUN 28 All : 51
June 28, 1989
Memorandum to Chriss Winston
From:
Jim Pinkerton
P
Subject:
Library of Congress Speech Draft
Two fundamental points, one about the structure of the
draft, the other about the tone:
First, the principles of the President's reform package
should be better reflected in the structure of the speech. The
principles are:
1) Cutting back special interests in order to promote the
national interest;
2) Promoting the role of the parties;
3)
Promoting competition;
As the speech now stands, we are putting the less important
principle, strengthening the parties, ahead of the more
important. The most important principle, cutting back special
interests, should go first.
Second, the tone is much too partisan. If we have any hope
of getting the package enacted we should avoid provoking possible
opponents against us from the outset. Therefore, we should de-
emphasize the references to the incumbency problem, despite its
unquestionable validity, and emphasize:
1) Bipartisanship: that these reforms are good for both
parties and should have the support of both;
2) That the President, who uniquely is elected by all the
people, is acting here as the leader of all the people;
3) That his reforms seek equal treatment of all the branches,
and that these reforms follow naturally from his earlier ethics
reforms for the executive branch;
(more)
2-2-2
Finally, we note for the record that two elements proposed
for the President's package are missing: requiring all contacts
between Congressional offices and executive branch agencies and
departments to be logged; and, studying ways of reducing the
costs of campaigns.
On both points it is important to bear in mind that the
President is not acting only as a Republican reformer. Only
about 40 percent of the American people will favor reforms that
are explicitly intended as benefitting the GOP. But all
Americans will agree that the we must "clean up the system." "
Therefore, "cleaning up the system" needs to hold the first
position in the hierarchy of themes here.
Particular comments:
Pg. 1, para. 2, lines 4-5
There is more than one instance in
1
the speech of making absolute statements that need to be
qualified somewhat. Here, to say that one truth is revealed
"above all the others
that
government of the people is the
greatest achievement of all" begs for qualifying.
We suggest that this one truth "stands out among the
others." Government of the people is perhaps less important than
either "by the people" or "for the people.' The latter
especially makes the point that the President seeks greater
accountability of government to the people. Thus we suggest:
"That for all its blemishes, government for the people is the
best government of all."
2,1,2
This excellent paragraph makes several points that are
profound. One small suggestion: "We keep it close
"
We
suggest "government" instead of "it," to make the point clearer.
Following this paragraph, we suggest a transition sentence
to tie the introduction to the body of the speech. We should
connect the idea that the audience represents in symbolic in a
certain sense of the future of America's political leadership,
and that these reforms will help ensure the integrity of that
leadership. Thus, we suggest something like:
"Today I am proposing a program of reform that looks forward
to the day that a new generation will be ready to lead. Perhaps
some of those future leaders are in this room today. I intend to
ensure that when the torch is passed to a new generation, that
the integrity of that leadership will be whole and unsullied by
the abuses of the present time."
(more)
3-3-3
2,2,1
"Every abuse" is too absolute. We suggest simply
"Abuses in our political system are followed by necessary
reform."
2,2,2
Again, instead of "every cycle," we suggest "cycles of
reform have
"
2,3,1
"The reforms of the early seventies were a vast
improvement
" Not true. In fact, they have in large part
contributed to the need for the President's reforms. Instead we
suggest: "The campaign reforms ... were an improvement..
2,4 We believe that this paragraph attacking the undeniable
entrenchment of incumbency will work against the enactment of the
program. We strongly suggest omitting it altogether.
Instead, this point in the speech seems the natural place to
raise the point that the President's proposals are a continuation
of his earlier ethics reforms for the executive branch. All
these reforms are of a piece (this point hints at the idea that
the package must be adopted as a whole -- the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts) designed to stem the decline in trust
in government and return integrity to government.
3,2,3
The point that 200 years have proven the worth of
parties is a good one, although we again believe that it should
come after the points about cleaning up the system by cutting
back special interests and promoting competition. It needs a
quote from a hallowed or respected American document or
personage, e.g., the Federalist Papers, Madison, or perhaps
Woodrow Wilson.
3,3,1
"...great parties of Andrew Jackson and Abraham
Lincoln" is an excellent line.
3,3,3
We wonder about the $160 billion figure. It seems too
high and needs checking.
3,3,4
Congressional policy lacks coherence." Again, we
should not attack Congress so explicitly. Also, the terms
"muddled" here and "muted" in the next sentence seem to mix
images.
4,3,4
We suggest adding the sentence, with an underline for
emphasis: "These PACs account for some 90 percent of all PAC
contributions."
(more)
4-4-4
4,4,1
Instead of "Some PACs will still exist because. [of]
the First Amendment," we suggest "Some PACs should still
exist. which gets across the idea of their propriety instead
of their inevitability.
4,4,6
We are pleased to see that the allowable figure for
ideological PACs is $2500 rather than $1000.
5,1,1
Again, instead of the provocative, Congress-bashing
language here, e.g. "Members of Congress bid for the loyalty of
their colleagues,' which will offend congressional leaders in
both parties, we suggest softening it to read: "I also propose
the elimination of so-called "leadership" PACs, through which
members of Congress form PACs to raise money for other PACs."
5,2,1
Similarly, applying the word "dishonest" to bundling is
too harsh. We suggest simply omitting the word.
5,3,1
Because "stem," can be mistaken for its other meanings,
we suggest the more usual "halt" or "stop."
5,3,2
"we must allow the parties to make the difference" can
be mistaken as meaning that the abuses of the special interests
will be replaced with the abuses of the parties. We suggest
simply rephrasing the line to read: " we must increase the
role of the parties in our national discourse.'
This paragraph should dwell more on the positive role of the
parties. We again suggest citing a respected source from
American history.
6,2,6
"full disclosure of all soft money contributions.
?
"All" is too sweeping. We suggest simply omitting it.
6,3,6-8 "Yet all independent expenditure groups -- the good and
the bad alike -- are protected by a Supreme Court ruling." This
sentence is too critical and judgmental. We suggest omitting
"the good and the bad alike," and saying "the Constitution"
rather than the Supreme Court. It is inappropriate in this
instance to seem to lay blame on the Justices, when, in fact, it
is the First Amendment that protects independent expenditures.
7,3 This paragraph on the indivisibility of the package is
critical to alleviating conservative concerns about being "sold
out. = It could be strengthened by underlining "all" and "must"
in
"
all the major provisions must be passed."
(more)
5-5-5
We also suggest that the President should explain more why
this is so, e.g., "I've done my best to craft a program of reform
that is fair to all. Each part of these reforms depends upon the
others. The whole is larger than the sum of its parts. If it is
to become law
"
8,3,3
"
pocketing hundreds of thousands -- even
millions
"
The precise total figure exists, and need to be
tracked down. We could then note that the total implies an
average of X dollars per member of Congress.
9,3,6
Daniel Webster was unfortunately no paragon of
financial virtue. In fact, his name has resurfaced several times
during the latest congressional scandals because of his having
been in the pay of railroad interests. Any other congressional
figure of virtue will do. Sam Rayburn, for example, who was
famous for financial integrity, refused junkets and died leaving
a tiny savings account (see Robert Caro's chapter on Rayburn in
his book on LBJ).
#
NOTE TO CHRISS: I'm GlAD Pink
GOT ALL THIS OUT OF itis
SYSTEM
TRANSFER SHEET
BUSH PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS PROJECT
BUSH PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
COLLECTION
OFFICE OF SPEECHWRITING - DAVIS
ACC.NO: 93-01
SUBJECT FILE
The following material was withdrawn from this segment of the
collection and trasferred to the
AUDIOVISUAL COLLECTION
BOOK COLLECTION
MUSEUM COLLECTION
OTHER (SPECIFY: COMPUTER
)
DESCRIPTION:
COMPUTER DISKETTE
OFFICE OF SPEECHWRITING DAVIS
SUBJECT FILE
SERIES
OFFICE OF SPEECHWRITING. DAVIS
BOX NO.
SUBJECT FILE
FILE FOLDER TITLE:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS/PACS [OA 8748]
TRANSFERRED BY:
DATE OF TRANSFER:
Samme Clure
RECEIVED BY:
DATE RECEIVED
Davis/Martin
June 28, 1989
Draft: Three
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 intern -- you
are apprentices in a noble profession -- public service.
We exalt public service precisely 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
2
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.
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.
&
Times have changed. Today's special-interest Political
Action Committees and their $160 million warchest overshadow the
the
great parties of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. As our
form partus
parties strength 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
the w result of
public. Ironically, this is what public financing does: it
Also
excludes citizen participation. 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.
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 more choicen U time
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.
And our recent experience in the presidential elections show how
poorly limits work in reality.
The answer is reform. So today, I propose just that -- a
sweeping reform of our system. More than 90 percent of all PAC
,
contributions come from business, unions and trade associations.
CORP.
So the cornerstone of our reform is the elimination of all
special-interest Political Action Committees.
*** I propose the elimination of Congressional leadership
STEP
PACs, through which Members of Congress bid for the loyalty of
their colleagues.
*** I propose all transfers between PACs must be
eliminated, and each candidate or incumbent must have only one
campaign committee
*** I propose to prevent an insidious 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.
5
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
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 still exist 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. Even in
a post-PAC era, however, corporations, unions and trade
6
associations will need an open way to participate in our
democracy. Our proposal would continue to allow organizations to
participate in get-out-the-vote activities -- provided they make
a full disclosure of their contributions and activities.
Therefore, 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
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.
If there are to be such independent expenditure groups, at
least they should have to disclose all their expenditures. Such
groups should also be required to more clearly identify the
person or organization behind them.
7
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
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 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
8
allowed to convert these funds for official use. Congress should
pack up this golden parachute.
Another area in need of reform is
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 is why many Congressional Districts look like
creatures my youngest grandchildren would draw.
The permanent majority that results from non-competitive
Despite stark d.f. laturen the pathes
elections is rock solid. Of the 435 seats in the House, 387 --
or 90 percent -- have not switched parties since 1982.
Perliams
California provides the best example, where only one seat in 135
in
elections changed parties under the redistricting scheme for the
1980s. Consider that in light of the stark differences between
the national parties
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 are tailored to the needs of the people, not to the
political needs of parties.
Finally, I propose to go a step further to solve the most
egregious wrong in American public life. As it stands, members
9
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. 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 leadership
regarding Congressional and Executive pay.
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."
10
Whatever you do in life, you can have no higher title than
that. Thank you, God bless you and God bless America.
#
#
#
RJP
Davis/Martin
June 28, 1989 1:50 pm
Draft: Three
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, intern -- you
are apprentices in a noble profession --- public service.
We exalt public service precisely 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
2
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.
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.
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 our
parties strength 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 what public financing does: it
excludes citizen participation. 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.
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 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.
And our recent experience in the presidential elections show how
poorly limits
[Ref. work which in reality. curtails the vole of the special individual, intnests and and
enhances the role of throughts parties.
The answer is reform, A So today, I propose just that -- a
sweeping reform of our system. More than 90 percent of all PAC
PACS sponsored by corporations,
contributions come from business, 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 all transfers between PACs must be
eliminated, and each candidate or incumbent must have only one
campaign committee.
a
*** I propose to prevent an insidious 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.
5
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
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.
Rimara
Still, some PACs should still exist 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
But 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. Even in
a post-PAC era, however, corporations, unions and trade
6
associations will need an open way to participate in our
democracy. Our proposal would continue to allow organizations to
participate in get-out-the-vote activities provided they make
a full disclosure of their contributions and activities.
Therefore, I call on Congress to join me in mandating full
disclosure of all soft money contributions by the political
parties, as well as all 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
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.
I
propose
that
If there are to be such independent expenditure groups, at
least they should have to disclose all their expenditures. Such
groups should also be required to more clearly identify the
person or organization behind them.
In ordn to provide information
additional to the prblic,
7
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
decades, amassing huge warchests to scare off strong challenges
in election after election.
of campaign warchests,
This is not democracy in the spirit of Madison and
Jefferson. This is not the spirit of democracy at all. I renew
the
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 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
8
allowed to convert these funds for official use. Congress should
pack up this golden parachute.
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 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. Of the 435 seats in the House, 387 --
or 90 percent -- have not switched parties since 1982.
California provides the best example, where only one seat in 135
elections changed parties under the redistricting scheme for the
1980s. Consider that in light of the stark differences between
the national parties.
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 are tailored to the needs of the people, not to the
political needs of parties.
Finally, I propose to go a step further to solve the most
egregious wrong in American public life. As it stands, members
I continue honoratia. to oppose
9
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. 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 leadership of Congress
regarding Congressional and Executive pay.
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."
10
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
1939
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
Forbit can pre we
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 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.
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
gerrymandering is why many Congressional Districts look like
creatures my youngest grandchildren would draw
strike cton + 8
have
like it look going after Dems
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
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 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
as well as the Exec Branch
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.
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
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.
#
#
#
E
ban the frank for unsolicited 2500 mail
non-conmected PAC limits
3) Congress pay t honorid
tack to
cu
Davis/Martin
me
June 26, 1989
Draft: One
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 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 college a or 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 form of
government, but it is a form of government which is being
constantly perfected.
You've read in school about the Tammany days, when democracy
was for sale. Those days are gone with the torchlight parade and
the diamond stickpin. Gone too are the requirements that you had
to pay a tax or hold property to vote
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 last such reform occurred around the time most of you
were born -- in the early to mid Seventies, when campaign finance
rules conceived in the days the whistle stop tour were still
being applied to the age of jets and television. The American
people reacted in revulsion to reports of campaigns receiving
thousands, even millions, of dollars in paper bags. Congress
reacted with a comprehensive law in 19(74) to regulate the
financing of federal campaigns. Suddenly, campaign donations
were limited, and reported to the public. Donations have since
been made in an above board fashion by Political Action
Committees, or PACs
3
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.
We have recently seen the historic and unprecedented
resignation of a Speaker of the House and a House Majority Whip.
And we have seen how the abuses of the current political system
worsened a crisis in the Savings and Loan system. This happened
because industry lobbyists represented the interests of the
corrupt few over those of the honest and thrifty majority. This
happened because elected officials, pressured by their generous
contributors intervened in federal investigations. The end
result of this abuse of process is a wounded industry, landscapes
of empty apartments and a debt of $150 billion.
but
These recent scandals are 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
4
flow to remain fresh and clean. But a permanent House with a
permanent majority is as unhealthy as a stagnant pond.
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
reverse
Americans an effective way to advance their candidates and
support their beliefs. 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
5
in time-consuming and often degrading appeals for money. And
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
deficit
would force taxpayers to support extremist candidates they abhor.
1 already in definit,
And it would be a siphon from the U.S. Treasury to campaign
coffers. Such a public-finance regime could be too easily
defice
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
halving
limit, by sharply restricting their contributions to federal
$2,500
candidates from $5,000 to $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.
6
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 all candidates and incumbents 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
ralso
campaigns.
I
propose to strengthen the Supreme Court's Beck
The wasir strentle
todays
system
is
Disclosure.
now
why the not Amer. ORM people books know, for An to seez
the
letter
The
7
decision, so that no member of a union can be forced to
moueto 8
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
]
InApost-PACeRR,
With an end to PACS, corporations, unions and trade
will need An
?
associations would still require a healthy and open way to
This proposalwould
participate in our democracy. We shall allow organizations to
participate in get-out-the-vote activities -- provided they be
compelled to 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
8
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
groups should also be required to publish ads identifying 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.
BECK
&
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 reforms directly concern
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
decades, amassing huge warchests to scare off strong challenges
in election after election.
9
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.
Another abuse is the way in which Members of Congress use
the public Frank to pay for slick direct-mail advertising. The
cost to the taxpayers is $200 million a year. 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.
")
Under the present law, members of the executive branch must
log all calls to federal agencies. This is a measure passed by
Congress to reduce the likelihood that public agencies would be
subverted or abused. Yet, all too often, special interests work
through Congressional staff to interfere with the independence
10
and integrity of government agencies. It is high time the
legislative branch kept similar records. If the sun is to shine
in executive operations, let it shine on all.
))
Finally, I 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. At best, this has a
cynical appearance. At worst, it is institutionalized bribery.
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
acce
legislative branches, I also call for an end to honoraria.
phAse out of
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
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.
11
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 be an honest man or woman
Thank you, God bless you
and God bless America.
#
#
#
the
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
where the Executive Branch is currently not competitive, such
as nuclear scientists and surgeons. 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.
ok
$
CLOSE HOLD
Document No. 045057 SS
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
6/15/89
DATE:
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
5:00 PM 6/20/89
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PACKAGE
SUBJECT:
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
STUDDERT
BATES
UNTERMEYER
BREEDEN
WRAY
CARD
CICCONI
DEMAREST
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments to C. Boyden Gray, 2nd Fl., WW,
no later than 5:00 PM, Monday, June 20, 1989, with an info
copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
CLOSE HOLD
James W. Clconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Memo
C. Boyden Gray to POTUS, Re: Campaign Finance Reform
06/14/89
Package. (15 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Davis, Mark William
Open on Expiration of PRA
Subseries:
Subject File
(Document Follows)
WHORM Cat.:
By
CAP
(NLGB) on 6/7/05
File Location:
Library of Congress/ PACS 6/89 [2]
Date Closed:
12/13/2004
OA/ID Number:
13872-015
FOIA/SYS Case #:
S
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0481-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile
CLOSE HOLD
1003
DRAFT
June 14, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President
White House Campaign Finance Reform Working Group
SUBJECT:
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PACKAGE
ACTION-FORCING EVENT
In your April 12 address to the American Society of Newspaper
Editors, you announced that you had instructed your staff to
perform a comprehensive review of campaign finance reform. This
memorandum is a product of such a review by a White House working
group which included representatives from the Offices of Counsel
to the President, Political Affairs, Policy Development,
Legislative Affairs, and the Republican National Committee (the
"Working Group") .> The Working Group has met periodically over
the past two months, both on its own to consider various
proposals, and with representatives from the Senate, the House,
corporate and trade association PACs, ideological groups, and
Republican political professionals.
The meetings with the various constituency groups produced a
consensus from Republican partisans that the President's package
should be an innovative measure which breaks through the
Republican "fat cat" stereotype and takes cutting edge positions
on specific issues for which there may not yet be a consensus on
the Hill because of the self-interests of various Members.
Our starting point for the proposals outlined below was the four
points articulated in your April 12 speech. First, you announced
that the Administration's ethics bill which went to the Hill that
day would include a prohibition against converting congressional
campaign funds to personal or office use. Second, you stressed
the need to strengthen political parties. Third, you stated
that, "I believe we should eliminate contributions to candidates
by political action committees, and I'll be consulting with
Congress about that." In that context, you noted that, "PACs
weaken the parties, restrain competition, and deaden the
political debate." Finally, you opposed public financing of
DRAFT
-2-
Congressional elections. The Working Group has attempted to
develop a comprehensive campaign finance reform package which is
consistent with your bold proposal on PACs and the general themes
of strengthening parties, increasing competition and fairness in
elections, and curtailing special interests.
Part of the backdrop for these deliberations is the burgeoning
ethics crisis in the House which demonstrates the inherent
dangers of a Congress too long dominated by one party. This
crisis follows the 1988 elections in which 99.2% of the
incumbents in the House who sought re-election were re-elected
under a campaign finance system where 62% of PAC contributions
went to Democrats and 76% went to incumbents. In elections
between incumbent House Democrats and Republican challengers, the
numbers are even more striking: Democrat incumbents received
$54.3 million in PAC contributions compared to the $2.4 million
for Republican challengers.
The Working Group has divided its proposals into four broad
areas: (I) Contribution Limits by PACs, Political Parties and
Individuals; (II) the Incumbency Advantage, including the use of
excess campaign funds, the political advantages of holding
office, and perpetuation of incumbency through redistricting;
(III) Soft Money and the need for full disclosure, and (IV)
Banning Honoraria.,
I. CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
A. PACs
1. ANALYSIS
In your April 12 speech, you stated your belief that PAC
contributions to candidates should be eliminated. Under current
law, there are two general categories of PACs: those which are
sponsored by, or affiliated with, corporations, unions and trade
associations, and those which are not sponsored or affiliated,
the so-called "non-connected" or "ideological" PACs. The bulk of
PAC contributions come from corporate, union and trade
association PACs: they accounted for nearly 90% of total PAC
giving in 1988.
Because of freedom of association and freedom of expression
guarantees found in the First Amendment, it may be impossible to
ban all contributions to candidates from these non-connected PACs.
Our proposal is to ban corporate, union, and trade association
PACs, which would return the law to its pre-Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 status. In addition, we would reduce the
contribution limit for the remaining non-connected PACs from
$5,000 to $1,000 per candidate per election. This proposal would
sharply reduce overall PAC giving. Using 1988 PAC contribution
DRAFT
-3-
figures, the effect of this proposal would have been to eliminate
at least $140 million of the $160 million in PAC contributions.
If PAC contributions were curtailed as outlined above, other
elements of this package become crucial since such a ban has the
potential of: decreasing the role of business interests in the
campaign finance system, thereby increasing the relative
influence of labor unions; encouraging corporations, unions, and
trade associations to "bundle" individual contributions through
agents as a way to circumvent the limitation; and increasing the
number of independent expenditures.
It should be noted that the Working Group does not believe this
package will significantly affect the amount of money being spent
on elections. Instead, the reforms proposed will tend to
re-channel campaign funds.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to achieve your objectives while creating a sound
overall system for campaign finance, the Working Group recommends
reforms in five specific areas: (a) banning corporate, union and
trade association PACs; (b) prohibiting candidates from having
more than one committee in order to end "leadership PACs"; (c)
tightening rules prohibiting economic special interests from
"bundling" individual contributions; (d) codifying the Beck
Supreme Court decision on union dues; (e) encouraging voter
participation programs by economic special interests, and (f)
increased reporting for independent expenditures.
Because change to one part of the campaign finance system has
consequences for other parts of the system as well, the Working
Group strongly recommends that all six reforms be undertaken as a
uniform package to lessen the risk of unintended consequences.
a) Banning PACs: The Working Group recommends eliminating
corporate, union, and trade association PACs. This would include
prohibiting any union, corporation, or trade association from
using its treasury money to pay for any PAC's administrative
costs or other political activities. It would also abolish any
payroll checkoff contributions to any PAC. Contributions by the
remaining non-connected PACs would be reduced from $5,000 to
$1,000 per candidate per election. These non-connected PACs
would continue to be allowed to contribute $15,000 per year to
national and $5,000 per year to state political parties in order
to strengthen the political party structure. Further, the
non-connected PACs would be able to continue spending unlimited
amounts of money on such participatory activities as voter
registration programs, informing members and the public about
elections, and conducting get-out-the-vote activities. All such
DRAFT
-4-
activities would be fully reported and would provide those PACs
remaining a vehicle to participate meaningfully in the electoral
process.
Pro:
I
Reduces the role of economic special interest
money.
Pro:
:
Increases the role of political parties since the
role of PACs will diminish.
Pro:
:
Equalizes the roles of corporations and union in
elections.
Pro:
:
Takes the high ground on PACs which, in this
ethics climate, is likely to be popular with the
public and press.
Con:
:
Eliminating corporate, union and trade
association PACs may reduce the number of
individiuals currently participating in the
system since many individuals give only to their
company's, union's or industry's PAC.
Con:
I
Danger that cutting off PAC contributions to
candidates will tend to increase independent
expenditures and encourage "bundling" abuse.
Con:
:
May not lead to increased PAC giving to political
parties, because many PACs believe they receive
benefits only by giving directly to candidates.
DECISION -- PAC Contributions
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
b) "Leadership PACs": We recommend that any legislation also
prohibit transfers between PACs and limit all candidates to a
single committee. This would ban "leadership PACs" which allow
entrenched incumbents to spread special interest contributions to
other candidates.
Pro:
:
Discourages the proliferation of non-connected
PACs that may otherwise occur if economic special
interest PACs are banned.
DRAFT
-5-
Pro:
:
Stops influential congressional leaders from
using economic special interest money to fund
their personal PACs so they can seek favor from
their colleagues.
Pro:
-- Reform initially recommended by the PAC community.
Con:
-- Opposition from those congressional leaders who
have raised and spent significant amounts in
seeking and maintaining positions in the
congressional leadership.
DECISION -- Leadership PACs
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
c) Bundling: Bundling is the practice where an organization (or
its officials) solicits many contributions from its employees or
members at a central location, bundles them together and sends
them to the candidate without affecting the central
organization's contribution limits. We recommend tightening the
existing laws prohibiting bundling, except that such restrictions
would not apply to political parties.
Pro: --
Necessary to discourage economic special interests
from doing what their PACs did by instead having
corporate executives and union and trade
association officials pressure their colleagues
for individual contributions.
Con: --
It may be impossible to legislate away this
practice, so that money from economic self-
interests will still play a major role despite
PAC reform.
DECISION -- Bundling
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
DRAFT
-6-
d) Beck Codification: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Beck
should be codified so that a union member can stop his or her
mandatory dues from being used for political activities he or she
does not support. (This proposal received virtually unanimous
support from all individuals talked to by the Working Group.)
Pro:
-- Levels the playing field between union and
corporate interests.
Pro:
--
Unanimously supported by all outside groups
contacted by the Working Group.
Con:
--
Ensures strong opposition from organized labor
because of Beck codification (in conjunction with
the prohibition on labor treasury money for PAC
administrative costs).
DECISION -- Beck Codification
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
e) Voter Participation Programs: I Although corporations, unions,
and trade associations would not be permitted to sponsor PACs,
data
these entities would continue to be permitted to participate in
elections through voter registration programs, get-out-the-vote
activities and advocacy communications to their members.
checks
However, this proposal would require full disclosure of all
monies spent for such activities. Under current law, such
activities are frequently not disclosed, resulting in massive
of the public and the media.
amounts of political activity and spending outside the scrutiny
Pro:
--
Encourages voter participation activities by
corporations, unions and trade associations,
which could lead to increased turnout.
Pro: --
Increases disclosure of activities which affect
elections.
Con:
--
Corporations and unions (and their employees and
members) may not participate in the political
process candidates. if they cannot contribute directly to
DRAFT
-7-
DECISION -- Voter Participation Programs
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
(f) Independent Expenditures: Reporting requirements for any
group conducting independent expenditures would be increased.
Specifically, such groups would be required to include additional
notice throughout an ad identifying the person or organization
funding it. Timely notice, in advance, to all candidates of the
before the FEC within 3 days of a complaint of collusion between
independent expenditure would be required, calong with a hearing
an independent expenditure committee and a candidate. The
Supreme Court has ruled that independent expenditures are
constitutionally protected, so an airtight ban is impossible.
These reforms would make such expenditures more onerous and would
counterattack. allow victims of independent expenditures a public forum for
Pro:
--
Provides a counterbalance to independent
expenditures, which could well increase if
economic special interest contributions to
candidates reduced. are barred and other PAC contributions
Pro:
:
Independent expenditures will lose much of their
strength if they must be reported in advance and
if the victim has the right to a hearing
immediately following the expenditure if there is
any evidence of collusion with a candidate.
Pro:
:
Congress. Such restrictions enjoy bi-partisan support in
Con:
:
Restrictions on independent expenditures may have
a chilling effect on legitimate political debate.
DECISION
--
Independent Expenditures
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
DRAFT
-8-
B. POLITICAL PARTIES
1. ANALYSIS
The April 12 ethics speech stressed that political parties should
be strengthened. As discussed above, proposed PAC limitations
alone may allow the political parties to regain influence.
Another way to strengthen political parties is to increase party
spending limits through increased coordinated expenditures. This
would also allow candidates to spend less time fundraising since
a larger amount of their funds could come from one set source.
Candidates would not be tainted by "special interest" money
because any such funds would come from a political party, and
candidates and contributors would have no way of knowing
campaign. precisely which special interest's money were going to which
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group recommends increasing the coordinated
expenditure limits the parties may spend on behalf of
congressional candidates to 5¢ times the voting age population of
the state, adjusted for inflation (it is now 2c times the voting
age population, adjusted for inflation). The Working Group also
recommends that an individual's contributions to political party
committees not count against that individual's $25,000 annual
limit. Both recommendations would provide additional funds for
the political party committees to aid in their assuming a larger
role in the process.
Pro:
:
Political parties would be strengthened because
candidates. they will play a larger role in funding
Pro:
:
Candidates would spend less time fundraising
because the parties can contribute more.
Pro:
:
Individual candidates would not be tainted by
taking money from any one special interest since
funds will be provided by the parties.
Con:
:
To the extent the RNC is perceived as having an
upper hand in fundraising over the Democrats,
you could open yourself to criticism that these
recommendations simply represent political self-
interest.
DRAFT
-9-
3. DECISION
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
II. REFORM THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
A. EXCESS CAMPAIGN FUNDS
1. ANALYSIS
Under the current law, incumbents amass huge war chests that
scare off challengers in election after election, thereby
insulating incumbents from competitive elections. These campaign
treasuries are also put to other uses. In the House, the
"grandfather clause" permits the 190 House Members in office on
January 8, 1980 to convert their excess funds to personal use
upon retirement. In the Senate, the Rules ban personal use of
campaign funds, but permit the use of such funds to supplement
official accounts.
As noted above, the ethics legislation sent to the Hill on April
12 included a provision prohibiting the conversion of excess
campaign funds to personal or office use. This would stop House
Members from converting excess campaign funds to personal use.
It would also prohibit Senators from supplementing their official
accounts with campaign funds. Republican and Democratic Senators
now do this by direct disbursement of campaign funds to cover
items that can also be paid for with official funds. Republican
Senators also receive funds from the National Republican
Senatorial Committee through the COMBO program account for the
same purposes.
The issue has arisen as to whether we should go beyond the
April 12 proposal and ban all uses for excess campaign funds.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group recommends zeroing out campaign treasuries
after each election. This goes beyond the ethics package
provisions, but is certainly not inconsistent with the prior
DRAFT
-10-
proposal or with the theme of increasing competition in
elections. All excess campaign funds should be given to:
national and state party committees; the National Debt Retirement
Account of the United States Treasury; or all campaign
contributors as pro-rated refunds. The proposal would require
that all campaign accounts be zeroed out by January 31 following
the election, except for purposes of retiring a campaign debt.
Pro:
-- Eliminating campaign war chests will result in
more competitive elections and higher turnover.
Con:
--
Many Members of Congress feel strongly that this
kind appropriate. of "insurance fund" is necessary and
DECISION
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
B. FUNDRAISING RESTRICTIONS
1. Analysis
In the interest of limiting the influence of economic special
interests and decreasing the amount of time Members spend
fundraising while in Washington, it has been proposed that
Members of Congress be permitted to be involved personally in
raising campaign funds only on calendar days when Congress is not
in session. The Working Group has not reached a consensus
recommendation on this option.
DECISION
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
DRAFT
-11-
C. ADVANTAGES OF HOLDING OFFICE
1. ANALYSIS
The incumbent re-election rate in the House of Representatives is
over 99%; the re-election rate in the Senate is over 75%. As is
frequently noted, there is more turnover in the Soviet Politburo
than the U. S. Congress. Thirty-five years of Democratic rule in
the House have contributed to the ethical quagmire in which the
House is currently immersed.
This one-party domination is perpetuated by protections built in
to the current system. The root of the problem is that
incumbents -- especially in the House -- have used the system to
shield themselves from the voters. The aim of this campaign
the package takes aim at the perquisites of office and the
reform package is to restore competitive elections. Accordingly,
self-perpetuation of incumbents.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to promote fair and competitive elections and reform a
scandal-tainted institution, reform should come in the areas of
reduced Franking and redistricting.
a) The Frank: Limit the use of the Frank by putting
a cap on the total amount available so that Members would be
limited to one postal patron a year, mailed only in December,
January, or February. (Option 1) This would allow a regular
newsletter or survey, but would restrict campaigning at public
expense. Another option is to ban Franked mass mailings of over
500 pieces so that individually addressed computer-generated
letters to all residents of a District or State could not be
used. (Option 2) A more drastic alternative would ban
unsolicited Franked mail. (Option 3). Under any of the options,
the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House should be
required to report quarterly on the amounts spent by each. Member.
Pro:
:
Any of these options will result in budget
savings. The use of the Frank now costs the
taxpayers over $200 million a year.
Pro:
-- The Frank is abused by incumbents at the
taxpayers' expense.
Pro:
--
There is no way for a challenger/candidate
to respond to an incumbent's ability to use
the Frank.
DRAFT
-12-
Con:
--
Reduction of the Frank may reduce a
Representative's ability to communicate
with his constituents.
DECISION -- The Frank
Approve
Option 1 (1 annual postal patron)
Option 2 (ban mailings over 500 pieces)
Option 3 (ban unsolicited Franked mail)
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
b) Redistricting: No single factor is more basic to
reforming the built-in advantages of incumbency than ensuring a
fair redistricting. This can be achieved legislatively by
drafting neutral criteria so that districts are drawn according
to non-partisan factors based on fairness, rather than partisan
self-perpetuation. While redistricting is often overlooked as a
part of the campaign finance reform debate, a gross gerrymander
insulates incumbents from the voters more than any other single
factor. For example, the California gerrymander of the 1980's
has led to only one seat changing parties in the 180
Congressional elections that have been held this decade.
Vast technological advances heighten, as never before, the chance
of similar gerrymanders in the 1991 redistricting. A
Presidential proposal endorsing non-partisan criteria based upon
the preservation of communities and the compactness of districts
is the single most important step Republicans can take to
heighten public awareness of this crucial issue. This can be
done by: 1) promulgating criteria for fair redistricting in
federal elections, such as requiring district lines to follow
established community boundaries and standards for compactness,
and 2) emphasizing that Congressional and legislative districts
must comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Pro:
|
Will heighten the awareness of this top-
priority issue.
Pro:
--
This is a "good government" proposal which
will be widely supported.
Pro:
--
It allows the President to show strong
support for the provisions of the Voting
Rights Act.
DRAFT
-13-
Con:
--
Redistricting is not usually seen as part
of campaign finance reform so there may
be skepticism as to motives.
Con:
-- Democrats will strongly oppose any fair
districting criteria since they hold most
of the political cards and see neutral
criteria as an attack on their political
power base.
DECISION -- Redistricting
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
III. SOFT MONEY
1. ANALYSIS
The basic premise behind the campaign finance laws is full
disclosure. However, a significant portion of the monies spent
in American elections today is not disclosed. Republicans have
always argued for full disclosure, and the President can
demonstrate this commitment again in this package.
Full disclosure should aim at two areas. First is the
well-publicized soft money fundraising in the Presidential
campaign. The RNC has already voluntarily publicly disclosed all
of its Team 100 and other soft money contributions. The
Democrats have not been so forthcoming. Public pressure is such.
that full disclosure of soft money is inevitable -- and we should
take the initiative on this.
The focus on presidential political party soft money is only part
of the story, however. The same principles behind party soft
money disclosure should apply to the undisclosed political
activity of labor unions and tax-exempt groups (an estimated $20
million was spent by unions in the 1984 presidential race on
behalf of Democratic candidates).
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
First, there must be the full disclosure of all soft money
contributions and expenditures by political party committees.
Second (as discussed above in I. A. 2, P. 2), all labor unions,
DRAFT
-14-
corporations and trade associations must disclose fully all money
spent to influence a federal election, including voter
registration and get-out-the-vote activities, as well as any
communications which advocate the election or defeat of any
federal candidate.
Pro: -- Full disclosure is a good government proposal
public. that will be popular in the press and among the
Pro:
-- The Democrats and their allies abuse the
current soft money rules far more than
Republicans.
Con: -- The unions will strongly oppose the disclosure
of their soft money activities.
Con:
--
Some Republican donors may complain at having
their contributions made public.
3. DECISION
Approve
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
IV. HONORARIA
1. ANALYSIS
The Working Group recommends that you consider a ban on
honoraria. In your April 12 speech you stated that you believe
honoraria for Members of Congress should be banned. You also
stated that you believe Members of Congress should receive a pay
raise and that you would not "make a formal proposal to Congress
until after I consult with the leaders of Congress on the issue
of Congressional pay."
The Working Group believes that this campaign finance reform
package is an appropriate vehicle to propose a ban on honoraria.
Especially because of recent events on the Hill, such a proposal
would be timely. We do not recommend that a pay raise be
included in the proposed legislation. (However, statements
accompanying the announcement could make the link to a pay raise.)
The two principal options which have emerged are: (1) the
immediate banning of honoraria, and (2) a phased-in approach,
DRAFT
-15-
whereby the percentage of a Member's salary which may be accepted
as honoraria is reduced over time. Currently, House Members may
retain honoraria fees in an amount equal to 30% of their
fees. salaries, while Senators may accept 40% of their salaries in such
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group recommends that the legislation include an
outright ban on honoraria, effective upon the date of enactment.
Pro:
-- Takes a bold and popular stand on an issue which
is currently in the limelight.
Con:
:
May be resented by some Members of Congress,
especially increase. if it is not coupled with a pay
3. DECISION -- Ban Honoraria
Approve
Option 1 (immediate ban)
Option 2 (reduced over time)
Approve as Amended
Disapprove
No Action
Davis/Martin
June 28, 1989
Draft: Six
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.
1
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 Haxpayea public financing is the best answer. I do not.
ROB
If we exclude individuals from the process, we exclude the
public. Ironically, this is the end result of taxpayer 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. Taxpayer 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
Awally need dinocracy should offer the
]
system We to offer the voters more choice.
[sands call for
spending timit] }
In allowed Addition to pay corporations the warhead unions or administrative and trade associations costs abany should not be
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 by paying
their overhead as administrative costs.
Beck from P.6
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
(and registration
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
To
decision, so that no member of a union can be forced to
P.5
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
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.
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.
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 mailings.
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
1
8
ensuring fair redistricting in 1990. I propose a new criteria
established
for redistricting, without favor to party, to respect community
boundaries.
and traditional lines. 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, 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.
Today I call upon Congress
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. Some day, you may follow this path, the path to
greatness and achievement through public service. And if you do,
9
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.
#
#
#
In economics, culture and the environment, we have much to
share and learn from each other. The United States is especially
determined to stand by Hungary as you meet an enormous challenge.
No Communist nation has yet attempted what Hungary is doing -- to
build democracy and a free market.
I see a great Hungarian future in the bright faces of your
students. But not all young people in the East Bloc have as much
freedom as you do to plan their future.
her Z wothin made it
Your press recently reported that a Hungarian fisherman
plying the waters of the Maros River discovered the body of
Romanian girl. We are not exactly sure how she died. But we
know that if she had been traveling from Hungary to Austria, she
would have received nothing more than a friendly wave from the
border guard. But she attempted to cross the Maros, and paid
with her life.
We do not know the girl's name. We do not the torments that
drove her to risk her life. But we do know her heart. It is the
heart of Anne Frank and Hertelendy Jamos. It is the heart of
youth determined to live in freedom
Throughout the Communinist world today, as the younger
generation prepares to assume power, a great debate is underway.
Davis/Martin
June 28, 1989
Draft: Six
Title: Campaign
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.
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 -- 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.
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.
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.
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
6
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
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 these
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. 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
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.
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 mailings.
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
8
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, 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.
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. Some day, you may follow this path, the path to
9
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.
#
#
#
Photo Copy Preservation
_ush Campaign-Finance Package
To Be Tilted Toward the G.O.P.
By RICHARD L. BERKE
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The cam-
tract more Interest in It.
paign finance package President Bush
"I believe that serious bipartisan ne-
plans to announce Thursday is in-
gotiations are extremely important
districts, which would be Democrat-
ocrats cannot take mostly minority
publicans believe that means Dem-
resentation in Congress. Many Re-
requires maximizing minority rep-
party" policy. Language in that act
1982, "official administration and
Voting Rights Act, as amended in
will make "full enforcement" of the
In addition, officials said, Bush
be announced Thursday.
his campaign overhaul package to
districts to aid one political party, in
mandering, the drawing of political
lation aimed at outlawing gerry-
President Bush will include legis-
in a long-running political war,
In what will be the first shot fired
Washington Post Staff Writer
By Ann Devroy
A8 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1989
tended to help Republicans more than
and I said so in the meeting," he said.
Democrats. He acknowledged as much
"I didn't interpret anything heard in
today at a private meeting with advo-
the meeting as shutting the door on a
cates of changes in campaign finance
process of serious bipartisan negotia-
law.
tions."
After being challenged by Fred Wer-
William J. Baer, chairman of Lobby-
theimer, the president of Common
ists and Lawyers for Campaign Fi-1
tricts.
Cause, a lobbying group, to take a bi-
nance Reform, said, "The mere fact of
partisan approach on the measure, Mr.
Presidential leadership on this is com-
Bush, participants said, replied, "You
mendable. People sald they thought it
know, Fred, that 1 want to elect more
was a step in the right direction.'
Republicans to Congress.'
Besides the lawyers group and Com-
Alixe Glen, a White House spokes-
mon Cause, organizations represented
woman, suggested that the President's
at the meeting today were the Center
comment was "taken out of context.'
for Responsive Politics, the League of
She said the Bush Administration's fl-
Women Voters, Public Citizen and the
nance package will not favor either
American Bar Association. Two law-
party.
yers from the Republican National
rymandering-because Democrats
licans-usually the victims of ger-
Congress because it will help Repub-
road in the Democrat-controlled
that the legislation will face a rocky
census. 1990
congressional districts after the
to be used in drawing the nation's
White House calls "neutral criteria"
lation that would create what the
tricting element. It includes legis-
but he has signed off on the redis-
ing the advantages of incumbency,
tions in the package aimed at reduc-
ficials, Bush is still considering op-
to help create more Democratic dis-
with marginally Democratic areas
Committee also attended. There were
Democrats and Republicans agree
According to administration of-
ic, and split off pieces to combine
Earlier today, at a news conference,
Mr. Bush denied that his campaign fl-
no representatives from the Demo-
nance package would be tilted to Re-
cratic National Committee.
publicans.
Spending Limits Urged
"Why would anyone make a charge
like that against me when I'm looking
C. Boyden Gray, the White House
at it as objectively as can?" the Presi-
counsel, was also present. On Monday,
dent said. "1 mean, I would be outraged
Mr. Bush met with representatives of
ture.".
by a suggestion of that nature."
political action committees sponsored
by conservative groups.
Plan Is Detailed
At least two of the participants said
Mr. Bush told participants at a half-
they told Mr. Bush that without r
hour meeting at the White House that
spending limits, no comprehensive
his campaign package has yet to be
campaign-finance revisions are possi-
completed. But privately, White House
ble. They said he politely disagreed.
officials have outlined the plan in de-
Participants said Mr. Bush was
tail, and said it would probably include
more receptive to suggestions that
provisions to ban contributions from
there be tighter restrictions on money
political action committees sponsored
that is contributed to the Democratic
must have essentially the same
ing is now definite: each district
Only one standard on redistrict-
outraged by a suggestion of that na-
partly joking. "I mean, I would be
objectively as I can?" he responded,
against me when I'm looking at it as
anyone make a charge like that
more than Democrats. "Why would
reforms would aid Republicans
day, Bush was asked if his proposed
In his news conference yester-
ing Rights Act."
to fair redistricting and to the Vot-
it, "test the Democrats' commitment
"reform," that will, as one source put
GOP plans to sell the proposal as a
of drawing district lines. But the
islatures, which oversee the process
control more governorships and leg-
by corporate, union or trade groups,
and Republican parties as a way to
leaving only those PAC's sponsored by
skirt limits on giving to particular
Bush to Propose Outlawing Gerrymandering
ideological organizations. The plan
campaigns - a practice that prolifer-
does not include overall campaign
ated in last year's Presidential cam-
spending limits.
paign. White House aides have said,
Democrats contend that these steps
that in its draft form, the Bush pro-
to curb PAC's would help Republicans,
posal includes stricter requirements on
because the committees are increas-
disclosing the sources of such money,
district.
THE WASHINGTON POST
ingly giving more of their money to
but does not place new requirements
Democrats. In addition, many Demo-
on how those contributions are used.
crats favor using some public funds to
Ellen S. Miller, executive director of
trict set into law would impose a
said the definition of a proper dis-
cases on gerrymandering, officials
Although there have been court
one party or another in power in the
techniques are aimed at keeping
ander through counties; all of these
city, county and other lines and me-
standard. Many districts now cross
well as the one-man, one-vote legal
serve existing community lines, as
be compact and contiguous and pre-
to propose, districts would have to
Under the legislation Bush plans
gressional seats.
help finance Congressional campaigns
the Center for Responsive Politics, said
and placing overall spending limits on
she found Mr. Bush candid. "He clearly
those campaigns. Mr. Bush, as well as
said, 'I have some very substantial dis-
Republican leaders in Congress, op-
agreements with some of you who are
pose such limits.
here,' she said. "But I found him very
At the news conference, Mr. Bush de-
open to suggestions."
scribed his proposals as "fairly far-
chances of retaining or gaining con-
the districts to enhance its party's
ten the Democratic Party, draws
controlling political party, most of-
number of people. Generally, the
reaching because I want to see reform,
real reform."
But some participants at the Presi-
dent's meeting later said they were dis-
pleased that he would acknowledge his
partisan interests. "He was very can-
SPORTS
did in his partisan reaction," said a
follow.
participant who asked not to be Identi-
fied.
Others said they were encouraged
NEWS
that Mr. Bush had reached out to non-
partisan organizations, some of whom
had never before been invited to the
EVERYDAY
White House.
Mr. Werthelmer, for one, said he left-
The New York Times
the meeting hopeful that Mr. Bush's in-)
terest In campaign finance would at-
boundaries. Court challenges could
islatures, which will set the district
control of governorships and leg-
elections, the parties will scrap for
ground rules are set. In the 1990
The process begins now as the
will change in some way.
Southwest. Nearly every district
and Midwest to the West and
to shift, mostly from the Northeast
16 congressional seats are expected
because of population shifts, at least
Congress for the next decade, and
determine the shape and makeup of
1990s. The redistricting fights will
the major political battles of the
element as what they see as one of
pressed Bush for the redistricting
Party and elected officials have
court challenge could result.
lines. If the officials ignored it, a
new burden on officials drawing the
TRANSFER SHEET
BUSH PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS PROJECT
COLLECTION
BUSH PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
OFFICE OF SPEECHWRITING - DAVIS
ACC.NO: 93-01
SUBJECT FILE
The following material was withdrawn from this segment of the
collection and trasferred to the
BOOK COLLECTION
AUDIOVISUAL COLLECTION
MUSEUM COLLECTION
OTHER (SPECIFY: COMPUTER
)
DESCRIPTION:
COMPUTER DISKETTE
OFFICE OF SPEECHWE TING DAVIS
SUBJECT FILE
SERIES
OFFICE OF SPEECHWRITING DAVIS
BOX NO.
SUBJECT FILE
5
FILE FOLDER TITLE:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS/PACS [OA 8748]
TRANSFERRED BY:
DATE OF TRANSFER:
Samme Clure
6/26/96
RECEIVED Nam Jas BY:
DATE RECEIVED
6/26/96