Bill Bennett: “I would suggest that individuals are seriously restricted under this bill because they cannot exercise their…”

“I would suggest that individuals are seriously restricted under this bill because they cannot exercise their constitutional privilege of giving the money to a political party. Mr. Hiatt has made the choice not to give the money to the political party, if the article is to be believed solely on the basis that it didn't work, not because he was motivated by some other higher spirit. He decided to give the money directly to a faction because he thought it would be more effective. If this bill passes, as I understand it, Mr. Hiatt would be prohibited from changing that decision. That is, if he were to decide that, 'Gee, I could make things better if I gave it directly to the political party, I want to go back to what I was doing before,' he would be prohibited from doing that on the grounds that this is soft money, and he is forced by the law to give his money to a special interest group rather than to a political party or to a political candidate. This puts us in the position of paradoxically strengthening the hands of special interest groups at the expense of political parties and political candidates. This puts us in the position of saying that eventually political discourse in this country will go the way that it is going in California. I lived in California for long enough to know that the California pattern of putting issues directly on the ballot with no spending limitation whatsoever eclipses elections for candidates.”