John Doolittle: “I rise to oppose this rule because it only allows two versions of campaign finance reform, both of which miss the mark.…”

“I rise to oppose this rule because it only allows two versions of campaign finance reform, both of which miss the mark. They are both based on the false diagnosis that campaign spending is out of control. They are both offering the false prescription that more regulation and limits are needed. With reference to the false diagnosis, indeed, looking back over history, we can see election spending since 1980 has been fairly constant, fluctuating between four one-hundredths of 1 percent and six one-hundredths of 1 percent of gross domestic product. Americans spend more each year buying yogurt and buying potato chips than they do on congressional elections. Clearly, we are not spending too much money when juxtaposed with other legitimate expenditures that we are making. As to the prescription that more regulation is needed, has anyone heard of the first amendment? Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Congress specifically and the people of this country specifically did not want government regulating this with all the force that government can bring. They wanted people to be able to vote, and that is how they would make their decisions. When we imposed campaign spending limits, we hurt the challenger.”