Mike Levin: “we are at the moment of a major victory, not final, but major. And the freshmen have helped us move to this moment, but…”

“we are at the moment of a major victory, not final, but major. And the freshmen have helped us move to this moment, but their proposal is seriously flawed. Let me mention a few of the provisions. It has a loophole for soft money relating to State parties. And that is not the question of the role of State parties, it is leaving a loophole for soft money. Secondly, it would increase the contribution maximums from $25,000 to $50,000. That means a couple over 2 years could contribute $200,000 overall. I think that is unnecessary and too high. But, thirdly, let me talk about issue ads. It is not a matter of curtailing free speech. It is whether speech that is really a campaign ad should be within the purview of our regulatory system. The Supreme Court said this in Buckley: "To the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quo's from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. Of almost equal as the danger of actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions." The Court in Furgatch said, Ten years later, as these ads began to proliferate, "we begin with the proposition that 'express advocacy' is not strictly limited to communications using certain key phrases."”