Sam Gejdenson: “I think that the record does need to be set straight here. There is a general disagreement. The other party does not…”

“I think that the record does need to be set straight here. There is a general disagreement. The other party does not believe in limiting wealthy people's power in the political process. They would like to go back to a system that had individuals with large resources be able to control the political process. And what we are trying to do on this side is put together a bill, and it is primarily the votes on this side which will pass reform, as it was in 1974, when real campaign finance reform was passed but damaged somewhat by the court decision in Buckley versus Valeo, that we will have a bill that limits spending, that limits political action committees and does not use taxpayer dollars, but uses fees on political action committees and will use not just fees on political action committees but voluntary contributions from citizens to fund the system. I think that is the right way to go. Whether the match is a dollar for a dollar or 50 cents on a dollar, I think is less relevant than whether or not we can get 100 percent of a limit on spending, that there is not an unlimited race for dollars, that we have a limit on spending, we have a limit on political action committees. And the bill that we are working on does those things. It has passed the House before. It was vetoed by President Bush. We are going to pass a very similar bill again, hopefully improved, that will be signed by President Clinton.”