James Davis: “this amendment is the only obstacle standing between us and passage of the Shays-Meehan bill. Unfortunately, this is not…”

“this amendment is the only obstacle standing between us and passage of the Shays-Meehan bill. Unfortunately, this is not a debate on the merits of this amendment, because the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and I attempted to offer the substance of this amendment as a separate amendment to Shays-Meehan so that the Members would have an opportunity to vote for this Good Housekeeping measure and for Shays-Meehan, and we were deprived of that opportunity, and so was the body. This amendment is so innocuous that it comprises mostly recommendations that were unanimously supported by the FEC commissioners. If there is a single Member in this chamber tonight that intends to vote against this amendment, raise their hands. Not a single Member. This is an amendment that should be taken up on the consent calendar that is reserved for technical bills. That is where we should be debating the merits of this. We should not be debating it as a way to submarine Shays-Meehan. The fight has always been about the right to be heard about the merits of Shays-Meehan on the floor of the House, and we have almost concluded that debate, but let me conclude by citing once again the facts, because the facts speak for themselves. In the 1991/1992 election cycle, $86 million by both political parties was spent in soft money; in 1996, $260 million; in 1970 and 1978, $193 million, more than twice the previous presidential campaign cycle.…”