JOHN LINDER: “I believe we have just heard a defense of soft money, if it is used for purposes that the Democrats agree with: do not…”

“I believe we have just heard a defense of soft money, if it is used for purposes that the Democrats agree with: do not use it for issue ads, but use it for turning out minority voters, I think I heard him say. As a member of the Committee on Rules, I must admit that I would not traditionally propose or support using the discharge process to bring this kind of bill to the House floor. However, I do support bringing this measure to the floor for debate, and if that means that we would have to agree to the major tenants of the rule proposed by the discharge petition for H.R. 2356, then so be it. It is time that we considered this measure. It is time that we laid to rest allegations of unfairness and obstruction, and it is time that we address the fanciful claims that Shays-Meehan bans soft money. It does not. As my colleagues well know, soft money is defined as money that is raised and spent outside the Federal regulatory framework. Because of this broad definition, there are numerous types of soft money and a significant number of avenues through which soft money can be used to influence Federal elections, thus making it all the more baffling that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) claim to have eliminated soft money with their sole elimination of national party soft money. Let me state clearly and unequivocally: Shays-Meehan does not ban soft money.”