Statement of Administration Policy: S. 137 - Senatorial Election Campaign Act - Mitchell Substitute

(Senate)
(Mitchell (D) Maine)

Although the Administration agrees that the current campaign finance system suffers from a number of serious defects and that there is a need for real reform, the Administration strongly opposes enactment of the Mitchell substitute to S. 137. While the following statement details several of the Administration's most serious objections to the bill, it does not represent an exhaustive list. If the substitute is passed in its current form, the President's senior advisors will recommend that it be vetoed.

The Administration urges the Congress to enact the President's campaign finance proposal (S. 1727). S. 1727 contains several far-reaching and much-needed reforms, and is fully consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment. The Administration's bill directly confronts the twin evils of the current system — practices which give incumbents unfair advantages and the role played by special interest "PACs" subsidized by corporations, labor unions, and trade associations.

By contrast, the Mitchell substitute would aggravate many of the worst features of the existing financing system which heavily favors incumbents. The substitute's reliance on tax dollars would weaken the role of individual contributors, and its coerced expenditure limitations would create even greater biases in favor of incumbents. In a time of significant fiscal constraints, there is no justification for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on an incumbent protection scheme.

The substitute's financing scheme is also constitutionally flawed. The substitute would unconstitutionally coerce Senate candidates into agreeing to a new public financing program and its accompanying spending limits. Under this program, if a challenger raises or spends even $1 over the "voluntary" limit, taxpayers would be forced to subsidize a participating incumbent in sums mounting into the millions for a single State. If the challenger raises one-third over the limit, the incumbent's subsidies would increase further.

The effect, if not the purpose, of this scheme would be to coerce challengers to limit their efforts against incumbents. In doing so, the substitute would place unconstitutional burdens on the rights of individual candidates to make campaign expenditures as well as on the rights of contributors. In addition, by using taxpayer subsidies in an attempt to equalize campaign financial resources, the financing system would stack the deck even more heavily in favor of incumbents, who enjoy substantial name recognition at the start of a campaign.

The Administration also objects to several sections of the substitute that would unconstitutionally regulate the content of political advertisements. Section 308 would impermissibly require personal appearances by a candidate in television broadcast advertisements. Section 203 of the substitute would unconstitutionally require independent broadcasts to display continuously, over at least 25 percent of the television screen, certain prescribed information. Section 203 would also require independent print advertisements to carry a statement noting the fact that the cost of the advertisement is not subject to any campaign contribution limits. Section 105 similarly requires nonparticipating Senate candidates to disclose, in every advertisement, the fact that they have not agreed to abide by the Act's spending limits.