Eliminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Elections

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. VOLUNTARY FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

(a) In General.--Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 6096. VOLUNTARY DESIGNATION BY INDIVIDUALS.

``(a) General Rule.--Every taxpayer who makes a return of the tax imposed by chapter 1 for any taxable year may designate an amount shall be paid over to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in accordance with the provisions of section 9006(a). The amount designated under the preceding sentence--

``(1) may not be less than $1, and

``(2) shall be in addition to any payment of tax for the taxable year.

``(b) Manner and Time of Designation.--Any designation under subsection (a) for any taxable year--

``(1) shall be made at the time of filing the return of the tax imposed by chapter 1 for such taxable year and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe, except that such designation shall be made either on the first page of the return or on the page bearing the taxpayer's signature, and

``(2) shall be accompanied by a payment of the amount so designated.

``(c) Treatment of Amounts Designated.--For purposes of this title, the amount designated by any taxpayer under subsection (a) shall be treated as a contribution made by such taxpayer to the United States on the last date prescribed for filing the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 (determined without regard to extensions) or, if later, the date the return is filed.''.

(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 6096 in the table of sections for part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

``Sec..6096..Voluntary designation by individuals.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an amendment that can maintain our commitment to true democracy and reduce the corrupting influence of Big Money in Presidential campaigns, but will also allow for fiscal responsibility and the savings that Members of both parties believe so strongly about.

Rather than end the program, as has been proposed in the Republican bill to fund Presidential elections and reduce the influence of Big Money on our political system, this amendment would make the source of the voluntary individual donations to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. It can be structured in such a way where the same amount of money is saved because rather than, and when I looked into this matter, like many Americans, I thought and many people thought that the $3 check-off was actually additional money you pay. On the tax form, it looks like it is and you check it off. Most people think it is additional; it is not actually an additional $3. It comes out of the money you already pay.

So what this amendment would do is say it would be an optional amount on top of the other amount that you pay. So it would be an additional $3 or $5 or $10. We actually leave it open and allow people themselves to designate how much money they would like to apply to fighting Big Money in politics.

So with this approach, we can separate these two issues. One is an issue of fiscal responsibility with which I think there is strong bipartisan support for making cuts, even cuts of programs that we hold dear. Frankly, I am a supporter of public financing and am a cosponsor of the Fair Elections Act. I support more public financing, but I am also fiscally responsible, and I would make cuts elsewhere. Let's separate that out and say we can save the $520 million we need to save, but allow the program of public financing to continue as a program that individuals themselves can choose how much to fund when they are filling out their taxes. I think that is a very critical component with regard to this.

By not capping the amount of voluntary donations, the amount of the fund could even be improved. It could remain solvent and strong because some taxpayers might dedicate $30, $100, or $500. We would make it easy by empowering taxpayers.

I do have a technical fix for the amendment that I would like to offer. This is all happening so quickly, I will get that amendment to you in a moment. But effectively what this would do is, as you know, as it is now structured, all of the money you save going forward and the existing money from the fund is returned to Treasury.

Certainly the intent of my amendment was to do the same thing, but there is some ambiguity about whether the existing money in the fund would be returned to Treasury, which is the intent of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to modify for a technical correction the copy of the amendment I am sending to the desk.

The CHAIR. If the gentleman would send the modification to the desk.

Mr. POLIS. I withdraw the request to modify my amendment so I can continue with my time. How much time do I have remaining?

The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. POLIS. So again, with regard to this amendment, it is designed to save the same amount of money because it does, obviously. It simply allocates the money both in the fund; and I offer in terms of a clarification on legislative intent that it is the intent. There is certainly nothing in the language of the amendment that precludes it, as well as any future funds that come in under the regular taxes that are paid. It allows the fund in the future to be funded out of voluntary contributions.

I think if opponents of the Presidential campaign fund want to end the program for budgetary purposes, my amendment gives a reason to maintain the fund. We can, if you believe in the mission of public financing and fighting Big Money interests, also be fiscally responsible by maintaining the fund. Eliminating the fund would continue the trend of shutting out the public's voice in Federal campaigns.

Again, I sympathize with the need to save $520 million, and I support the need to save $520 million; and that is a beginning. That is a small beginning for what we need to cut, but we can do so in a way that will allow this concept that was created in the wake of Watergate to continue to exist and work.

I worry about the fate of our democracy with regard to the impact of Big Money on elections, and to get rid of public financing in Presidential campaigns would inflict greater damage on our campaigns and on our democracy.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Does the gentleman from Illinois insist on his point of order?

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on the point of order. I raise a point of order against the amendment because it violates clause 10 of rule XXI, known as the CutGo rule. The amendment proposed increased mandatory spending without an equal or great reduction in existing mandatory spending relative to the underlying bill in violation of the rule.

The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. POLIS. Yes, I do.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. POLIS. The point of order is legitimate in the sense that there is an ambiguity with regard to what happens to the money. I would press the point that the legislative intent is to allow the money that exists in the fund to be returned to the Department of the Treasury. We would be happy to work with the gentleman on a technical fix to the amendment that would make that clear. I would argue that it is already clear enough in the sense that certainly nothing is prohibited in terms of returning that money. The formal scoring came back as saving at least, I believe, $422 million, which is all of the money going forward.

So this is a question of the $100 million or so that is now in the fund. The legislative intent is to return that to the Treasury which would, therefore, result in identical savings. And we would be happy, to the gentleman's satisfaction and during the course of debate before the votes are called, to clarify that through a technical fix.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source