Terminating Presidential Election Campaign Fund and Election Assistance Commission

Floor Speech

* Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3463, which would strip funding from the public financing of presidential campaigns and the Election Assistance Commission. I wholeheartedly believe that we should be looking closely at faults in our electoral system, but this bill is a step in the entirely wrong direction.

* Make no mistake--our election system is in crisis. Money has a corrupting influence at every level in the process. Candidates must constantly raise more and more money to remain competitive, and large corporations such as insurance, oil or other special interest groups are able to exert a substantial influence. It is increasingly hard for middle class or low income individuals to have their voices heard.

* This bill would only worsen the problem. Matching funds are intended to give small donors a more effective voice by doubling the impact of dollars given by those who can only afford to contribute small amounts of money. It gives presidential candidates a substantial reason to focus on small donations, instead of merely courting big donors. Eliminating matching funds will all but guarantee that candidates focus even more on donors who are able to contribute large amounts of money each cycle.

* Instead we should be looking at how to make money play less of a role in the system--not more. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1404, the Fair Elections Now Act. This bill would shift a candidate's focus to receiving a large number of small donations from constituents in their states or districts. This would level the playing field and give small donors--working families, seniors, and others--as much influence as the 1% and mega corporations. If H.R. 1404 were passed, it would go a long way towards righting what is so wrong about our process today.

* Rather than considering H.R. 3463 today, we should be discussing how to stop the avalanche of state laws that will have the effect of suppressing voter turnout--laws promoted under the guise of eliminating voter fraud--a virtually non-existent problem. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, recent changes to voting requirements could result in disenfranchising more than five million legitimate, eligible voters this cycle. That number is more than the margin of victory in two of the last three presidential elections.

* The various initiatives proposed--whether they are photo identification requirements, the reduction or elimination of same-day, early or absentee voting opportunities, or placing onerous hurdles on voter registration--all disproportionately impact vulnerable voting populations that we should actively be encouraging to vote. Instead, over and over we see state legislatures doing whatever they can to stop these groups from turning out at the polls.

* It is our duty as members of Congress to investigate those practices and ensure that American citizens are encouraged and able to participate in the electoral process. What agency is similarly tasked with making sure that Americans are given every opportunity to exercise this right? The Election Assistance Commission. I believe its role is fundamental. Disbanding the entire agency is the worst possible solution, given recent changes in voting requirements across the country. Rather, the Commission must be given the tools necessary to ensure that disadvantaged, low-participation and other groups are not disenfranchised by recent changes in state law.

* It is by addressing these two key issues--the role of money and how to boost voter participation, that we will meaningfully address some of the most serious problems with the electoral system today. I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and instead pursue positive election reform.

Source