[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 577, TO REQUIRE ANY ORGANIZATION THAT IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RAISING FUNDS FOR THE CREATION OF A PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVAL
DEPOSITORY TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF ANY FUNDS RAISED
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY,
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 577
TO REQUIRE ANY ORGANIZATION THAT IS ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RAISING FUNDS FOR THE CREATION OF A PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVAL DEPOSITORY TO
DISCLOSE THE SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF ANY FUNDS RAISED
__________
APRIL 5, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-67
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-867 WASHINGTON : 2002
________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JIM TURNER, Texas
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ------ ------
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida ------ ------
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
------ ------ (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations
STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DOUG OSE, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Robert Alloway, Professional Staff Member
Scott R. Fagan, Clerk
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 5, 2001.................................... 1
Text of H.R. 577................................................. 4
Statement of:
Bellardo, Lewis J., Deputy Archivist, National Archives and
Records Administration; Scott Harshbarger, president,
Common Cause; Larry Noble, executive director and general
counsel, Center for Responsive Politics; and Kenneth A.
Gross, partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP... 13
Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Tennessee..................................... 8
Light, Paul C., Director, Center for Public Service,
Brookings Institution...................................... 53
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Bellardo, Lewis J., Deputy Archivist, National Archives and
Records Administration, prepared statement of.............. 16
Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Tennessee, prepared statement of.............. 10
Gross, Kenneth A., partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, prepared statement of............................ 48
Harshbarger, Scott, president, Common Cause, prepared
statement of............................................... 28
Horn, Hon. Stephen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 3
Light, Paul C., Director, Center for Public Service,
Brookings Institution, prepared statement of............... 55
Noble, Larry, executive director and general counsel, Center
for Responsive Politics, prepared statement of............. 41
Schakowsky, Hon. Janice D., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Illinois, prepared statement of............... 7
H.R. 577, A BILL TO REQUIRE ANY ORGANIZATION THAT IS ESTABLISHED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RAISING FUNDS FOR THE CREATION OF A PRESIDENTIAL
ARCHIVAL DEPOSITORY TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF ANY FUNDS
RAISED
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management and Intergovernmental Relations,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen Horn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Horn and Putnam.
Staff present: J. Russell George, staff director and chief
counsel; Randy Kaplan, full committee professional staff
member; Bonnie Heald, director of communications; Earl Pierce,
professional staff member; Matthew Ebert, policy advisor; Grant
Newman, assistant to the subcommittee; Brian Hom, intern;
Michelle Ash and David McMillen, minority professional staff
members; and Jean Gosa, minority clerk.
Mr. Horn. I apologize for being late. This is a first.
We are delighted to have my colleague and very
distinguished chairman in his own sense, Mr. Duncan. A quorum
being present, we are glad to have you here.
The subject of today's hearing is both timely and
important. H.R. 577, introduced by Mr. Duncan from Tennessee,
is a bill that would require organizations established to raise
funds to create Presidential libraries disclose the names of
their contributors and the amounts of their donations.
This bill is similar to H.R. 3239, which was introduced by
Representative Duncan in the 106th Congress. It is designed to
ensure that fundraising for Presidential libraries is public
information and is free from conflicts of interest or the
appearance of impropriety.
In 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt developed the
concept of a Presidential library to house his Presidential
papers and other historical materials. The National Archives
and Records administers Presidential libraries for every
President since Herbert Hoover, with the exception of former
President Nixon, whose library is privately administered and
funded.
Today these libraries maintain over 400 million pages of
text, nearly 10 million photographs, over 15 million feet of
motion picture film, and approximately 500,000 Presidential
objects.
In order to establish a Presidential library, a President's
family or political associates generally create a nonprofit
foundation or organization to receive contributions and
donations. Because of the private nature of these organizations
and because the President does not play an official role in the
organization, these fundraising activities are not subject to
public scrutiny. Under current law, Presidential library
foundations can raise unlimited amounts of money from
undisclosed sources. H.R. 577 would require that the names of
these donors and the amounts of their contributions be publicly
disclosed.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen Horn and the text
of H.R. 577 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.003
Mr. Horn. We have today a number of witnesses who will
discuss this legislation, and we will elaborate, perhaps, on
this bill one way or another. We welcome all of our witnesses
and look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.004
Mr. Horn. The first panel is Representative John Duncan,
Member of Congress from Tennessee, and author of the
legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much for inviting me here this
morning, and thank you for holding this hearing and for
offering to move this legislation. I want to say good morning
also to my colleague, Mr. Putnam.
I want to say, Chairman Horn, that this is my second time
appearing before this subcommittee. You held a hearing a few
years ago on some legislation that we worked on together to
help small businesses compete, be able to compete more fairly
with government agencies, the Freedom From Government
Competition, and that legislation, at least major portions of
it, were enacted into law. So I appreciate that.
Today I am here before you concerning a bill that I
introduced back in the 106th Congress concerning Presidential
libraries. In fact, I introduced this bill in November 1999,
approximately a year and a half ago, and long before the
controversies of recent months, because I felt that the public
should be made aware of possible conflicts of interest that
sitting Presidents can have while raising funds for their
libraries. In most cases, we do not know who these donors are
or what interests they may have on any pending policy decisions
that are to be made.
The bill I have introduced in this Congress, H.R. 577, is a
simple public disclosure bill. In fact, I don't suppose you
will ever hold a hearing on a shorter, simpler bill. It does
not prohibit any type of contribution, nor does it limit the
amount of any contribution. Any person can still contribute $1
million or even several million dollars to a Presidential
library.
One problem that exists today is that a person who is very
limited in what they can contribute to a Presidential campaign
could potentially contribute millions to their library and
perhaps receive favors in return.
H.R. 577 would require these donors and donations to be
made public so that the citizens of this country can decide for
themselves if they believe there is some type of quid pro quo
at work here.
I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that anybody would have a
problem with this bill, unless they want to keep this process
secret.
Quite some time ago Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy
21, said, ``Any President of the United States should not be
raising secret money, period.'' He said, ``If you are President
of the United States and you are raising money, particularly to
things that inure to your benefit and interest, you have the
responsibility to the American people to tell them where that
money is coming from.''
The National Journal had an article earlier this year, in
fact, just last--I started to say last month, but we are in
April now, this was February 24th, and they say in this
article, ``No sitting president, even the two-termers, should
be headlining intimate little dinners at private mansions in an
effort to raise unlimited amounts of cash from undisclosed
sources, foreign and domestic, so that their accumulated papers
and the record of their White House achievements can be safely
stored for all eternity.
The Knoxville News Sentinel, shortly before I introduced
this legislation, ran an editorial concerning, at the time,
former President Clinton, and they said, ``Maybe the President
is hitting up donors now while he still has the clout to do
it.'' This editorial said, ``Clinton is still a sitting
President and is in a position to do favors for donors. His
raising more money for his library behind closed doors may be
legal, but it smells all the same.''
This legislation, of course, is not aimed at former
President Clinton or anybody else, it is just, I think, good
public policy to require that these donations be disclosed. As
I said a few moments ago, I think anyone who would oppose this
could only do so because they had some motive to keep some of
these things secret. I don't think that should be done.
So that concludes my testimony. I appreciate your giving me
the courtesy to be here with you this morning.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr.,
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.006
Mr. Horn. Well, I hope you can join us on the panel up
here. I would like to call on my colleague from Florida, Mr.
Putnam, for an opening statement. He has some other things to
do also. If you want to come on up, we will have Mr. Putnam
give his opening statement.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Mr. Duncan
for this timely issue. My first foray into this congressional
business was a full-blown hearing on the pardon of Marc Rich.
We were informed that his ex-wife had contributed a large sum
of money to help fund the Clinton Library, and the committee
tried to find out how much, and we didn't have a very easy time
of that. We asked her and she took the fifth, and we subpoenaed
the library and finally discovered she had given $450,000.
It shouldn't take scandals and subpoenas to know who is
contributing to Presidential libraries. It ought to be publicly
disclosed. Through the Government Reform Committee's work, I
have come to two conclusions.
First, it is clear that the government and the public have
a substantial interest in these facilities. The libraries are
built through private contributions, but after they are built,
they are deeded over to the Federal Government and run by the
National Archives. Since these facilities end up being run by
the government, we should know what money is used in their
construction. It is also logical for the public to know how
much was raised and from whom and how it came about.
Second, it is clear that the vast majority of individuals
who contribute to Presidential libraries, not surprisingly, are
political supporters of the President, any President. It
applies to all Presidential libraries. These individuals make
contributions to libraries just like they make contributions to
parties or other charities of their interest.
We have laws requiring public disclosure of political
contributions, and I support that. We believe that public
scrutiny will let us know when people are buying access or
influence, or that there is the appearance thereof. For the
same reasons, contributions to Presidential libraries should be
disclosed.
Currently the foundations are private and their activities
are not open to public scrutiny. They can raise unlimited
amounts of money from undisclosed sources. This invites abuse
and accusations of undo influence. Mr. Duncan's bill, which was
first introduced last Congress, long before the current
scandal, changes that.
The concept of public disclosure of contributions to
libraries should not be terribly controversial. It should be
bipartisan in its support. I look forward to hearing further
details about the legislation. For example, should there be a
threshold under which contributions need not be disclosed, how
should the libraries go about making their disclosure, how
frequently. These are issues that are at the margin, the core
being that Mr. Duncan has seized upon an important issue, an
important issue for public disclosure, and one that I hope this
Congress will receive very warmly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Mr. Horn. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement.
By unanimous consent, I would like to note that Mr. Duncan will
be a member of this panel.
Hearing no objection, it is unanimously approved that he be
a part of the panel.
So, at this point let's go to panel two. That is Dr. Lewis
J. Bellardo, Deputy Archivist, National Archives and Records
Administration; Mr. Scott Harshbarger, president, Common Cause;
Mr. Larry Noble, executive director and general counsel, Center
for Responsive Politics; Mr. Kenneth A. Gross, partner,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Mr. Paul Light will
be here shortly, director, Center for Public Service, Brookings
Institution.
Gentleman, as you know, this is an investigating committee,
and we do swear in anybody but our colleagues. So if you will
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that all four members of
panel two are sworn. We will start with Dr. Bellardo.
STATEMENTS OF LEWIS J. BELLARDO, DEPUTY ARCHIVIST, NATIONAL
ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; SCOTT HARSHBARGER,
PRESIDENT, COMMON CAUSE; LARRY NOBLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
GENERAL COUNSEL, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS; AND KENNETH A.
GROSS, PARTNER, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
Mr. Bellardo. Congressman Horn, Chairman Horn----
Mr. Horn. We are going to have to get that--this is a crazy
room.
Mr. Bellardo. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Horn. We can.
Mr. Bellardo. Chairman Horn, Congressmen Duncan and Putnam,
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I want
to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 577. I am
delighted to join you this morning to offer some background on
the Presidential library system and its multiple benefits to
scholarship, public policy, education, and a more complete
understanding of our history.
This has been a very successful public/private partnership,
and we greatly appreciate the opportunity to explain why it has
flourished for the past 60 years and 11 Presidential
administrations.
Sixty years ago, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed creating a
Presidential library that would be a part of an institution
whose growth he had shepherded, namely, the National Archives.
Roosevelt suggested an innovative approach. He would donate the
land and build the library with private funding, and then he
would give the library and his papers to the National Archives.
On June 30, 1941, Roosevelt dedicated his library at Hyde
Park. His words of dedication remain important today, ``to
bring together the records of the past and to house them in
buildings where they will be preserved for the use of men and
women in the future, a nation must believe in three things: It
must believe in the past, it must believe in the future, and it
must, above all, believe in the capacity of its own people so
to learn from the past that they can gain judgment in creating
their own future.''
In the services that it provided for its researchers, its
extensive collection of materials and the incorporation of a
museum experience for hundreds of thousands of visitors a year,
the Roosevelt Library became the model of the Presidential
library system, which soon began to grow. The library system
was codified during the Eisenhower administration with the
Presidential Libraries Act of 1955. This act not only provided
a continuing legal authority for the government to accept the
gifts of the library, but authorized the government to enter
into agreements with State and local governments, with
universities, with institutes and foundations, for the purposes
of using land, buildings and equipment for a Presidential
archival depository. This means three and even four-way
partnerships, sometimes as foundations, universities, local
communities, come together to build a Presidential center.
In 1986, Congress passed various amendments to the previous
act as a cost reduction and control mechanism to reduce costs
of operating the libraries and also to ensure that their
designs met archival standards.
44 U.S.C. 2112 requires an endowment equal to 20 percent of
the cost of the building be transferred to the government at
dedication to contribute to the operating expenses of the
library. The act also required the archivist to promulgate
architectural and design standards for the preservation of the
materials and the inclusion of adequate research facilities. So
on the day that the George Bush Library was dedicated, the Bush
Foundation presented a check for $4 million to the National
Archives Trust Fund.
I should mention that these funds do not fully provide all
of the funds necessary to operate the facility, but they are a
contribution, and an important contribution.
I trust that the chairman will agree with me that the
materials in Presidential libraries are among the Nation's most
important documents. Presidential records are often open for
research long before the records of other departments and
agencies of government are even transferred to the National
Archives. Political scientists study the processes used by
Presidents to govern. Economists study the impact of
Presidential decisions on economic indicators and project what
will happen in the future.
Hundreds of thousands of children visit libraries each year
to learn about how Presidents make decisions, how laws are
passed, how wars were fought, and how our civil rights have
been ensured. And over 1 million visitors each year view the
human drama of the Presidency through the power of objects and
documents displayed in the libraries.
Whatever their larger vision has been, former Presidents
and their families have agreed that a lively exciting
institution that draws a large visitorship, an institution that
provides an informative program of exhibits, public and
educational events, must have an active and generous
foundation. The government cannot be expected to provide
appropriated funds to each Presidential library for these
value-added purposes, and the library foundations have evolved
to meet these needs.
The contributions of these support organizations to the
library spell the difference between static repositories and
lively vital centers of scholarship and service to the public.
So to kind of recapitulate what the foundations or
institutes do as it relates to the libraries and NARA, they
obtain the land, this is often in conjunction with the
university or with local community groups or local governments
and so forth; they obtain the land, they build the building,
they provide the keys to us after having created the building
to our design specifications, they hand us an endowment for the
partial maintenance of the building.
Fortunately for us, they usually transfer only the
footprint of the building to us, which means that they have to
maintain the parking and the grounds. That is another plus from
our standpoint.
They provide funds to do exhibits, to support historical
conferences, public policy symposia, educational materials and
public events such as the World War II events at the
commemorations at the Eisenhower Library, and even have, in
recent years, made contributions to major building renovations.
So, on the other hand, directly appropriated funds pay for
activities mandated by the law as part of NARA's mission. These
include the appraisal of documents, the accessioning, the
processing and preserving of these materials, as well as
providing reference services. NARA also provides security,
facility maintenance of the building itself, and environmental
and safety controls.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is a system that has
worked economically, a system that has served the purposes
envisaged by Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, a
system that has won the accolades of scholars and students from
around the country for 60 years. The National Archives is proud
of what we have achieved with this partnership and look forward
to the next 60 years of growth and improvement.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be happy to answer any questions at an appropriate time.
Mr. Horn. Thank you for your statement. We will wait until
we can go through all the witnesses, and then we will have the
questions and answers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bellardo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.016
Mr. Horn. Our next presenter is Mr. Scott Harshbarger,
president of Common Cause.
Mr. Harshbarger. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
members, for this opportunity for Common Cause to testify on
this important issue, and for my first opportunity in this role
to appear before you and to see you all again.
Common Cause totally supports both the noble principles and
the reality of what has occurred with the various Presidential
foundations and, as so eloquently described by the speaker
before me, we also believe very much in an engaged, educated
citizenry and the role they play. Common Cause also cares about
open, honest and accountable government.
We are here because there have been a number of issues
raised, not only recently, with the Presidential pardon issues,
but others, and so I thought we could focus on what the issues
are that bring us here, and particularly, thanks to Congressman
Duncan, have the issue presented in the House, and Senator
Specter in the Senate.
We are here because Presidential library foundations now
raise millions of dollars in private contributions and have
become more and more ambitious. The FDR Library, the first of
the 10 Presidential libraries now in the Federal system, cost
under $400,000 to build. Former President Clinton's library
complex is expected to cost well over $100 million.
Any time elected officials or their supporters are raising
millions of dollars in private donations, there is a cause for
concern; who are these donors and are their large gifts their
way of gaining access and influence at the White House or in
any other way in terms of the performance of public officials
and public responsibilities?
The Clinton pardon scandal brought home problems with the
Presidential library system. The Rich donation of $450,000 that
Congressman Putnam referenced and Beth Dozoretz's pledge of $1
million to the library and their successful lobbying for the
pardon of Marc Rich, raised the problem very directly.
When Congress wanted to investigate these media reports and
learn the names of the donors to the library foundation, the
library's director tried to stonewall and didn't comply with
the congressional subpoena. It took the threat of contempt to
bring limited disclosure of contributors.
Common Cause wrote to Skip Rutherford asking that the
Clinton library donors be disclosed. Then when a few key
members of the House Government Reform Committee got access to
the names of the top donors, we stated publicly that this
accommodation wasn't adequate.
Let's be clear about this: Our view is that Presidents
should not be in the business of raising private funds for
their libraries, but we recognize the political difficulties in
translating this view into the legislation that will be
enacted.
Again, we mentioned H.R. 577, sponsored by Representative
Duncan, is an important step in addressing these issues posed
by these libraries. Senate 645, sponsored by Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania, would require a sitting President to disclose all
contributions to a library foundation of more than $5,000, and
that is a step in the right direction in reforming the process.
But there are two other problems we must find a way to
address. First is the problem that the gifts are unlimited.
Clinton and Reagan both solicited a contribution for their
library while still in office. These gifts can give any donor
with an agenda before the Federal Government a powerful tool to
gain access and influence at the highest levels of the
executive branch.
What President would not be grateful for a $1 million or a
$5 million or $10 million gift to his or her library? Second is
the problem that these gifts can come from foreign sources,
which are prohibited from almost any other type of campaign and
other contributions.
While President Bush did not raise contributions for his
library, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia both are among his $1 million
donors. Now they ask the father of a sitting President. Is
there a potential for a conflict of interest or potential
conflict?
Common Cause recommends that library contributions not be
permitted from foreign nationals or foreign governments and
that there be limits on the sizes of donations to Presidential
library foundations.
As we consider disclosure and contributions for
Presidential libraries, we should take note of the fact that we
may want to apply these requirements not only to sitting
Presidents. Our history shows that former Presidents also wield
influence in their parties, with many Members of Congress, and
often take active roles as heads of commissions, diplomatic
emissaries, and even in brokering negotiations between the
United States and leaders of other countries, as Jimmy Carter
did in Haiti.
These restrictions are really a way to ensure that our
Presidents, past and present, are not beholden to wealthy
special interests, and that our Presidential libraries remain
free to serve the American public, not so much as monuments to
individual politicians, but as repositories of important public
documents about a particular Presidential administration.
As Presidential library scholar Curt Smith has observed,
``It's not only their history, it's our history.''
We have submitted a prepared statement in addition, and we
thank you for this opportunity to speak to this committee.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. That is very helpful.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harshbarger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.027
Mr. Horn. Mr. Larry Noble is executive director and general
counsel for the Center for Responsive Politics. Mr. Noble.
Mr. Noble. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the important question of
the disclosure of financial contributions to Presidential
libraries. I would also note that, like Mr. Harshbarger, this
is my first opportunity to appear in my present capacity before
the committee, and I am pleased to do so.
The Center for Responsive Politics is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit research organization that monitors and analyzes
contributions in Federal elections. The Center is not an
advocacy group. The reason for our existence is simple: To
inform citizens about who is paying for Federal elections and
who is in the position to exercise influence over the elected
officials who represent the public in our Nation's Capital. We
can do this because the financing of your campaigns are open to
public scrutiny.
Starting with the Federal Election Commission's data, the
center compiles and publishes full campaign finance profiles
for all Members of Congress, all candidates for Congress, and
for most of the Presidential contenders. For example, we
compile and make public a summary of how much you took in
during the last election cycle, how much you spent, how much
money you had left in your campaign, how much of your campaign
contributions came from PACs versus individuals, and how much
you contribute to your own campaigns. We also break down these
contributions geographically.
The public can also get a breakdown of contributions by
industry and interest group. We show a candidate's leading
contributors standardized and grouped by organizations. We even
display how well he or she did in fully identifying the
occupation and employees of their donors.
This is public disclosure. Without it, the public would not
have the faintest idea of who is financing our elections, how
much they gave and what they might be expecting in return. The
law has recognized for almost 100 years that our democracy is
significantly strengthened when the public knows who is giving
the money. The public, however, is still in the dark with
regard to several back-door ways of buying influence in
Washington. One of these is the funding of Presidential
libraries.
As we all know, Presidents begin fundraising for their
libraries well before they leave office. President Clinton was
not the first, and I suspect he will not be the last. When you
have a sitting President whose fundraising machine is raising
millions of dollars in unlimited contributions for a project on
his behalf, legitimate concerns must be raised by the identity
of the donors.
As you are all aware, the perception is that money, at the
very least, opens doors for the donors, and there is a
perception and reality that the large contributor is looking
for something in return. We all know too well about President
Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich and how six-figure contributions
to a Presidential library fund, along with other political
donations, has left the indelible impression, accurate or not,
that a Presidential pardon was bought.
Few reasonable people any longer doubt that one of the most
critical checks against the real and apparent corruption in
politics is disclosure. As Justice Brandeis wrote in 1933,
``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric
light the most efficient policeman.''
Doesn't the public deserve to have the sunlight shine on
the Presidential library contributors? If you answer yes, then
you need a law that does more than expresses a worthwhile
sentiment and requirement for disclosure.
As always, when discussing any law, the devil is in the
details. Important questions must be answered before disclosure
of Presidential library contributions will become a reality.
For example, what information must be disclosed; who must
disclose it; how often and for how long will disclosure be
required; in what form must they disclose it; who will
administer and enforce the disclosure?
As history has shown us, a law unenforced may be as bad as
no law at all, as it leaves you with a false comfort that you
have done something, even as the problem rages on.
Mr. Chairman, members, as you address these issues,
remember that this is about more than politics or philanthropic
desires of the well-to-do. It is about the public interest in
holding elected officials accountable for their actions and
decisions, and the public's confidence that what belongs to the
public, an office holder's free and untainted judgment, is not
being sold.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy
to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Noble follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.032
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much. All of you come at this in
various ways, and we are going to get a lot of knowledge out of
it.
Mr. Gross is the partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Heagher &
Flom. We are delighted to have you. Please proceed.
Mr. Gross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not here
representing any group, but I was immediately drawn to this
bill because it is short and sweet. It is shorter than most
footnotes, and I liked that right off.
Mr. Horn. It might start a terrible trend around here.
Mr. Gross. I will try and keep my comments to be the same.
I just had a few specific comments as I looked at it.
I guess there is always a question about what a library is.
Most of the libraries that I have seen setup in recent years--
there is a defined term there, and you could limit the scope of
the disclosure by just limiting the contributions just to the
library. So I think it needs to be drafted in a way to include
the surrounding and related facilities in and around the
library, since the definition of what the library is, as I read
it, is kind of a narrow definition, and, of course, the
complexes have become more elaborate in recent years.
I do believe that there should be disclosure of
contributions after the President leaves office. This bill does
not address that. I think the Specter bill limits it to while
the President is in office.
It certainly should continue after the President leaves
office. I don't know whether it should be in perpetuity. If it
is a one-term President, he or she could run again. You could
have a Grover Cleveland situation. Certainly there should be a
meaningful period of post-service disclosure.
As far as thresholds go, I think I would recommend the
$5,000 threshold for disclosure. It is the disclosure threshold
right now for filing 990's, which is the tax return for
501(c)3. I should say disclosure only to the IRS. It is not
public disclosure, and that is what would be made public with
this bill, presumably, and it seems like a good number to me.
There is always the threat, and we got into this at my
years at the Federal Election Commission, of contributions made
in the name of another. You give money to some third person,
who then donates it, and that thwarts the disclosure. I think
there needs to be a specific provision to prevent conduit
contributions, contributions in the name of another, as well as
probably some additional information, occupation, employer,
some of the information we see now currently on the Federal
Elections Commission reports.
As far as its administration goes, I am reluctantly moving
toward the IRS. The reason I say ``reluctantly'' is that the
527 legislation, the soft PAC legislation that passed last
year, is being administered by the IRS. It puts the IRS in the
business of being a disclosure agency.
The culture of the IRS, the whole legal construct of the
IRS, is to maintain secrecy of taxpayer information. They were
thrust into a disclosure role there, which I think was an
uncomfortable one for them and probably should have been at the
Federal Election Commission, which does a good job with
disclosure. Here this is basically just tax information. So I
sort of reluctantly come to the IRS as the appropriate
disclosure agency.
Perhaps maybe disclosure could be made to the Archives,
but, as Mr. Noble noted, you need some enforcement mechanism,
and I think that would also probably be placed at the IRS for
late filing of returns and that type of thing.
So those are my thoughts on the administration side of the
bill. Again, any questions, I would be happy to address.
[The prepared statement of Kenneth Gross follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.035
Mr. Horn. Thank you. Dr. Light, is he here yet?
OK, we will take his testimony later. Let us start with
some questions then, if we might. I wonder if the author of
this legislation would like to ask a few questions?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank each member of the panel for being here to testify. I
think that each of you has made very helpful comments and many
good suggestions, and I can tell you that I don't have any
objections to revising this legislation in some of the ways
that you have suggested.
We tried to keep the bill as short and simple as possible
because we want to remove as many objections as possible so
that we can get something through. If you start putting too
many limits or details on some of this, we potentially run into
objections from the White House or other places.
Dr. Bellardo, do you see any problems about the Archives
administering these disclosure requirements? Would you rather
it be placed, as Mr. Gross suggested, in some agency such as
IRS?
Mr. Bellardo. I think Mr. Gross indicated probably some
other agency would be more appropriate, since most of the funds
ultimately end up coming to us for the support of the library
and the library programs. I think that would further complicate
our situation. It would probably be better administered by
another agency.
Mr. Horn. Could you speak up just a little?
Mr. Bellardo. Oh, sure. Were you able to hear me?
Mr. Horn. Keep going. You are getting there.
Mr. Bellardo. That would be all I would have to say at this
point.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Harshbarger, I appreciate the letter that
Common Cause sent to the Clinton Library last February 27th,
and I think it is a well-written letter and it makes a lot of
good points that pertain to this legislation. I don't remember,
did you say that you thought these contributions should be
limited? I notice you requested contributions over $5,000 be
disclosed, as is in Senator Specter's legislation. Do you think
there should be a top limit on the contributions?
Mr. Harshbarger. We did think they should not be unlimited.
Mr. Duncan. But you haven't suggested an amount?
Mr. Harshbarger. $5,000, we would prefer limits. I mean, I
guess, you can start to talk about the amount and number. I am
very sympathetic to your point, Congressman, that you are
trying to get something through here, and if we--I am sure the
two gentlemen here to my right can speak even more to this
issue, about how you deal with the details of disclosure, and
those of us that have been enforcers also understand those
problems.
On the other hand, if the reason you are trying to get the
disclosure is for the purposes of public disclosure, we all
know that if you don't have a method that starts to lay it out
in some detail, it will be driven by other factors that will
start to weigh, and at least we have experience in other areas
to try to figure out how to do it.
I am concerned with--you know, this is a great opportunity
for me to raise questions to my two knowledgeable colleagues
here--why you would think that the IRS--I mean, because I think
part of the problem here, if you are doing a sitting President,
for example, you are interested in knowing in a somewhat timely
manner who gave the contribution, specifically the reason to
get a sitting President's information is because you are
concerned about the reasons that this money is being given now,
and you want to know what is pending.
So having an agency, while we all know some of the issues
with the FEC, I think the other question is they are at least
used to making disclosures available quickly so people can take
advantage of that. I would think at least as to the sitting
President, you would want to treat these much more as any kind
of donation that comes in the nature, if not campaign
contributions, at least disclosure. If you are giving gifts, it
would have to be disclosed. So I think that is where I would be
concerned.
I tend to wholly agree with your concept. Everything here
ought to be disclosed. I understand that people may not want to
do that, but most of the major institutions in this country
proudly display who their contributors are at all levels. I
mean, the more platinum you can get, the better, at most
universities, and smaller donations as well.
So I don't think that the privacy issue is important. If
your goal is to get this, not for puritan interests, but
because you are trying to figure out what the reasons are
somebody might have given this money, I think you have to treat
it more in the nature of a disclosure that is ongoing.
Mr. Duncan. I had the thought that if you could run into
the argument that some of these libraries would make, that
especially after a President leaves office, that if they can
get a contribution from some corporation or foundation, they
serve educational purposes. I can see them making some pretty
good arguments against limiting these contributions to any
great extent. But I don't personally have any real objections
to it.
Mr. Noble, do you have any comments you wish to make as to
what Mr. Harshbarger said?
Mr. Noble. Yes. I think the FEC is the best place to put
this, and I am personally aware the FEC is not without its
controversy. But the FEC, as Mr. Gross said, does an excellent
job in disclosure. It right now has systems setup for doing
this type of thing. It is setup to take electronic disclosure,
electronic filing. It has an excellent Web site where it puts
the information out there for the public. And it also has right
now what is a temporary administrative fines program, that is
apparently working very well and they are going to ask for an
extension of that program, and that is the type of program that
would serve as a good enforcement mechanism for any type of
reporting system where you have a late report and you want to
just have administrative fines for it.
So I think the FEC is the one that is setup right now to do
it quickly and it could get it online pretty quickly. So that
is where I think it would belong.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Gross.
Mr. Gross. First of all, I would oppose limits. I don't
think there should be limits on these contributions. These are
approved charities by the Internal Revenue Service under
501(c)3. They are considered to be in the public interest.
Anybody who has visited one of these Presidential libraries I
am sure has been impressed with them. They provide a great
public service, and I would not want to interfere with the
fundraising, as long as we have proper disclosure.
I don't think we need to get into trying to disclose a
pledge, because I don't think you can administer a pledge. A
Federal Election Campaign Act used to have a written pledge
disclosure requirement, and it was taken out. I think if we get
the disclosure at some point, even after the President serves,
we will be well served.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing this at the Federal
Election Commission, because they are used to administering,
putting information out. The problem I have--and that is where
I wish, as I mentioned, the 527 legislation had placed
disclosure--is, this is a tax entity. This is a 501(c)3, it is
not a political entity, and just because it is going to a fund
that happens to be connected with a President or a former
President, I don't think shifts it into the enforcement
mechanism of the FEC and the disclosure mechanism of the FEC.
The other problem with limits, by the way, is you get into
a whole disclosure mechanism, saying were the contributions
from affiliated entities, and were they aggregated, and you
don't want to get into all those types of issues.
I think it should be strictly disclosure, and now the IRS
seems to be able to handle disclosure because of it having
gotten the 527 legislation. I reluctantly feel that is probably
the most comfortable fit for this type of information.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much. I know it was Dr. Light,
the witness from the Brookings Institution, that suggested the
$50,000----
Mr. Horn. Here he is coming right through the door, the
Scarlet Pimperel of American political science. He is here, he
is there, he is everywhere.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much for your supportive
comments and suggestions.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Horn. Let me just say, we are delighted to have Dr.
Light here. He always lends a little humor to anything he
testifies about.
What would you like to say, since you don't know what your
colleagues have said?
Mr. Light. I agree 100 percent with their wise thoughts.
Mr. Horn. I have to swear you in. You have been sworn in
numerous times here but let's do it again.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Horn. The clerk will note that Dr. Light has taken the
oath.
STATEMENT OF PAUL C. LIGHT, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR PUBLIC
SERVICE, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Mr. Light. I apologize for being late. We have been working
for the last few years on the Presidential appointments process
reform and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a
hearing yesterday afternoon--a hearing this morning. They are
constantly voting. Actually, they are not constantly voting so
when they do vote it is a big event so we had a little bit of
trouble getting that hearing underway.
I really don't have a deep statement here. I support the
general notion here of requiring disclosure of contributions to
Presidential libraries. What I bring to the table here this
morning is my own experience back in 1988, as the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee drafted the Presidential
Transitions Effectiveness Act in 1988 where we decided that it
was a wise--or the Senate and the House decided that it was a
wise move to regulate, require the disclosure and limitation of
funds given to private foundations that had been created to
support a Presidential transition. I think that provides the
precedent perhaps for Representative Duncan's legislation. I
mean, we have done this before. We have made the decision
before that private foundations can be regulated, and that
there are places where such regulation makes sense.
The decision to regulate the contributions to the
Presidential transition funds was based on a concern about
conflicts of interest, appearance of conflicts rather than any
reality that we could find. We just knew that there was a lot
of money going into transitions; that the 1981 Reagan
transition had involved a lot of money but nobody knew how
much, in what levels, what contributions, and it created the
appearance of conflicts of interest that we thought was
troublesome for democratic confidence.
Having said that, and having looked briefly at the
legislation and not being an expert on the regulation of
501(c)3 tax exempt organizations, although I am in one right
now, I would say that my notion was that, No. 1, require full
disclosure; No. 2, link the requirement for disclosure to the
acceptance of Federal services rendered by the National
Archives and Records Administration. That strengthens, I
believe, the disclosure requirement. Include pledges, and I do
believe that you ought to limit the amount of contributions
that are made.
Now I am talking to a committee--a subcommittee chaired by
a man who has raised capital dollars in an educational setting.
There is nothing more difficult than raising money for
buildings. You know that. We all know that. I don't think we
could put a cap of $5,000 on contributions. Otherwise, we
wouldn't get these Presidential libraries built until, what,
200 or 300 years after the President elect--or the President is
gone. Now that might not be a bad thing. You never know.
Mr. Horn. That's right.
Mr. Light. You never know. But I think if you are going to
put a limit on the amount of contributions, it has got to be
higher than the kind of limit that was imposed under the 1988
Transitions Act of just $5,000. That's a limit that, as you
know, President-elect Bush and Vice President-elect Cheney
agreed to well before they were given access to the Federal
services and dollars last December that would have required
them to disclose.
Basically, I am joining my colleague who was testifying
yesterday from Common Cause, I believe on disclosure. I think
there is an antiseptic, disinfecting effect of disclosure, and
I think we ought to do this here and do it in such a way that
the American public is reassured that there is no pro quo, I
think, for the quid, or so to speak.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Light follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9867.039
Mr. Horn. Let's throw in another type, and that's in-kind
contributions. Should they be included? And if so, who is
putting the valuation on it?
Mr. Noble. I would say, yes, they should be included and it
is something you deal with with the Federal Election Campaign
Finance laws right now. You have to value in-kind contributions
by fair market value. Sometimes it is difficult but usually it
is not that difficult to do, and I think they present the same
problem as cash contributions.
Mr. Gross. I have no question that in-kind contributions
should be included. It is sometimes a disclosure challenge
depending on whether it is a third--payment to a third party on
behalf of the library or something of value that's given that
has to be valued. But either way, that clearly should be part
of the legislation.
Mr. Horn. Does the gentleman from Tennessee have some more
questions?
Mr. Duncan. No more questions.
Mr. Horn. Does anybody on the panel, after you have
listened to your colleagues, do you agree with them or do you
not agree with them? If so, we just want to get it all out on
the record. Dr. Bellardo.
Mr. Bellardo. I would just like to make one observation,
and I guess it is apropos to the item that Dr. Light mentioned
in terms of the limits that might be set, without taking a
position itself on whether limits are good or bad. What I would
like to do is just call attention to the fact that these
libraries go through cycles, and the older libraries, such as
Hoover or Roosevelt or the--or Truman, reach a point where
major fundraising efforts become necessary in order to either,
in the case of Roosevelt, build a building, a visitors' center;
in the case of Truman, for example, to do a major total
renovation inside.
So at 50 years after the President is no longer living,
there is not that same kind of issue, I think. But the major
concern is that there would be sufficient opportunity to raise
the funds at that time and sometimes those amounts are very
large. That would be all.
Mr. Horn. Really, as an ex-university president, I do know
something about what happens to your donations and why you need
them, and that is, frankly, that the capital structure is a
very small percentage. What really gets you is the operations.
And then the question is, after the President, any President,
ex--President, gets the money for a Taj Mahal of one kind or
another, I think of that when I go into the Johnson library,
who beat them all to work and you felt that he always had whips
down there and said, keep going, John Kennedy's Presidential
library is not yet up, and there he got it. It is beautiful.
But the operational money, is the Archives willing to put up
some of the operational money? Some of these 50 years from now
just might not be able to get the operational money. What do we
do then?
Mr. Bellardo. Well, we are continuing to fund operations
for those buildings. The entire cost of the Presidential
library system, including the two projects that we have, the
Nixon project, which is out at Archives II, and the Clinton
project, total approximately $40 million a year. So as of this
point, funds are available to continue those operations.
I can't say, you know, 100 years from now what that would
look like as you get additional Presidential libraries coming
on board.
Mr. Horn. Well, I think the McKinley area down in Ohio that
Mr. Regula has correctly protected, and the Hayes home, which
is a marvelous home, and it isn't so much the workings of the
library or scholarly research on manuscripts but you have
sometimes things go on with it. In the case of the Nixon
Library, which I must say I have fond affection for it because
it is down to human size, and I have the same about President
Carter. Again, it is down to human size as opposed to the Taj
Mahal approach.
So I would think maybe there might be people 50 years from
now that care about history, although the way history has been
taught in colleges recently and in high school it is a wonder
anybody even remembers George Washington.
So any other questions that you want to work out here?
Because this is very well done, tight language that Mr. Duncan
has put in there, but we can always put a little more tight
language or we can throw something in a footnote. Since the
Supreme Court doesn't like us putting report language in, we
have to put everything in if that it is going to stand the
test. I think the disclosure we are all agreed on; the in-kind
is all agreed on.
I guess the $5,000 one I am wondering about. To me, $1,000
bucks still looks pretty good. I know we have tried to raise it
on the candidates, and I have been for keeping it at $1,000. I
don't know where that point comes. Do all the relatives put in
$5,000? We know how that's been used in many of the campaign
situations where little kids had been, you know, writing their
own checkbook down for somebody they never met but the
millionaires had a lot of kids and that's where they got the
money.
So I would welcome any thoughts here as to why is $5,000
the cutoff?
Mr. Harshbarger. Let me just, since we sort of have
suggested that, I mean it has some parallels. There are some
other parallels. There obviously are ways, as Mr. Noble rightly
said and as anybody who comes from a prosecutorial background
knows and you face, is if we don't have an enforcement
mechanism we can write all the laws we want and it doesn't
serve any purposes, or people will get around it.
So I think there is a certain both--genius to the
simplicity of this. You don't want to really--because you
either turn it into 1 page or it is a 500-pager if you are not
careful, I think. But the limiting principle, I would think, is
when you are around or in the nexus in relationship of a
sitting President or a President who is still in a position to
be active and, of course, we have all quoted down exceptions
beyond the time, but I think that the reason--what you are
trying to do, I think, with this is, is this really a
charitable solicitation? Is this a President going out and
soliciting for a worthy cause that's a 501(c)3 entity that has
nothing to do with him or her, or is it in their own self-
interest and you are trying to make--not give people--if we are
suspicious--we don't want to give people other avenues to gain
the access or the appearance of influence, or frankly to put
the President in a position of having to face that dilemma. So
that the closer you are to serving in office, the more
rationale there is for limitation. The further you are away
from it, to go to Mr. Gross' or others' point is, and to what
was just stated is, that's much more in the nature of
preserving history. That starts to become more of the
educational and other purposes.
So I think that it is not--it sounds like you can't build a
library with $5,000 contributions. On the other hand, I mean
who--the problem we have today is that it appeared that when
somebody was soliciting, one of the ways once they had given
all the hard money they could, all the soft money they could,
all the other things that they could do, then there was one
other avenue here, and the legal defense fund was taken care
of, now we will go on to one more thing, and that seemed to be
the rationale.
Now they could all have been totally good-hearted,
tremendously supportive, loyal people. That is not to pick on
President Clinton, but that's why to some extent, you know, we
are here. So in terms of contemporary--if you sort of take it
in terms of the time relating to sitting Presidents, there is
an argument for limits that maybe does not exist as far down
the line in perpetuity; but I think there is some reason to
think about a limit when you are talking about a sitting
President's capacity to get money or people's reasons to
contribute, as opposed to later on a corporate foundation or an
educational body where people are otherwise making tax
deductible donations and they are choosing that one. But that's
our rationale, at least for keeping that in people's minds at
this point.
Mr. Horn. What about foreign donations?
Mr. Harshbarger. Well, I mean I think if we know, I think
that in the--if you were to--I guess I would say this: I would
take the principle that the foreign donations ought to be
prohibited. That's what we have said here. Now I think that we
are also talking--I mean I guess my operating principle here
was when you are contemporaneous in time to a sitting President
or shortly thereafter, or where there is some reason to
believe--theoretically you could reactivate limits. It is not
impossible. We do that with former officials who were under a
conflict of interest law when they served in a prior
administration. They go out; they remove from them, but when
they return limits begin to apply again.
So it is not impossible to have some timeframe, but if
foreign nationals and others are not supposed to contribute in
our political process, and what we are treating this as--at
least from our perspective, we are treating this as in the
nature of or some way of gaining or seeking some kind of
access, I think that's a problem with a foreign national or
other kinds of contributions.
I know that one other answer somebody could give this,
well, nobody stops the parties from doing these infomercial
receptions at conventions but at least you are using the party
mechanism there and not the individual. That would be my
theory. This is solicitation by a President for something that
directly relates to him or her, and that's the reason for the
limitation.
Mr. Horn. Yes, Mr. Noble.
Mr. Noble. While we don't take a position on the merits of
a bill and don't lobby bills, I do agree with Mr. Harshbarger
to this extent: That a lot of the same concerns that are behind
the contribution limits in Federal elections, and the
prohibitions on foreign nationals excepting, would be behind
this type of activity, especially when the President is in
office or shortly after or for some period after the President
is in office.
So I think you do have a situation where you have to look
at a lot of the same interests.
I also wanted to comment briefly on the simplicity of the
bill. And I do think that there is--I agree with Mr. Gross that
there is a tremendous amount to be said for simplicity, though
it does tend to cut into his business.
As a former enforcer, I have to say that it presents
tremendous problems in administering the law. It looks nice
having simple laws but it leaves so many questions unanswered,
and either an agency, whether it be the IRS or the FEC or some
other agency, is going to have to answer it, or else the law is
not going to be enforceable.
I think it is always better if Congress makes those
decisions and gives the agency the direction to go in and makes
the decisions about whether you want--obviously, you have to
make the decision whether you want limits but how often
disclosure should be, where disclosure should be, what kind of
enforcement mechanism you want for it. Because without that, I
think you are just going to end up with a lot of internal
debates within an agency and a system that is not very
effective. The agency really needs to look to Congress to make
these decisions, at least in the first instance. Obviously
there will be a lot of details the agency will have to fill in
in terms of regulations, but at least in terms of the basic
outlines of the law and what is required. I think Congress
really should do that.
Mr. Horn. Yes, Dr. Light.
Mr. Light. I always thought that the simpler the
legislation, the more business it generates because you have to
interpret it.
Mr. Gross. Particularly after the regulators get through
with it.
Mr. Light. I mean, I think that one of the points that I
was making, I am sure is shared by others, is that money is
like mercury in this business.
We have got a bill now moving over from the Senate that
closes off soft money, and I am not saying that you are going
to get a $248 billion library fund but some huge amount of
money is going to be looking for a new place to land, and
that's why this bill is particularly attractive. I mean, money
and politics looks for options, and I look forward to the
hearing with you some time in the distant future where we
figure out where the money is going to go from here.
I suspect we are going to have one heck of a great
inaugural event in 2004 and 2008 that we eventually will have
to regulate the inaugural committees. It is just the way of the
world. And so disclosure--I do believe in limits.
I do worry that if you put a $5,000 cap that may be just
too little for what has to be done here in terms of the cap on
campaigns involved. I have been in a situation in past lives
where I have gone out seeking soliciting funds for two former
Vice Presidents from Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey and Walter
Mondale. I will tell you it is about the hardest call to make
after they leave office. Walter who? Hubert who? It is just
hard fundraising, and if you limit that after office it may be
what Scott is telling us is that Common Cause might be OK with
a limitation of $5,000 or $1,000 up to the end of the
administration and then afterwards you could raise the limit.
Maybe that's a possible alternative here to keep the whole
process clean.
I don't want to put words in his mouth but maybe that's one
option here.
Mr. Gross. Well, one of the most impressive things about
this bill is that it was introduced a year ago, and I
compliment the foresight of Congressman Duncan in doing so, and
that it isn't--we don't have to be feeling like we are
necessarily trying to make recommendations on a bill in the
context of the brouhaha of the Clinton Library contributions.
And I really do have some objections or concerns about putting
severe limits on these donations. We are deciding that this is
a good cause; this is a 501(c)3. I understand the influence
issue, but you are going to create a whole regulatory scheme to
see how--who is exceeding limits, whether affiliated groups are
exceeding limits, and I think we are doing just fine with the
disclosure of the money that's now being disclosed to the IRS
under 527 legislation and that we shouldn't adorn it with a lot
of these provisions.
I perhaps could live with a limitation while the President
is in office. I mean, maybe you could draw a line there, but I
understand that there are ways around that without--but I think
if we start getting into pledges we are--it is a hopeless thing
to enforce what a pledge is. We all know what a promise for a
political contribution is worth; very little until you see the
money. So I wouldn't go down that road as well.
So I am on the column of no limits for this.
Mr. Horn. Mr. Harshbarger, any comments?
Mr. Harshbarger. I have had an opportunity here to comment
now sort of arguing and negotiating against myself and I am
sure Celia Wechsler sitting back here is beginning to worry
deeply about what position I am going to take on behalf of
Common Cause. I think this is a very important discussion. I
mean, I really do. I think there is--the points that are being
made here, I think that this is the time to--this is the time
to focus on it because I think that each of the points that--
all of the reasons that you are having this, and the folks here
are giving you arguments, this thing is going to get worse, not
better.
This isn't going to stop happening because of a particular
circumstance. It is an avenue. And I think that--I guess one
vantage point once in awhile you think about is what does the
average person think about this, not what those of us who, you
know, who maybe understand the need to raise huge amounts of
money, but what would the average person say in terms of do
they expect somebody got influence or not influence from making
the contribution to the President's favorite charity or the
President's favorite institution, and if you could give a huge
chunk of money you are likely to have more access, the bigger
megaphone, than somebody who is sending in their $5 check. I
think that's one of the ways to look at this around the
appearances aspect, and I think that is what you are trying to
do here.
I think later once these become--I look back on this. You
mentioned about the history piece. I mean, today 5 years ago is
history. I mean, so we could set shorter limits of time because
people don't remember.
I think Dr. Light's position is well taken. Having been in
this world, it was amazing the number of people who supported
me or appeared to support me until the day after I lost. It was
sort of funny how those calls just don't get returned. You
know, can cry a lot, you beg a lot and talk about deficits but
it is a whole lot harder to do a deficit fundraiser the day
after you are out of office than the day after you--or the
period of time in which you are still in office.
So I think that's part of the--there is no question in my
mind that it has some influence on the way we ought to think
about this, but thank you for letting me just ramble on with my
thoughts about that one.
Mr. Horn. Well, we have had some very good suggestions.
I wonder, anything else you want this expertise on?
Mr. Duncan. Well, Mr. Chairman, when Dr. Light said,
``Walter who,'' I thought back when my father told me many
years ago. He said, you know how long it takes them to forget
you once you leave office? He said, about as long as it takes
the ripples to disappear when you throw a rock in the water;
and there is some truth in that.
I can tell you that I was a lawyer and circuit court judge
in Tennessee for many years; and, Mr. Gross, I don't have any
objection to stirring up business for lawyers.
Mr. Light. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. But you have made many good suggestions here
today.
Mr. Chairman, I have told the counsel that I am certainly
willing to work with you and with the staff to make some
changes. I don't have--as I said earlier, I don't have any
objection to limits. I don't really think that they are
particularly a good idea in this context. And if we did, I
think that was a good suggestion to say that perhaps they
should be limited only while in office, because the further a
President gets away from office I suppose the harder it would
become to raise money.
At any rate, this hearing was designed to start the ball
rolling about this legislation, and I appreciate Chairman Horn
expressing interest in it, and also I understand that Chairman
Burton and he has cosponsored my bill, and so I really am
appreciative of that and I thank you very much for holding this
hearing.
Mr. Horn. Well, we thank you. I just note for the record
that the committee staff has contacted the heads of the various
Presidential libraries, and the heads of the libraries
discussed the legislation with our staff but generally
expressed a preference not to testify at the hearing. I don't
know if they felt maybe we won't be getting the money we need
or something. But anyhow, that's just for the record on that.
I think what you have given us is sufficient for any
revisions in the bill is the way I feel about it. So I want to
thank each of you. It is very important, and you gave some
really first class evidence on this, especially when we get
into tax laws. Thank you very much.
This is the statement of the ranking Democratic that will
be put in the record at the beginning, after myself and Mr.
Putnam.
The staff that has helped do this is J. Russell George, our
staff director and chief counsel, who is over there in the
corner; Randy Kaplan, full committee professional staff; Bonnie
Heald, director of communications; Earl Pierce, professional
staff; Matthew Ebert, who is on my left and a very useful
policy adviser; Grant Newman, assistant to the committee; and
Brian Hom is intern on the staff. And with the minority staff,
we have got Michelle Ash, professional staff; David McMillen,
professional staff; Jean Gosa, minority clerk. And we have two
court reporters today, Bob Cochran and Mindi Colchico. Thank
you very much.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-