DINGELL ADVOCATES TO PRESERVE PRESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FINANCING SYSTEM ESTABLISHED AFTER WATERGATE SCANDAL.

WASHINGTON -- The following information was released by the office of Michigan Rep. John Dingell:

Yesterday, Dean of the United States House of Representatives, John D. Dingell (D-MI15) issued the following remarks opposing H.R. 359:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 359, which would eliminate the presidential public campaign financing system. A year ago, the Supreme Court handed down one of its most devastating decisions in recent memory, ruling in Citizens United vs. the FEC that corporations could spend unlimited amounts in elections to argue for the election or defeat of a candidate. The ruling indeed opened the floodgates: corporate and special interests spent nearly $300 million in the 2010 midterm elections, four times what was spent during the 2006 midterms.

"Citizens United provided corporations like Exxon Mobile and Goldman Sachs the same free speech rights under the First Amendment as teachers, factory workers, and janitors. And yet, at a time when most Americans are fed up with the amount of special interest money flowing in Washington, the Republican Party wants to make it easier for corporate voices to be heard. Moreover, these corporate donations can be funneled to tax-exempt organizations that do not have to disclose their donors, decreasing transparency when Americans want more of it.

"Last year, the House passed a bipartisan bill to increase disclosure and transparency in federal elections. Unfortunately, the legislation died in the Senate. The last thing we need to counteract the harmful Citizens United decision is to eliminate the public campaign finance system established by Congress in the wake of Watergate which has helped candidates whose voices would not otherwise be heard to participate in federal elections.

"Mr. Speaker, we were promised more transparency and regular order from the new Republican majority. But we are considering this legislation six days after it was introduced, bypassing the committee process of hearings and mark-ups. I applaud the majority for allowing amendments; but, the truth is, this bill is so tightly written that few amendments are germane. And in the height of hypocrisy, the majority is using an estimate provided by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to justify savings to taxpayers, the same agency which the majority party was decrying just last week when it reported that repeal of the health care reform law would add to the deficit.

"Unlike my friends across the aisle, I will not dismiss the CBO's score of this legislation as somehow deceptive. However, the bill's saving over ten years amounts to less money than is spent in one month on the War in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to find solutions to our deficit problems but this is not one of them. Rather, eliminating the public financing system will cost us much more in the long term, requiring our elected officials to spend more time raising money to keep up with the corporate spending in elections than legislating.

"Everyone agree that the presidential public campaign financing system must be fixed. Fewer Americans are checking the box on their tax forms to contribute to it. President Obama eschewed it in 2008 in favor of receiving small dollar donations via the Internet. Let us work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to reform the system and make it work for the 21st century. As the Washington Post editorial said, "fix the system - don't junk it."

###