FROM ADAM SMITH

August 15, 2006

Dear Scott,

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for publicly
funded elections.  I appreciate your thoughts on this important
issue and would like to take a moment to respond.

As background, public funding of presidential elections was first
proposed by Representative William Cockran in 1904 and
subsequently by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907, to curb
corruption by reducing or eliminating the role of private money in
elections. The idea did not generate substantial support until 1956,
when bills began regularly to be introduced. The effort culminated
in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act of 1966,
authorizing voluntary dollar checkoffs on income tax returns to
fund subsidies to the parties for presidential general elections.  In
1967, however, this statute terminated the Fund before it took
effect.

The Revenue Act of 1971 established today's Presidential Election
Campaign Fund (the Fund) - a separate account in the U.S.
Treasury to fund general election campaigns of presidential
candidates who met the qualifying conditions and who agreed to
abide by the national spending limit. Payments were to be made
directly to candidates (unlike the 1966 Act), with full grants equal
to the spending limit for major party candidates, limited grants to
minor party candidates based on prior electoral strength, and post-
election payments to new party candidates based on votes in that
election. The act set up a voluntary dollar checkoff on federal tax
returns ($2 on joint returns), beginning with the 1972 tax year.

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 placed a
$50,000 limit on presidential candidate (and family) contributions
to his or her own campaign, later imposed as a condition for
receiving public funds. Before the general election system took
effect, the 1974 FECA Amendments extended public funding to
primaries and nominating conventions. Arguably a response to
Watergate, this statute made the most sweeping changes ever in
federal campaign law.

Through the end of 2004, $1.382 billion has been "checked off."
While the concept of a $1 checkoff was to build presidential
campaign financing on a mass base of small donors, the extent of
taxpayer participation has likely proved disappointing to
proponents. Whether for lack of support, or misunderstanding that
checkoffs do not increase one's tax bill, participation rates have
been low and generally declining - from a high of 28.7% on 1980
returns to a low of 11.0% on 2001 returns; however, there was a
slight increase - to 11.3% - on 2002 returns (the last year for
which data are currently available). The remainder of taxpayers
have checked "no" or left the box blank, which has a "no" effect.

I believe public financing of elections allows for unknown
candidates to have equal opportunity to run a viable campaign for
federal office.  Public financing creates an equal and level playing
field to individuals who are not personally wealthy and to those
that cannot afford to pay for their own campaign. 

In your letter, you indicated support for HR 3099, the Clean
Money, Clean Elections Act.  Introduced by Reps. John Tierney
(D-MA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), this bill establishes a voluntary
system that gives candidates an option to forego private funding
without having to "unilaterally disarm," that includes reduced rates
and limitations on broadcast advertisement, and voluntary
acceptance of public resource incentives for self-imposed
limitations on campaign financing.

HR 3099 has been referred to the House Administration
Committee, the House Government Reform Committee, and the
House Energy and Commerce Committee, all of which have
jurisdiction, pending further review.  Please be assured that should
this legislation come to the House floor for a vote, I will be sure to
keep your thoughts in mind.

I agree with you that we need to take appropriate action to restore
public confidence in the Congress and the Democratic process.  I
believe Congress needs to enact legislation that would strengthen
disclosure requirements of lobbyists and also toughen the
investigating and enforcement powers of Congress.  To that end, I
am a cosponsor of the Honest Leadership and Open Government
Act (HR 4682).  This bill includes the following provisions:

* Bans gifts, including gifts of meals, tickets,
entertainment and travel, from lobbyists and non-
governmental organizations that retain or employ
lobbyists; prohibits lobbyists from funding,
arranging, planning, or participating in
congressional travel.

* Requires Members to pay full charter costs when
using corporate jets for official travel and disclose
information about the flight in the Congressional
Record, including the owner or lessee of the
aircraft, who else was on the flight, and the reason a
commercial airliner was not used.

* Makes it both a criminal offense and a violation of
the Rules of the House for Members to take or
withhold official action, or threaten to do so, with
the intent to influence private employment decisions
on the basis of party affiliation.

* Prohibits former Members, executive branch
officials and senior staff from lobbying their former
colleagues for 2 years; eliminates floor and gym
privileges for former Members and officers who are
lobbyists; and requires Members and senior staff to
disclose outside job negotiations.

* Prohibits consideration of conference reports and
other legislation not available in printed form and
on the Internet for at least 24 hours; requires full
and open debate in conference and a vote by the
conferees on the final version of the legislation;
prohibits consideration of a conference report that
contains matters different from what the conferees
voted on.

* Requires lobbying reports, with much more
information, to be filed on a quarterly basis (rather
than semi-annually) and in an electronic format,
fully searchable on the Internet; increases civil and
criminal penalties for lobbyists who violate the
rules.

* Establishes a new Office of Public Integrity within
the House of Representatives and charges it with
auditing and investigating compliance with
lobbying disclosure rules and, if necessary, referring
matters to the United States Attorney.

* Mandates public disclosure of which Members
sponsor earmarks and disclosure of whether
Members have a financial interest in the earmark;
prohibits any Member from offering or withholding
an earmark to influence how another Member votes.

This bill has been referred to several House committees pending
further review.  Given the recent scandals of former Rep. Duke
Cunningham (R-CA) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, it is important to
reevaluate and reinforce our ethics rules to ensure that Members of
Congress are serving the American people.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts with
me regarding this important issue.  Please do not hesitate to contact
me with any additional comments, questions, or concerns.
Sincerely,

Adam Smith
Member of Congress