As many of you know, I have worked for many years to reform campaign finance laws, both in New Hampshire and for the nation at large. I am extremely pleased that the House passed the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act and rejected all amendments intended to weaken this legislation. I am hopeful the Senate will do the same. Although the Shays-Meehan bill does not include every reform provision that I support, it is a step in the right direction and has the best chance of being signed into law.

I've been working on campaign finance reform issues for nearly a decade, first as a state legislator and now as a U.S. Congressman. During this period, I have consistently fought for legislation that reduces the influence of big money and special interests in campaigns and strengthens the voices of voters and candidates in their own races. I have worked to pass bills that enhance local involvement in campaigns and improve the public's faith in our electoral system.

As a state senator, I authored New Hampshire's voluntary spending limits law that is still on the books today. And since coming to Congress in 1995, I have voted for all four comprehensive campaign reform bills that have been brought to the House floor because I believed they represented an improvement over our current campaign finance system.

I cosponsored and voted for the Shays-Meehan bill because it represents meaningful campaign reform that moves us in the right direction. The bill bans so called "soft money," which consists of unregulated financial contributing from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to the and Democrat and Republican parties. Unlike "hard money" raised by the candidates themselves, there are no limits to the amount of soft money that can be contributed, and soft money contributions are not publicly disclosed.

The legislation also addresses independent expenditures by applying existing campaign rules to ads targeting specific candidates that are run by advocacy groups within 60 days of an election. These ads currently escape regulation because they do not call explicitly for the election or defeat of a specific candidate. The bill allows only hard money to be used for express advocacy ads.

In addition to banning soft money and addressing independent expenditures, the Shays-Meehan bill strengthens disclosure requirements by requiring candidates to file their campaign reports electronically and requiring the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to post reports on the Internet. It also improves FEC enforcement, and establishes a commission to study further reforms to our campaign finance system.

I believe elections should be about selling ideas, not buying votes. By banning soft money and reducing special interest influence, the Shays-Meehan bill will help restore the integrity of campaigns. Yet there is still more work to be done. I would like to see limitations on the amount of money wealthy candidates can loan to their own campaigns, limitations on contributions a candidate may accept from out of state sources, and I believe states should be allowed to enact voluntary campaign spending limits in federal elections. I am hopeful that the commission established by the Shays-Meehan bill will consider these and other reforms. Nevertheless, I'm willing to accept this bill as a genuine first step toward comprehensive campaign reform.

Last year, I supported a similar bill, which passed the House by a wide margin. I was disappointed that campaign finance reform supporters in the Senate were unable to secure the necessary votes to end a filibuster that blocked a vote on in that chamber. I am hopeful that the Senate will pass this year's Shays-Meehan bill or related legislation in the near future. It is vital we get some meaningful campaign reform signed into law during this Congress.