The hearings on the Enron scandal are expected to reveal that the corrupt corporation did not get special treatment or favors for the millions in contributions to both political parties. However, these hearings will clearly illustrate the need to BAN UNLIMITED and UNREGULATED contributions to the national political parties - what is called ?soft money?- from corporations and labor unions.

The essential difference between so called "soft money" and "hard money" is ACCOUNTABILITY. In short, "soft money" is NOT reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and is unlimited and not regulated. "Hard money" is made up of contributions from individuals or groups that is disclosed to the FEC and limited in amount. A candidate for federal office must raise and spend "hard dollars," but corporations, unions and outside groups can use the unregulated "soft money" loophole to participate in the process and gain undue influence. Currently, there is a very UNEVEN playing field between individual donors and big corporations or labor unions that want to participate in the political process.

Recently, I held an informal "focus group" on this issue during a speech to a very conservative organization. I asked for a show of hands from folks who believed that if they saw a television advertisement in the final 60 days before an election that mentioned the candidate's name, even if it was financed by an outside group -- would they think of THAT as a political advertisement? Virtually everyone agreed. Secondly, I asked if that SAME commercial should be treated just like a candidate's commercial in terms of how it is funded and how those funds are reported. Again, almost everyone agreed.

Sadly, I pointed out that the MOST controversial provision of the Shays-Meehan  campaign finance reform legislation involves those two questions. Many people would have you believe that this bill violates your First Amendment rights, but in actuality this legislation simply requires that all money used to fund political advertising be regulated, reported "hard money," with the same guidelines that the candidates must already adhere to. Furthermore, the primary objective of the bill is to eliminate "soft money" contributions so that corporations and labor unions cannot funnel large, undisclosed contributions through the political parties. A majority of my colleagues in the House of Representatives now realize that something must be done to stop these "anonymous" funds from flooding American campaigns and they have signed a petition that will quickly bring this bill to a vote by the whole House. After being deeply involved in this debate for so long, I am proud to report that Speaker Hastert has scheduled this landmark legislation to be debated in the House of Representatives next week.

I spoke at the bicameral Republican congressional retreat last week about the need for campaign finance reform, and for the need to come together to pass legislation that includes the reforms we pushed for before we became the majority. It is a matter of history that the majority party in Congress opposes campaign finance reform and that the minority party traditionally will push for reform. It is my hope that we will be the first majority party to forge REAL reform to our election laws. This will "serve our party best by serving our country first!"

We CAN and SHOULD have cleaner campaigns in America. Congress needs to get a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill to President George W. Bush for his signature and take a major step towards restoring public trust.