HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.usccsset/usconset50319 and id is 1 raw text is: AUTHENTICATEO
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
Gp
107TH CONGRESS J REPT. 107-131
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Part 1
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001
JULY 10, 2001.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. NEY, from the Committee on House Administration,
submitted the following
ADVERSE REPORT
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2356]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2356) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform, having considered
the same, report unfavorably thereon without recommendation
The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 2356) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Fed-
eral office, and for other purposes, having considered the same, re-
port unfavorably thereon.
DISCUSSION OF THE LEGISLATION
The Committee on House Administration has unfavorably re-
ported H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.
While the bills bearing the name of our colleagues Mr. Shays and
Mr. Meehan have changed and evolved over the years, the core
principal underlying their legislation had always been their pur-
ported ban on soft money. In fact, no bill to ever carry the Shays-
Meehan label would have really banned soft money, in as much as
restrictions on soft money expenditures were never even sought
(except for the constitutionally suspect attempt to restrict issue ad-
vertising). Rather, Shays-Meehan and other reform proponents al-
ways used the term ban to mean a prohibition on donations of
soft money to political parties. The true test of what constituted
89-006](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.usccsset/usconset50319&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)