But the difference is, the most important difference between Presidential politics and sporting events is that in sports what the media predicts really doesn't matter much. The teams still must play the season. The horses still must run the race. That determines who wins the race. On the other hand, in Presidential politics, when the media picks a winner and the fund-raisers place their bets, that ends it. The season is over. The race ends. Because when you are raising money at a maximum of $1,000 per person, not enough people can be persuaded to give you money if everyone is saying at that time you have no chance to win.

Listening to all the discussion about campaign finance reform makes me wonder how we ever got the notion that there can be meaningful competition for the biggest job in the world when all but the frontrunner are unable to raise enough money to travel, to organize the States, to buy ads, to do research, to answer reporters' questions. NYU can't become as good a law school as Harvard without money. The Los Angeles Times can't compete with the Washington Post or the New York Times without selling ads. Presbyterians are likely to save more souls if the collection plate is full. We invaded Normandy with battalions rather than squadrons, and battalions cost money.

If I can give one personal example, I went to New York University Law School and graduated in 1965. At that time NYU's goal was to become as good as Harvard. Many people think it has over the last 30 years. I noticed in the mailings I get that NYU Law School raised $183 million in its last campaign, more than all the Republican candidates put together in the 2000 cycle.

Now, no one is suggesting that because NYU Law School is so awash in money that all the endowed professors are inevitably corrupted. And no one is suggesting that NYU try to catch Harvard by raising contributions that don't exceed $1,000.

Senators should be more aware of the real effect of the $1,000 limit than any other group in America. Senators know that the $1,000 limit has turned Washington, D.C., into a city of panhandlers, of people pestering one another for $1,000 contributions. Senators know that both parties' campaign committees work hard to try to find millionaire candidates to run for the Senate because they are the only ones who can raise enough money to challenge incumbent Senators. Senators know the $1,000 limit has created soft money. It has made campaigning perpetual. It has forced Senators to be on the telephone raising money when they ought to be debating China policy. The only good thing about the $1,000 limit from a Senator's point of view, I would submit, is that it makes it harder to raise money for anyone else to defeat a Senator-which might be good for the Senator but it is not good for democracy.

I have made a lot of other arguments to this committee, Senator, and at different places on the principles of the First Amendment and free speech. I don't come here today to make those sorts of arguments. My principles are there: I believe in individual contributions, free speech, and full disclosure. I believe that every American ought to have a right to spend an unlimited amount of money to say what he or she believes, not just Mr. Forbes, not just Mr. Perot, not just the NRA, not just the manufacturers, not just the Washington Post. I think any of us should have a right to do that.

And this means in an ideal world there would be no limits on individual contributions, no corporate or union contributions, and it would require all contributions to be immediately disclosed.

The proposed Federal regulations of campaigns deeply troubles me. Telling a pro-choice or pro-life advocate that she can't buy an ad before an election would be like King George telling Tom Paine to limit the number of pamphlets that he is printing because it might stir up a revolution, or the Congress telling Harriet Beecher Stowe not to put any nice words about Mr. Lincoln on the cover of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" just before the 1864 election. This goes to the very heart of our democracy, and I am constantly amazed, sitting in Nashville and watching this go on, about how those who enjoy free speech the most-the newspapers and the professors-are in the vanguard of those who would limit everyone else's free speech. So I am not here to make First Amendment arguments. I am here to make a single, practical argument, and it is this: In our present system, except for the frontrunner, virtually no one can raise enough money to run a serious campaign to occupy the position that is the most powerful and important position in the world. In Senators McCain and Bradley, and in Vice President Gore and Governor Bush, the parties have presented to the Nation four good men, all of whom are well qualified to be President. So many in the media have praised the last election as being the most competitive since 1976. Well, what kind of competition is that? Would you call it competitive if only two horses showed up at the Kentucky Derby in May and one was declared the winner after the first lap? Would you call it competitive if Commissioner Tagliabue and the sports writers got together and said the Titans and the Rams were the best teams in the NFL and played the Super Bowl in August? Would you call it competitive if the NCAA basketball tournament started this weekend with the Final Four and then worked backwards?

I am convinced one reason most Americans don't vote is because they know they have lost most of their say in picking the Presidential nominees. That decision is now in the hands of the people with money and in the media. This is partly because of the crowded primary schedule. It is partly because of the Soviet-style rules of States like New York, which make it expensive and difficult to get on the ballot. But mostly it is because the $1,000 limit, operating within the nomination process we have today, has the effect of ending the race almost before it starts.

The solution is to spread out the primaries, stop States from making it hard to qualify, and raise the limits. Raise the limits to $10,000 for the first $10 million in a Presidential campaign and $3,000 for every contribution thereafter. Restoring free speech to the nomination process is the surest way to restore the people's right to pick our Presidential nominees.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamar Alexander follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAMAR ALEXANDER, NASHVILLE, TN

I have come to Washington, D.C. today mainly to argue one practical proposition: that the $1000 individual contribution limit in our presidential nominating system makes it virtually impossible for anyone except the frontrunner-or a remarkably rich person to have enough money to run a serious campaign.

This has a number of bad effects for our democracy. It limits the voter's choices and the opportunity to hear more about the issues. It gives insiders and the media more say and outsiders less. It protects incumbents and discourages insurgents. It makes raising money the principal occupation of most candidates which, in turn, makes campaigns too long. The $1000 limit was put in place in 1974 after Watergate to reduce the influence of money in politics. It has done just the reverse.

I also have come with this practical solution: raise the limit. First, raise the limit to $10,000 per individual contribution for the first $10 million a campaign receives. This would allow each presidential candidate to start with what one might call a "First Steps Fund." Any campaign, in order to get going, has to undertake so many expensive first steps that by the time it raises the money to pay for them, the campaign might be over. After campaigns raise $10 million, the limit per contribution would be $3000, about what the 1974 limit would be worth in today's dollars. Continue the ban on corporate contributions. Disclose all contributions immediately on the Internet. Impose stiff fines for failure to disclose. In short, restore free speech and competition; guard against abuse by reasonable limits and full disclosure.

Sen. McCain was the only Republican able to mount even a semi-serious challenge to the front runner in the 2000 Republican primaries for president. One reason was because he had the advantage of a kind of "First Steps Fund." This was perfectly legal. Members of Congress have given themselves the right to transfer leftover campaign funds to presidential campaigns. Sen. McCain transferred $2 million. This $2 million was really worth more than $2 million. To have $2 million left, a presidential candidate would have had to raise closer to $4 million, because the costs of fundraising and complying with federal rules usually consume as much as 50 percent of the amount that is raised. And it helps that those who contribute to a Senator's campaign may give $2000 rather than $1000-which can then be transferred to a presidential fund which ordinarily may accept only $1000.

Despite this advantage, a well run campaign, and unprecedented media encouragement early on, Sen. McCain was not able to raise enough money to run the kind of campaign his candidacy-or any serious candidacy deserves. He skipped Iowa, I suspect, not because of his opposition to ethanol, but because it cost $4 million to compete in Iowa, the first caucus state. At least that is what Mr. Forbes and Gov. Bush each spent in Iowa. Sen. McCain organized and advertised early in only a handful of states while Gov. Bush was able to afford to spend the time and money to organize every state-creating the impression and the fact that his nomination was inevitable.

You may ask, what about Senator Bradley? He did raise enough money to compete.

But he is, I would argue, a rare exception. From the beginning he was the only Democrat challenger to a vice-president whose president had unloaded upon him some challenges. Sen. Bradley had been on televison for thirty years. He had served the New York City area, where the largest cluster of Americans who give $1000 to candidates reside. He was heavily encouraged by the media.

I mention the media here, but not in criticism. I do not believe the media in politics acts much differently than the media does in any other aspect of American life. The national editor of the Washington Post did announce that the Republican race was over one year before the convention. But the media and people with money always pick winners and run polls in everything. That happens because the audience, we the readers and the watchers, seem to love it. The audience also knows that the media is often wrong. Last week there were more sixth seed basketball teams left in the NCAA tournament than first seed teams. And the money people don't always know so much either; the last favorite to win the Kentucky Derby was Spectacular

Bid in 1979.

The most important difference between presidential politics and sporting events is that, in sports, what the media predicts doesn't matter much. The teams must play the season. The horses must run the race. That determines who wins the race. On the other hand, in presidential politics when the media picks a winner and the fund raisers place their bets, that ends it. The season's canceled. The race ends. When you are raising money at $1000 per person, not enough people can be persuaded to give if everyone is saying you have no chance to win.

Where did we ever get the notion that there can be a meaningful competition for the biggest job in the world if the system makes it virtually impossible for all but the frontrunner to raise enough money to organize states, travel, hire staff, answer reporters questions and the mail, do research and buy ads? NYU Law School cannot become as good as Harvard without money. The Los Angeles Times cannot become as good as the New York Times without money. Presbyterians are likely to save more souls if they have more money. It was better to land at Normandy with battalions instead of squadrons.

If I may offer one personal example. When I attended New York University Law School in 1965 its goal was to become as good as Harvard. NYU may now have done that. It has taken money, and a lot of it. In its last campaign NYU Law raised $183 million, more than all the Republican presidential candidates combined in the 2000 competition. No one suggests that being so awash in money inevitably corrupts NYU's endowed professors. And no one thinks of trying to catch Harvard by raising the necessary funds in $1000 amounts.

Senators should be more aware of the real effect of the $1000 limit than any other group in America. Senators know that the $1000 limit has turned Washington, D.C. into a city of panhandlers harassing one another for contributions. Senators know that both parties' campaign committees work hard to find millionaire candidates who can spend their own money and who do not have to worry about $1000 limits. Senators know that the $1000 limit has spawned soft money abuses, made campaigning perpetual and forced Senators to spend time making calls for $1000 contributions when they should be debating China policy. The only good thing about the $1000 limit from a Senator's point of view is it makes it harder for anybody to raise enough money to defeat a Senator-which may be good for the Senator, but is bad for our democracy.

I have many more arguments based upon the free speech principle of the First Amendment. I have presented these in speeches and I have given reprints of these to the committee staff for the record. [See Appendix 6.] These are my principles: I believe in individual contributions, free speech and full disclosure. I believe everyone should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money saying what they believe not just Mr. Forbes, Mr. Perot, the NRA, pro life, pro choice, special interest groups, newspapers and TV stations, all of whom are permitted to do that today. This means, in an ideal world, I would have no limits on individual contributions, no corporate or union contributions, and would require all contributions to be immediately disclosed on the Internet.

The proposed federal regulation of campaigns deeply troubles me. Telling a prochoice or pro-life advocate that she cannot buy an ad just before an election would be like King George telling Tom Paine not to print so many pamphlets because it might stir up a revolution, or the Congress telling Harriet Beecher Stowe not to say anything nice about Abraham Lincoln just before the election of 1864. This goes to the very heart of our democracy. I am amazed that many of those who enjoy the most free speech-those in the media and in the universities-are either silent or in favor of regulating the speech of others.

But I am not here to make first amendment arguments. I am here to make one practical argument, which is this: in our present system, except for the presidential frontrunner, virtually no one can raise enough money to run a serious campaign. In Senators McCain and Bradley, Vice-President Gore and Governor Bush the parties presented to the nation four good men who are well-qualified to be president. Many in the media have therefore praised our system for producing the most competitive races since 1976. Really? Would you call it competitive if only two good horses show up at the starting gate for this May's Kentucky Derby, especially if one of the horses is declared winner after the first lap? Would it be the NFL's most competitive season if this August before the season starts the sportswriters and the owners anoint the Titans and the Rams and schedule the Super Bowl for September?

I am convinced that one reason many Americans don't vote is because they know they have lost most of their say in picking our presidential nominees. That decision is now in the hands of those with money and the media. This is partly because of the crowded primary schedule, partly because of the Soviet-style rules some statessuch as New York-use to make it hard for candidates to get on the ballot; but mostly it is because the $1000 limit, operating within the nomination process we have today, has the effect of ending the race almost before it starts.

The solution is to spread out the primaries, stop states from making it hard to qualify, and raise the limits. Raise the limits to $10,000 for the first $10 million raised and $3000 for every contribution thereafter. Restoring free speech to the nomination process is the surest way to restore the people's right to pick our presidential nominees.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. It is rare that I have a witness before this committee with whom I can find no disagreement whatsoever, and I think I have just had the first one. I agree with absolutely everything you said. In fact, ironically, I introduced a bill in 1997 to raise the Presidential contribution limit to $10,000.

The argument that somehow it is corrupting for an individual to give $1,000 or even $10,000 to a candidate for President of the United States is utterly absurd on its face. And what you have laid out are the practical problems and one of the many unintended consequences of the last reform in the mid-1970s.

As I understand your proposal, it would allow, would it not, Governor, a candidate who had regional support or who was fortunate enough to come from a reasonably affluent State, let's say Tennessee, for example, to pool enough resource from among people who believed in the cause and were willing to take a chance on a horse that the media might have declared something of a long shot, to pool enough resources to actually go out there and compete. Is that how you see this?

Mr. LAMAR ALEXANDER. That is right, Senator. To take a specific example, in 19-I didn't just pull this $10 million out of thin air. In 1995, I raised $10 million in the Presidential race. I was trying to remember how many fund-raisers I went to. I have it written down somewhere.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you used the figure 250 at one time, or something like that.

Mr. LAMAR ALEXANDER. Yes, it was about 250. It was almost every day. And so I was forced-I was able to raise $10 million with the $1,000 limit, but I had unusual circumstances, and I spent 60 or 70 percent of my time doing it. And at the end of the year, the only money I had left to run the campaign once it started was my matching funds of about $3 million.

Now, I notice Senator McCain-and I use him only because he is a good example because he ran the best campaign of any of us this time other than Governor Bush. At the end of 1999, he only had $1.5 million left other than the $2 million he transferred in his matching funds. So here is a Senator, a good candidate, good campaign, extraordinary media coverage, by that time the only alternative to the frontrunner, he couldn't raise enough money.

So it would allow a United States Senator from Arizona, it would allow a Governor from Tennessee, it would allow anyone who had an initial base of support

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if I could interrupt you, you mentioned the money primary that was over in the fall. Under your proposal, it is inconceivable that Vice President Quayle would not have been able to compete or Elizabeth Dole would not have been able toMr. LAMAR ALEXANDER. Congressman Kasich.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Kasich. In fact, under your proposal, it is reasonable to assume that we would have had seven or eight horses at the starting gate when the actual voting occurred. Is that not right?

Mr. LAMAR ALEXANDER. There is no way to know, but I think so. And I am sure in 1996, I believe Governor Campbell of South Carolina and Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Bill Bennett, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, I would say there were a dozen good men and women who ought to have been on the playing field so voters could hear them, who did not run in whole or in part because they couldn't figure out how to raise the money. And when a Governorand let's just pick Governor Thompson of Wisconsin. When a fourterm Governor who arguably has been the best Governor in the