[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 134 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I come to the floor today with mixed 
emotions. As someone who supports campaign finance reform, and as 
someone who has worked hard for its enactment, I suppose I should be 
glad that we are on the verge of appointing conferees who may be able 
to work out a bill that will pass both the House and Senate.
  But I must say I have my doubts. If our goal were campaign finance 
reform that is fair to both parties, that is fair to incumbents and 
challengers, why has this issue been debated in closed-door, Democrats-
only meetings for the past 10 months?
  I hope my doubts are misplaced. But this process of excluding my 
party is hardly one that inspires confidence in me or my fellow 
Republicans.
  I know full well that this is one of the most difficult and 
contentious issues we have to deal with for a number of reasons. People 
in this Senate, this Congress and the public we represent have very 
different ideas about what is necessary, what is possible, what will be 
effective and what is fair.
  What is fair campaign reform for challengers? What is fair for 
Democrats, or Republicans? To Members of the House of Representatives, 
to Senators?
  Last summer, we as a body debated these issues. We spent many, many 
hours on the floor and off trying to find the answers to these 
questions. What is fair. What is reasonable. What is possible. What is 
reform.
  It was toward that end that a few of my colleagues and I tried to see 
if we could consolidate the many good ideas that had wide support from 
both sides of the aisle and both Houses of Congress. There were also a 
number of issues that were more difficult but had to be addressed for 
us to support campaign reform.
  I believe the issues that my colleagues and I identified should be of 
concern to all people interested in true campaign reform. They are the 
issues that will determine my vote, and I suspect the fate of campaign 
finance reform. If the conference to come is to be more than a partisan 
charade, it must address at least three key issues:
  Political action committee contributions must be eliminated or at 
least limited.
  The House and Senate must play by the same rules.
  And we must pay for it, in real dollars and not funny money.
  There is a second set of issues that my colleagues and I have 
identified as well that must be resolved. They are:
  Full and timely disclosure of all soft money, not just party soft 
money.
  In-state contributions should be favored over out-of-state 
contributions.
  Limiting fundraising to the election cycle.
  Candidates cannot get personal loans paid back to them from their 
campaign.
  Public financing should be avoided or, if this is not possible, the 
method of raising the money to pay for public financing must be part of 
the final bill.
  These objectives are neither unreasonable nor impossible. Working 
with members of both sides of the aisle, we were able to achieve our 
goals and incorporate into the bill that passed the Senate. We were 
able to improve the legislation and make it a bill we could support.
  The bill was not perfect. It was a compromise by all sides, and no 
doubt can be improved. But to this Senator, it was fair, reasonable, 
possible, and it was campaign reform.
  Several months later, the House of Representatives passed its version 
of campaign reform. Unfortunately, the House bill seems more concerned 
with maintaining the status quo than securing reform.
  To me, there are three major weaknesses in the House version of 
campaign reform.
  First, the House wants to set up separate rules for itself. Some 
differences are obviously necessary to acknowledge the objective 
differences between the two bodies. But a PAC is a PAC. There is 
obviously no reason for establishing different limits than protecting 
incumbents.

  To many, the squabble concerning the House of Representatives 
establishing their own campaign rules and the Senate following another 
set of rules seems to be unnecessary. I think it is important that we 
understand what is happening here.
  This is not simply an issue of equality between the House and Senate. 
This is again, about fairness. One of the goals we hear touted all of 
the time about campaign reform is that it should help even the playing 
field for challengers.
  I agree, and nowhere do the challengers need assistance in evening 
the playing field more than challengers seeking to be elected to the 
House of Representatives. Incumbents in the House receive 10 times more 
money from the political action committees than do challengers.
  Yet, the House of Representatives is refusing to budge on the issues 
of reducing the amount of money a political action committee can 
contribute to a campaign.
  The President clearly expressed his support for a reduction of PAC 
contributions from $5,000 per election to $2,500 per election in 
Congressional races. Senate Democrats have expressed their support for 
the same provision. The American people clearly want to reduce the 
influence of PAC's. But the House has held tightly to its insistence on 
no change in the amount of money a PAC can contribute to their 
campaign.
  I do not believe PAC's are bad. I think they have an appropriate and 
important role to play in the process. But I do support lessening the 
role they play.
  The second issue is how we pay for the system we establish. I know 
many of my colleagues vehemently oppose any public financing of 
campaigns. I myself want to do my best to avoid it. But in the wake of 
the Supreme Court's Buckley decision, and given the political demands 
of those that support such financing, some measure may be necessary to 
enact reform.
  But we must not do so at the expense of the Federal deficit. This 
legislation must be paid for before we make the decision that the 
tradeoff is reasonable and necessary.
  Last, but not least, we must insure full and timely disclosure all 
moneys used to influence elections. It makes no sense to just eliminate 
soft money going to political parties only to leave in place the 
ability for soft money to be spent in unlimited amounts and with 
absolutely no disclosure by other special interests.
  I believe strongly that political parties should be able to raise and 
spend money to get out the vote and build the party, and it should be 
fully disclosed. But I also believe it is important that such 
disclosure be demanded of all groups who spend money to influence 
elections, such as labor unions and church groups.
  These groups have every right to encourage their members to be active 
in elections, however, if they are going to spend substantial sums of 
money to activate this support, they should disclose this activity.
  There are several other issues that I feel should be closely reviewed 
in conference. In particular, it is important this Congress not pick 
and choose which special interests might be excluded from whatever 
reforms are determined. Reform must be as fair as possible and should 
prevent loopholes that will just have us back here fighting these 
battles again in a year or two.
  Madam President, I have long been a strong supporter of campaign 
reform. I have often been at odds with a number of my colleagues over 
the issue of campaign reform and my belief that it is in the best 
interest of the political process in this country that we have true, 
fair campaign reform.
  I implore my colleagues from both Chambers to be fair and sincere in 
our efforts to bring forth a conference report we can stand behind and 
proudly support.
  It will take a lot of hard work and some compromise on both sides but 
it is so very, very important that we complete what we have begun.
  We need to let the American people know that we hear them, we agree 
with them, and we can respond to their call for action.
  We need to show them that we can act in a way designed not to 
preserve partisan advantage, but to advance the public good.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
   Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.
   (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 2458 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________