[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority 
leader and the Senator on the other side of the aisle. I have two 
comments, in essence, one with respect to campaign finance, and one 
with respect to GATT.
  With respect to campaign finance reform, I have been off in the 
curtain, so to speak, waiting the outcome of this exercise, which I 
might add is going nowhere. It has been like a dog chasing its tail.
  Some 8 years ago I proposed a constitutional amendment of one line 
that would allow the Congress to control or regulate expenditures in 
Federal Elections. Since that time, I have had several votes, gaining a 
majority and getting votes on both sides of the aisle. It has been a 
bipartisan approach.
  Why a constitutional amendment? Specifically, I saw what happened 
during the 1968 Presidential election when Maurice Stans, who later was 
the Secretary of Commerce under President Nixon, exacted thousands and 
thousands of dollars from various constituents. One gentleman up in 
Chicago gave a million, 2 million bucks. After President Nixon had 
taken office Secretary of Treasury Connally, his good friend, came to 
him and he said: ``Mr. President, there are a lot of people who have 
given you large sums of money. They have not really had a chance to 
shake your hand and meet you. I think you should come down to a Texas 
ranch and we will have a barbecue. There you can meet and thank them.'' 
The President said, ``That is a good idea.''
  On the day of the barbecue, Dick Tuck pulled a Brink's truck up to 
the ranch entrance and a picture was taken. When the picture was 
published, there was an uproar on both sides of the aisle. The image 
was that the Government was up for sale.
  As a result, in 1974 we passed a bipartisan campaign finance reform 
bill. Everyone agreed, except one gentleman. The distinguished Senator 
from New York, Jim Buckley. Not wanting spending controlled, Senator 
Buckley sued the Senate, the Clerk of the Senate, Frank Valeo. That is 
the famous Supreme Court decision of Buckley v. Valeo, a 5-to-4 
decision. In Buckley, the Court equated money with speech, and struck 
down as unconstitutional the capping of campaign spending.
  This decision resulted in a huge loophole in our current campaign 
finance laws. Let us say I have all the money which in essence gives me 
all the speech I could possibly use. You, however, have very little 
money which in essence limits your speech. This has not preserved your 
1st amendment privilege of free speech. In fact, it absolutely violates 
it because if you and I run in a campaign and you have $100,000 and I 
have $1 million, I wait until right now, October 1, and I come in with 
an onslaught of newspapers, billboards, TV, magazine articles, and 
everything else. You are trying to respond with your little $100,000. 
The next thing you know you run out of money by October 10, and I have 
a free run to election day. With all my money, I have virtually taken 
away your speech.

  Now, what we should do is what a majority has voted for 
bipartisanly--adopt a constitutional amendment limiting campaign 
expenditures. Five of the last six constitutional amendments deal with 
elections and all were adopted within 18 months. Don't give us the 
arguments that it would be a terrible constitutional violation to amend 
the Constitution or that it could not be adopted in any amount of time. 
If we passed it now and proposed it to the legislatures of the States, 
I can tell you here and now that it would be ratified before the 
November elections. In fact, my amendment, at the request of the 
States, allowed for the limiting of campaign expenditures for not only 
Federal elections but also State elections.
  I hope now we get past all of these arguments: How much do you give? 
How are you going to get the money? Whether you are taxpayer financed 
or whether you are not. The current effort to reform campaign financing 
proved to be a good college try but again and again, it is getting 
fewer and fewer votes. Let us now go back to the real world and cut out 
playing games and do as we did in the 1974 campaign finance reform, no 
cash, all contributions on the top of the table, limited to 1,000 
bucks, recorded here and at the secretary of state back home, all 
expenditures recorded, and most importantly, total expenditures capped. 
At that particular time, South Carolina's limit for a Senate candidate 
was $512,680. I think the candidates in the State of Minnesota, for 
example, got around $730,000, a much larger State. Whatever it is, we 
must limit total expenditures.
  Whatever it is, we have to get away from this nonsense that the 
incumbent has the advantage. I can tell you now, I just ran less than 2 
years ago, and you do not want to be an incumbent. I was fortunate 
enough to have someone with a congressional record running against me. 
I am glad somebody without a record did not run against me because all 
the negative politics comes into play. They can twist, distort, charge, 
and everything else. That is the game of politics today.
  I think you have already seen the best of the best over on the House 
side lose out in a primary. He had all the money and the challenger 
only spent a very, very limited amount and won.
  So get away from all this who gets the money. It is an even-steven 
proposition. Hold down the spending. Let us go with the constitutional 
amendment.

                          ____________________