[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 173 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16649-S16652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, yesterday's long-awaited testimony by 
Speaker Newt Gingrich on the subject of campaign finance reform was, to 
say the least, disappointing for me. I hope it does not represent a 
roadblock in the path of needed legislation to reform our campaign 
finance system in a fashion that does give citizens the sense that they 
have more power or control over the political process then they 
currently do.
  It seems to me, the top of the list of items I would put on an agenda 
of things needed to be done in order to restore people's confidence in 
democracy would be to change our laws that govern campaigns for 
election either to the U.S. Senate or to the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  We had legislation. I actually did not support the legislation last 
year because I thought it created a new, publicly funded entitlement, 
and I did not like that. We had legislation last year that came close. 
The now-majority leader has indicated he believes it is a top priority. 
A lot of us talk about campaign finance reform. We always get right to 
the end and we say, ``Yes, I am for campaign finance reform, but there 
is something about this proposal I do not like,'' and there is always a 
good excuse not to do it.
  The decision I made earlier this week was, in part, a response to 
that. I am the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
Committee, a legal organization--there is a Republican counterpart as 
well--that is designed to go out and find candidates and support 
candidates for office. It is a later subject, as to whether or not 
those committees themselves ought to be part of campaign finance 
reform. I certainly would like to see them as part of it. There is 
something unsavory about going out and campaigning against people you 
are working with all the time. But, as I said, I will leave that for a 
later discussion.
  I, this week, endorsed and became a cosponsor of a piece of 
legislation that has been developed by Senator McCain of Arizona and 
Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, as well as Senator Thompson of 
Tennessee, Senator Simpson of Wyoming, and a number of others. It has a 
bipartisan group of people in the House of Representatives who are 
supporting it as well. Not just to say I support this legislation. 
There are changes I want to make in the legislation, particularly as it 
relates to smaller States such as mine, that I think might not be 
positively affected by this. What it represents is an effort to say to 
Republicans: Look, on this issue we have to, at some level, set down 
our political party concerns and embrace legislative change that will, 
perhaps, increase the risk to us as incumbents. It seems to me at the 
end of the day that becomes one of the most important risks that 
personally one factors in, when thinking about whether or not to 
support a particular piece of legislation.
  I feel strongly we cannot continue to give the American people an 
excuse as to why we cannot do it. It seems to me that is what we always 
do. We say, ``I am for campaign finance reform, but * * *.'' That is 
what I did last year. I do not want to do it this year. I want to be 
able to stand here as a Democrat with Senator McCain, a Republican, 
Senator Thompson, a Republican, Senator Simpson, a Republican, and vote 
for final passage of legislation that has an opportunity of being 
conferenced with the House bill, if not in this calendar year certainly 
in this session of this Congress. I find, in the Speaker's 
recommendation, some things I simply cannot support. He is recommending 
a 16-member commission on power and political reform in the information 
age.
  It goes on. There is an article here I am holding that says, in 
typical expansive, characteristically expansive fashion, he urges all 
of us, if we really want to understand campaign finance reform and get 
to the heart of the matter, he urges all of us ``to study ancient 
Greece and Rome, pre-Civil War United States and the words of Thomas 
Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow 
Wilson, and Henry Cabot Lodge.''
  Mr. President, I have read most of those. I have been educated far 
more on these matters listening to the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, I must point out, than almost any other speaker on this 
floor. We have, it seems to me, not a shortage of historical 
information. What we have is a shortage of will to vote for something 
that might put our own political careers at risk.
  I would object personally to being told that what I have to do is 
what the Speaker is recommending--that we are going to have a 16-member 
commission. They are going to decide. If two-thirds of them vote for a 
specific proposal, then we have to vote for it up or down. That is a 
recipe, it seems to me, that on the one hand we are saying we are not 
going to get involved--Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, Senator 
Thompson, Senator Simpson, myself, and Senator Dodd, and many others of 
us are saying it is time for us to enact legislation that we can reach 
agreement on. I reject that premise on the one hand. On the other hand, 
what it calls for is another delay. This commission is supposed to make 
its report on the 1st of May of next year. That will, in my judgment, 
likely cause us to not be able to enact legislation.
  Second, I must say with respect to the Speaker's proposal that he has 
broadened this thing to a point where it is almost a self-defeating 
mission. By broadening it, I mean he wants to include not just campaign 
finance reform but the power of private sector individuals in the 
information age. Specifically, he references in here and compares in 
here, a multi-millionaire broadcaster on ABC News being given 
tremendous access to the American people. That individual does not 
represent political power; whereas, the thousand-dollar contribution 
being written by the broadcaster's spouse does. Then he says--and I 
must say, in his typically characteristic way, only the Speaker seems 
to be able to come up with these sorts of phrases--``This is simply a 
nonsensical, socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise 
system.'' 

[[Page S 16650]]

  Anybody that does not see it the way the Speaker sees it hates the 
free enterprise system and is a socialist. Interesting argument. I will 
leave it to somebody else to figure that one out.
  Mr. President, the Speaker knows quite well that there are many free 
enterprise organizations that give you--for example, Rupert Murdoch put 
$10 million into a magazine called American Standard. He has a 
political orientation there. We do not restrict that activity. I hope 
the Speaker is not suggesting that we get into that kind of activity 
because it is a self-defeating mission, if that is what we are going to 
do. He may not like the views of somebody on television, or somebody 
writing an editorial page, or something like that. But, for gosh sakes, 
that is not the issue.
  The issue is people who decide to run for office. Once we get to 
office, we have power that a challenger does not have. Specifically, in 
my own case in the last Senate reelection campaign, I started off the 
campaign with nearly 100 percent name recognition. Anybody who wants to 
challenge me will have to spend $1 million, let us say, on the TV just 
to get their name up as a credible candidate. That really is a hurdle 
that an individual has to be able to get over if they are going to be 
competitive against an incumbent.
  So the legislation that Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have put 
together--the reason, it seems to me, that it has merit--deals with 
this problem of financing head on. The Speaker, on the other hand, 
says--it is a remarkable headline. I cannot remember exactly. I cannot 
see the print. I did not bring my glasses. But he said something to the 
effect that there is a great myth going on in the country today that we 
spend too much on campaigns. That is a myth? I think he is maybe the 
only person in America who has discovered that is a myth, that we spend 
too much. That we do not spend too much is the Speaker's view. He says 
it is not that we spend too much, but that we do not spend enough. What 
we need, instead of $4 million Senate races in Nebraska, are $8 million 
Senate races.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I have my 
glasses on. I was very excited to hear my colleague from Nebraska over 
here, so I decided to join him.
  The quote here is, rather than limit campaign spending, Gingrich 
said, ``One of the greatest myths in modern politics is that campaigns 
are too expensive. The political process, in fact, is not overfunded 
but underfunded.''
  So that quote in that particular instance is one of the great myths I 
have ever heard about. I do not know about the Speaker, but I can tell 
you as someone who has been through seven elections, that for the 
average Senate race, either Republican or Democrat, candidates must 
raise $12,000 a week every week for 6 years to meet the cost of the 
average Senate campaign in the United States. If the Speaker thinks 
that is underfunded, then he lives on a different planet than I do.
  One of the problems is too many Members spending too much time--way 
too much time--out there raising the money, sitting down with the 
people who can raise and give them the kind of resources necessary. I 
promise you, if we continue on the path we are going, it is going to 
destroy this process in this country. It has to stop.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate that comment. I would like to 
ask the Senator from Connecticut, he is the chairman of the Democratic 
National Committee, and when we earlier this week endorsed what is 
genuinely a bipartisan bill where at the moment there are at least more 
Republicans on it than Democrats--what we are trying to do is get 
Chairman Barbour and Chairman D'Amato, not necessarily because they 
like every detail. I do not like every detail in the bill, nor does the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut like it. But to say we know--I 
think Chairman Barbour knows and Chairman D'Amato knows. They are out 
there a lot with the people making contact with citizens, and citizens 
are saying loud and clear to us, ``Change this electoral system. Change 
it so that we feel like we have more power, more control, and more 
opportunity to participate.''
  One of the things that I hope comes out of this is, rather than this 
just being a couple of Democrats coming down to the floor of the 
Senate, I am not trying to seek partisan advantage as a consequence of 
what Speaker Gingrich says. I am not going after Chairman Barbour or 
any Republicans down here at all. Indeed, quite the opposite. I am 
praising Republican leadership in recognizing, as Senator McCain has, 
and Senator Thompson and Senator Simpson have, that this process has to 
change. I am hopeful that leadership of our parties can say to the 
American people, ``OK, we are going to put our swords down. We are 
going to stop cranking the fax machine for a while, and we are going to 
let the legislative process work.''
  The Members of the Senate and the House go home over the weekends. 
They know what is going on. You ask at the townhall meeting for a show 
of hands for how many favor limiting campaign spending and for reform 
of the process. If it is an audience of 100, you will get 100 hands. If 
you ask the audience how many think we do not spend enough in political 
campaigns, not a single hand will go up, unless somebody owns a 
television station and wants to spend more money or something like 
that.
  I really believe that we know. I doubt that there is a single Member 
of this body who would say that the campaign laws ought to stay the 
same as they are. My guess is 100 out of 100 know this thing ought to 
change.
  I hopeful, at least on this issue, that we can stop being partisan 
for a moment and be Americans instead and pass legislation that the 
American people are saying is a top priority for them.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I want to underscore, Mr. 
President, what the Senator from Nebraska has said today with his 
leadership on this issue. The author of the legislation that the 
Senator from Nebraska and I are speaking about is our colleague from 
Arizona, Senator McCain. And in the House of Representatives, similar 
legislation is sponsored Representative Linda Smith, who I gather is a 
freshman Member of the House--I do not know her personally, and I do 
not know if we have ever met. Christopher Shays, a House Republican 
Member and a colleague of mine from the State of Connecticut whom I 
know, is another sponsor of the House legislation. To suggest that what 
we are doing is somehow partisan, is to belie the facts. I have been a 
strong supporter, as my colleague has, for years on campaign finance 
reform.
  What we see with this legislation being offered by our colleagues 
from Arizona--and Washington and Connecticut in the House--is an 
opportunity to get beyond the partisanship; and, that is, to join 
together here, Republicans and Democrats who believe that despite 
whatever differences we may have on other issues and on this issue of 
trying to slow down and limit the proliferation of money in these 
campaigns, it is a worthy cause.
  Whatever other differences we may have on this issue, we ought to be 
able to come together. By supporting a bipartisan piece of legislation, 
we can achieve it. How anyone can believe what the Speaker says--I read 
what the Speaker says here, and I quote him:

       I would guess that over half of the money I raise is spent 
     offsetting the weight of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

  Half the money is spent running against a newspaper in Georgia. The 
last time I heard, my opponent was not the newspaper. I normally end up 
with someone on the other side I debate with and face.
  So now let me see if I understand this. We raise this much money 
because we have to take on our local newspapers and radio stations? 
That is ludicrous, Mr. President, absolutely ludicrous to make that 
case, for the Speaker of the House to make the case, that we need to 
spend more money so we can take on the media.
  That is what this is about. I have never heard that argument before. 
I have heard other arguments about why we do not want to limit campaign 
expense, but never the suggestion that somehow we have to do it in 
order to beat back our local newspaper and columnists.
  Mr. KERREY. If the Senator will yield on that one point, I find it 
rather ironic; Speaker Newt Gingrich at the start of the session made 
Rush 

[[Page S 16651]]
Limbaugh an honorary Member of Congress, so apparently if the views 
line up with your views----
  Mr. DODD. It is OK.
  Mr. KERREY. You make them an honorary Member. I would say it is more 
than just ironic that the Speaker, on the one hand, is willing to make 
Rush Limbaugh an honorary Member of Congress because he believes that 
he and talk radio have been enormously helpful, but the Atlanta-
Constitution is an enemy.
  The Senator from Connecticut is lucky; he has Bob Shrepf in that 
State so he does not have that problem. There have been many views 
expressed by media highly critical of the Senator from Nebraska. I 
think they have been wrong, almost never justified. Always some outrage 
boils up inside of me, and I have said, ``This is not fair.''
  Well, that is free speech. It is fair. That is the press. I walked 
into the arena, and I should not look for somebody to blame for the 
problems I have. It seems to me the American people have said 
overwhelmingly--I do not know about Connecticut but in Nebraska over 
and over they say to me, ``We're sick of all that money.'' I had 
trouble in 1994 getting people excited about my campaign because very 
often they would say to me, ``We give too darned much money. We are 
sick of it. We are tired of seeing these 30-second ads over and over. 
We get sick of your face. We would like to have a race that is a bit 
more on the issues, a bit more opportunity for people to become 
competitive.''
  I can think of 100 reasons why not to vote for campaign finance 
reform. I have a lot of reasons why I would not want to vote for it, 
and they are all good. I do not like public finance. I do not like 
this. I do not like limits. There are all kinds of reasons why I would 
not want to support it. But it seems to me one of the dominant things 
that occurs is, gee, is this going to hurt the Democratic Party or is 
this going to hurt the Republican Party or is this going to hurt me as 
an incumbent? I think we are hurting democracy the longer we wait to 
change this political system so the American people feel they do have 
more power, more control, and more opportunity to participate.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just want to echo the comments made by my 
colleague from Nebraska. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are all too 
familiar with the cost of these campaigns, the ever-increasing costs. 
To give you an idea, 20 years ago, the most expensive race statewide 
ever in the history of Connecticut was when Ella Grasso ran for 
Governor; she spent about $400,000 in a statewide race. I am told that 
in 1998, should I seek reelection, the cost of a competitive race in my 
State, given the price of New York media, Boston media, my own State 
media, would hover somewhere between $4.5 and $6 million. That is in 20 
years.
  That is the average cost, by the way, nationwide, taking California 
on the one hand, the extreme case, because of the size of that State 
and on the other hand a State I suppose like Rhode Island. Or maybe 
that is not a good example--maybe a smaller State in population, 
Montana, Idaho, whatever it may be--the average cost is roughly $4.5 to 
$5 million.
  That means the average Senator would have to be raising $12,000 a 
week every week for 6 years--from the day they arrive and are sworn in 
in the Chamber of this Senate, from that day forward, $12,000 a week 
every week.
  When you consider as an incumbent the advantage of that, considering 
someone who might 2 years out decide to take a shot at being a U.S. 
Senator, what are their chances? What is the population pool from which 
we are likely to draw candidates for the Senate?
  If you decide 24 months out that you would like to run for the 
Senate, you have to raise not $12,000 a week; you have to raise 
something like $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 a week, or you have to 
have the wealth yourself.
  Last year we saw in California one individual spend $28 million of 
his own money, and I do not think people want to see an institution 
proliferated by either people who have only the personal wealth that 
allows them to run or that have only the access to that kind of 
wealth--knowing the kinds of commitments that get made in this 
business, have them come here already in a sense committed on a whole 
host of issues where the public interest would be jeopardized.
  So again, I emphasize I think Congresswoman Linda Smith had it right, 
with her opinion on this idea of a commission. We have had many 
commissions and many studies on this. No one is fooled by that one. 
Forming a commission to go out and study this issue again is laughable. 
There has been much analysis and much study on this. The question is 
whether or not we have the intestinal fortitude to come to terms with 
an issue that demands resolution.
  So I hope that these commission ideas would be shelved, and that we 
would get about the business here of putting a bill in the Chamber. Let 
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold bring up their bill. Let amendments 
be brought up to moderate and change it. As the Senator from Nebraska 
said, he and I may have some modifications to offer to that 
legislation, but we are never going to have that chance if it does not 
get called up.
  So, while I may disagree with Congresswoman Smith on many, many 
issues, on this one she is right. Senator McCain is right. We better 
get about the business of allowing this bill to go forward.
  I am saddened when I see the continued call for more and more money 
being spent. And to suggest somehow that you need to spend more, as 
this headline says, ``Gingrich Calls For More Not Less Campaign Cash,'' 
because he has to take on the Atlanta Constitution, is going to be met 
I think with the kind of derision that it ought to be. No one buys that 
argument. Not a single person in this country will buy that argument.
  And so I hope that our colleagues will support what Senator Kerrey 
and I have done over the last several days. Get behind the McCain-
Feingold bill. Senator Simpson has done so. Our colleagues as well, 
several, have offered this. Senator Nunn and Senator Simon on our side 
over here have been supportive of it. I believe it is on the right 
track.
  Again, it is not going to be perfect in every detail, but certainly 
it is the only way that I can see in the short run we are going to get 
anything done on this.
  Believe me when I tell you that Senator Kerrey and I have certainly 
been challenged in our own party for cosponsoring this bill. This was 
not met with wild applause by everybody who wears the label of 
Democrat.
  And so do not misunderstand us here today. This is not something that 
is greeted with great applause in every quarter. But we happen to 
believe as the leaders of our respective groups, as chairman of the 
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and chairman of the Democratic 
National Party, this is truly in the national interest. It is truly in 
the national interest to put a stop to what I would, I think, 
appropriately call the obscene amount of money being spent in American 
politics. It is turning people off by the day in this country. They are 
sick of it. They want it to stop. They want choices that they can make 
when they go to the polls, and they see the amount of money being spent 
is a real detriment in that effort. So we urge the leadership to allow 
the bill to come to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, one last comment and I will yield the 
floor. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania is here. He and I just had a 
couple of minutes of conversation on this subject.
  Polls are very popular methods of trying to determine the attitudes 
and views of the American people or some segment of the American 
people, and sometimes those polls are encouraging and sometimes those 
polls are discouraging. One of the most, if not the most, discouraging 
polls that I have ever read was a poll that asked the American people 
who has the most power in Washington, DC, the President of the United 
States, the Congress, the special interests?
  I understand that the special interests can mean one thing to one 
person and another to another. I can be a good special interest and a 
bad special interest. But by a margin of 3 to 1 the American people 
believe that the special interests have more power than a Member of 
Congress does or than even the President of the United States. 

[[Page S 16652]]

  That is a very disturbing fact. We all know that perception becomes 
reality. If that is the belief of the American people, that means they 
would say we do not have any opportunity. If we want to change a law, 
if there is something that we would like to influence in Washington, 
DC, we would like to bring in an idea and have it become incorporated 
into a piece of legislation, we just do not think we have a fighting 
chance.
  We have to change that perception.
  I believe, among other things, campaign finance reform can be a means 
to that end. There may be other things that people have on the list, 
but I would put that very high--indeed, I would put that at the top of 
my list in the ways to change the law so we can begin to change that 
perception, so the American citizens out there can say, as, for 
example, Sarah Brady did, we can change the law. It may not be a 
popular change, maybe it will produce a lot of heartache where people 
will have to take a position on legislation we want to change, but we 
want to fight to change the law.
  We have to change the perception that people have that there is no 
opportunity for them to come to Washington, DC, and change the law of 
the land. If we are able to do that, not only will we get increased 
participation at the day of the election, we will get increased 
participation all year long from citizens who feel this really is a 
government of, by, and for the people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I believe that campaign finance reform is long 
overdue. I have just had a conversation with the distinguished Senator 
from Connecticut--if I could have the attention of the Senator from 
Connecticut--and one of the real problems in the electoral process 
involves the soft money, where, on both sides of the political 
spectrum, Republicans and Democrats have sought enormous sums of money 
with the $100,000 contribution being made which is totally outside the 
system.
  I have just talked to Senator Dodd about that. And I am glad to know 
his acquiescence on the issue of eliminating the soft money, because 
you can have all the limitations you like in many other respects, but 
if that soft money is available, it is all for naught. So I thank my 
colleague from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield.
  The bill does do that. And I think there is value in that. I 
neglected to say to my colleague in our private conversation that I 
think you might be able to make a case, for instance, in the area of 
local--not national--but local, statewide elections, and so forth, 
where you want to promote a certain activity, that you might find a way 
to have some exceptions and caveats.
  In the underlying point, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
correct, but I can also see where some modifications in that might meet 
the concerns of the Senator from Pennsylvania and my concerns, what he 
properly describes as the proliferation of this kind of resource that 
comes into our national coffers, in a way to promote, I think, sound, 
intelligent, and worthwhile political activity at the grassroots level.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may pursue that discussion for one more moment with 
the Senator from Connecticut.
  I get concerned when you say caveat.
  What kind does the Senator have in mind?
  Mr. DODD. I do not have one in mind. I think, like the Senator from 
Nebraska said, this 60-percent requirement, that the funds be 60 
percent from your State, that might be fine in California, 
Pennsylvania, even Connecticut, but in some other States you may want 
to have some flexibility in that, small States that do not have that 
kind of population. You may want to modify that.
  That is what I mean by some of the provisions here. I support this 
bill. I am a cosponsor of it. I think that speaks volumes about where 
we stand. I am willing to consider ways in which we can accommodate 
some legitimate questions being raised.
  But my view is it is better to get behind a bill you fundamentally 
support so we have some possibility of reform, than to not support the 
bill at all. If I had as my standard here that I disagreed with a 
couple of points here and believed that there needed to be some 
modifications before I could support it, we would never get anything 
done in this area. In all the years I have supported campaign finance 
reform, that is what has happened here. The Democrats offer a bill, the 
Republicans offer a bill, and nothing ever gets done. We both go out 
and issue our press releases saying how much we are for campaign 
finance reform.
  What the Senator from Nebraska and I have decided to do here backs 
our colleague--here is a colleague from the other side of the aisle who 
cares deeply about the issue, with two Members of the House, both of 
the Republican Party, Congressman Smith and Congressman Shays, along 
with some Democrats, who offer a proposal. Because there are a number 
of Republicans and Democrats who endorse the McCain bill, we thought 
maybe, just maybe, we might be able to get beyond what has been the 
traditional response, Mr. President, to the historic way we have dealt 
with this issue, and that is a couple of bills and the press releases 
go out.
  I am not going to endorse every aspect of this bill. I would not 
expect everyone else to. In the soft money area, my general view is we 
ought to get out of it. You may make some exceptions on the local level 
or State level. That may have some value. But I still believe honestly 
we ought to get behind this bill and get something on the floor that 
would change the way we run our campaigns in this country.

                          ____________________