[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16722-S16723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I noted with interest last week the 
testimony of the Speaker of the House before the House Oversight 
Committee on the subject of campaign finance reform and the reaction to 
the Speaker's speech here in the Senate last Friday by two of our 
colleagues.
  Let me say, we are back into it again. The biennial assault on the 
first amendment has begun anew.
  The Speaker of the House last week, in addressing this issue in some 
of the most skillful and brilliant testimony I have seen or been 
privileged to hear, pointed out that this debate is about the first 
amendment. We are talking about free speech and the doling out of the 
ability to communicate in a free society.
  Some of my colleagues here on Friday ridiculed the Speaker for 
stating what is perfectly obvious--that we do not spend enough on 
campaigns in this country, not nearly enough.
  As a matter of fact, it is interesting to note that in the 1993-94 
cycle, the most recent 2-year cycle of congressional elections, 
congressional campaigns spent about what the American public spent in 1 
year on bubble gum. I repeat, Mr. President, in the last congressional 
cycle, we spent on congressional campaigns what Americans spend in 1 
year on bubble gum. And about half of what they spend on yogurt, and 
about half what they spend on potato chips.
  So where did this notion get going that we were spending too much in 
campaigns? Compared to what? Compared to what? When you look at any 
sensible comparison, we are spending a pittance communicating with 
voters and expressing ourselves in the American political system.
  Commercial advertising in 1992 was $44 billion. The cost of 
democracy, if you will, in the 1993-94 cycle was $724 million--as I 
said, roughly what Americans spent on bubble gum that year. Another way 
of looking at it, Mr. President, per eligible voter spending was about 
$3.74. That would get you an extra-value meal at McDonald's. The 
equivalent of a burger, fries, and a Coke is not too much to spend to 
communicate with the American voter.
  Prof. Bradley Smith, in a work released by the Cato Institute, 
recently observed that Sony is spending more to promote Michael 
Jackson's latest album than the 1994 Republican Senate nominee in 
California spent. That is a race that a lot of people like to focus on, 
even though on a per capita basis there was less spending in California 
than in a number of other States.
  Newsweek columnist Robert Samuelson noted in an August 1995 column 
that campaign spending is tiny--five or six one-hundredths of 1 percent 
of the gross domestic product. This is up from three one-hundredths of 
one percent in the 1960's. As Samuelson put it, it hardly seems a high 
price to pay for democracy.
  David Broder in the Washington Post in June of 1993 said:

       Communication is the heart of campaign politics, and 
     candidates are competing, not just with each other, but with 
     all the other messages being beamed at the American public. 
     The added cost of the 1992 campaign was the direct byproduct 
     of a very desirable change--a marked increase in competition. 
     There were 1,200 more congressional candidates in 1992 than 
     in 1990--a 63 percent increase.

  So Broder pointed out that:

       It is illogical to welcome the infusion of energy and ideas 
     represented by the largest freshman class in 44 years and 
     condemn the cost of their campaigns.

  He is talking about the 1992 class.
  Broder concluded in that article:

       Few politicians in today's cynical climate want to tell the 
     voters the truth. If you want competitive politics, make up 
     your mind that it is going to be relatively expensive. 
     Democracy, like other good things, is not cost-free.

  But expensive compared to what? It is said time after time on the 
floor of the Senate that campaign spending is out of control. It is 
just not true. There is no basis for that. And it is repeated as if it 
were fact.
  We spend a pittance on politics in this country. And, as the Speaker 
pointed out last week, we really ought to be spending more. To the 
extent that our speech is restrained by some artificial Government-
imposed effort to restrict it, others will fill the void. As the 
Speaker pointed out, the void left by the limits--if we had limits on 
our speech--would be further filled by the media, in addition to other 
powerful entities.
  A Member of this body on this floor last Friday blasted as 
``ludicrous'' the Speaker's observation that over half the money he 
raises is to offset the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The Senator 
further noted that his opponent is not the newspaper. Maybe this 
colleague of ours who was lambasting the Speaker enjoys a great 
relationship with his newspaper, but he ought to try to be on this side 
of the aisle doing battle with the liberal newspapers across America. 
To conservatives, the undeniably and repeatedly proven liberal slant of 
the media is an opponent. Of course, all those newspapers would love to 
restrain our speech so their speech would be enhanced.
  I have ruminated at some length on this over the years, including a 
1994 piece for the New York Times entitled ``The Press as Power 
Broker,'' and another for USA Today, also last year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both of those articles be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 18, 1994]

                       The Press as Power Broker

                          (By Mitch McConnell)

       Washington.--In political campaigns, paid advertisements 
     are speech amplifiers--the only practical way for candidates 
     to speak directly to large numbers of voters. That is why the 
     Supreme Court ruled, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that 
     involuntary spending limits are an unconstitutional 
     infringement of free speech.
       Now, in the name of campaign reform, the Senate and House 
     have both passed ``voluntary'' spending limits for 
     Congressional campaigns. But while they aim to equalize 
     spending between candidates, these limits would distort the 
     political process, creating a whole new set of power 
     brokers--including, perhaps not coincidentally, some of the 
     loudest cheerleaders for the new spending limits: America's 
     largest newspapers.
       To get around the Supreme Court ruling, the bills would not 
     explicitly require spending limits. Instead, candidates would 
     be bludgeoned into compliance by a panoply of heavy 
     penalties. These schemes, which have the enthusiastic support 
     of the New York Times, among other papers, are voluntary in 
     name only.
       Under the Senate bill, candidates who refused to abide by 
     the limits would have their campaign receipts taxed at the 
     full corporate rate, currently 35 percent. They would be 
     required to include self-incriminating disclaimers in their 
     ads and their campaigns would be saddled with extra reporting 
     requirements. That is just for starters.
       When noncomplying candidates went even a penny over the 
     ``voluntary'' limit, their opponents would receive a 
     Government grant equal to one-third of the limit. The more 
     that noncomplying candidates spent above the limit, the more 
     tax dollars their complying opponents would get.
       The Senate bill also provides for Government grants to 
     counteract independent expenditures by private citizens or 
     groups for or against any complying candidate. If David Duke 
     decided to run for the Senate and the N.A.A.C.P. or B'nai 
     B'rith decided to spend money in opposition to his candidacy, 
     he would be eligible for dollar-for-dollar matching funds to 
     fight back. And ask yourself this: if an independently 
     financed ad urged people to ``Support Senator X--she voted 50 
     times to raise your taxes,'' which candidate would get the 
     money to counteract it?
       The more a candidate's campaign was hamstrung by a limit on 
     spending (and speech), the more powerful other players would 
     become--labor unions, religious groups, anyone with an agenda 
     to promote. In particular, newspapers would emerge unscathed 
     from this ``reform,'' perfectly situated to fill the 
     communications void created by the spending limits. Their 
     power to make or break 

[[Page S 16723]]
     candidates would increase as the candidates' ability to communicate 
     through paid advertisements was severely limited.
       Most campaign spending goes toward getting an unfiltered 
     message to voters. This requires expensive television, mail 
     and newspaper advertisements. Simply speaking from the 
     courthouse steps, as in days gone by, would be cheaper; but 
     it is impossible to reach most voters that way.
       The ``reform'' effort based on spending limits is obviously 
     unconstitutional, yet the nation's largest newspapers proceed 
     full steam ahead in their promotion of it. Perhaps they do 
     not fully appreciate that newspapers could be but a loophole 
     away from having their election-related editorials regarded 
     as ``independent expenditures'' under Federal election law. 
     Or perhaps their true campaign finance goal is to tilt the 
     political playing field in their own favor.
                                                                    ____


                  [From the USA Today, Oct. 24, 1994]

                          Don't Limit Spending

                          (By Mitch McConnell)

       In 1992, congressional campaigns spent about $3.63 per 
     eligible voter--comparable to a McDonald's ``extra value 
     meal.'' The truth is campaign spending is paltry compared to 
     expenditures for commercial advertising. Yet advertising is 
     the only practical--and most cost-efficient--means of 
     communicating to large electorates. That is why the Supreme 
     Court has said that in political campaigns, spending is 
     speech, and therefore involuntary spending limits are 
     unconstitutional.
       Had the Senate not mercifully killed it, this year's 
     version of USA TODAY's beloved ``reform'' scheme would have 
     self-destructed in the courts. It was a blatantly 
     unconstitutional attack on citizens' freedom to participate 
     in elections. And, its spending/speech limits were not 
     ``voluntary.''
       For example, if the NAACP had the audacity to oppose a 
     Senate candidacy by David Duke, this ``reform'' would direct 
     tax dollars to Duke to ``counteract'' the NAACP! Candidates 
     who didn't ``voluntarily'' limit spending would have their 
     campaign funds taxed, lose broadcast and mail discounts, be 
     forced to run self-incriminating ad disclaimers, be choked 
     with extra red tape and trigger matching funds for their 
     opponents if they exceeded the speech/spending limits. That's 
     why the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill.
       The National Taxpayers Union opposed what amounted to an 
     entitlement program for politicians, providing communication 
     vouchers (``food stamps for politicians'') to House 
     candidates and a host of benefits to Senate candidates. 
     Political scientists opposed the spending/speech limits 
     because they advantage incumbents over challengers, 
     celebrities over unknowns--the political haves over the have-
     nots.
       Republicans opposed the scheme for all these reasons and 
     more. USA TODAY misdiagnoses the problem and prescribes a 
     constitutionally toxic cure. Perhaps USA TODAY would consider 
     a dose of its own medicine: tax dollars to candidates to 
     ``counteract'' hostile newspaper editorials and an aggregate 
     word limit for articles. This would help ``level the playing 
     field,'' alleviate the political ``headline chase'' and 
     lessen the annoying din of media coverage.
       The premier political reform is the First Amendment. If 
     those freedoms were protected only for the press, newspapers 
     would be omnipotent. Perhaps that is why USA TODAY so 
     casually dismisses the First Amendment concerns of others.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in the New York Times piece I referred 
to the fact that the media factor is codified in law in which they are 
specifically exempted from the definition of campaign expenditure. The 
reason that they need to be exempted is because the assumption is that 
media activities would be a political expenditure. Right here in the 
Federal election campaign laws compiled by the Federal Election 
Commission on page 6, it is pointed out that the term ``expenditure'' 
does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed 
through the facilities of any broadcasting station, and so on.
  The point this makes is that you could assume that is an expenditure 
in a campaign. So there is a need to specifically exempt it. The 
Speaker is absolutely correct. To the extent that the speech of an 
individual campaign is artificially restrained by some Government-
imposed speech limit, the speech of others will be enhanced. Most 
particularly the liberal media of this country who love to limit 
anybody else's speech so their speech will be louder and more 
penetrating.
  An objective observer unconcerned or unfamiliar with the Constitution 
might call that media exemption a loophole. But the point 
fundamentally, Mr. President, is that we are not, as the Speaker 
indicated, spending too much on politics in this country. We ought to 
be spending more. Any effort to restrain the speech of campaigns, to 
shut up the campaigns, will enhance the speech of others. To rearrange 
speech in this democracy is not a desirable goal.
  So we begin again the seemingly endless debate that has certainly 
dominated the Senate during my period here about the desirability of 
clamping down on American campaigns and shutting up candidates so they 
will not speak too much and providing some kind of subsidy--a bribe, if 
you will--to get them to shut up.
  The Supreme Court has said that spending is speech and cannot be 
limited. But it did say that you could offer a public subsidy to 
candidates if you wanted to sort of pay them to shut up. That is the 
Presidential system, and the reason even candidates like Ronald Reagan, 
who stated that he would take taxpayer funding and said, ``I will take 
it. I cannot afford not to. The subsidy is so generous.''
  The various schemes we discussed here in the Congress do not have as 
generous a subsidy. It has been proposed that we have the broadcasters 
pay for our campaigns, or that we have the Post Office customers pay 
for our campaigns through broadcast discounts and postal subsidies, as 
if this somehow was not real money. Well, it is real money. And make no 
mistake about it, the goal of all of these schemes is to clamp down on 
political speech, which, of course, will in turn limit the 
participation of Americans in the political system. There is much more 
to be said, and I expect we will have an opportunity next year to say 
it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________