[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S859-S860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again on 
the need to address an issue that continues to haunt the inner core of 
our political system: campaign financing laws.
  Mr. President, we debate many issues in the U.S. Senate. We debate 
everything from national security to local roads and bridges. We spent 
a lot of time the past 12 months debating the need to balance the 
Federal budget and maintain access to health care services.
  During these times, it always strikes me as I sit in the Senate 
Chamber that we do not debate these issues by ourselves. In fact, far 
more than just 100 Senators participate in these debates. We are joined 
by the thoughts and opinions of people representing special interests--
some good, some not so good, in my opinion--who far too often today 
make large financial contributions in hopes of tilting the scales of 
Senate deliberations in their favor.
  Mr. President, this is big a problem, and I'll tell you why. I urge 
my colleagues to look around their States and listen to the people. 
Voters in this country are angry, frustrated, and in general less than 
confident about the future. A series of articles has run in the 
Washington Post the past few days documenting this angst. But we don't 
need to read about it in the Post; we can see it and hear it in every 
town meeting, editorial board, and public event we attend.
  I believe a lack of faith in Government lays at the root of peoples' 
concerns about the future. If people don't trust the politicians, how 
can they have faith in congressional decisions? When the agencies are 
forced to shut down, with absolutely no meaningful result, how can 
people have any other reaction than greater disaffection?
  I firmly believe the Senate is filled with honorable, dedicated 
public servants. This Senate has been as passionate and principled as 
any in memory. But we could have 100 Jimmy Stewarts here in 1996, and 
the public would still question their character. Until we do something 
dramatic to address public confidence, we can expect the gap between 
the people and their government to widen.
  There is nothing I can think of that would be worse for this country; 
for alienation breeds apathy, and apathy erodes accountability. America 
is the greatest democracy the world has ever known, and it was built on 
the principle of accountability: government of the people, by the 
people, for the people. We simply must restore peoples' faith in their 
government.
  At the core of the problem is money in politics. Right now the system 
is designed to favor the rich, at the expense of the middle class. It 
benefits the incumbents, at the expense of challengers. And most of 
all, it fuels Washington, DC, Inc., at the expense of the average 
person on Main Street, U.S.A.
  The average person feels like they can no longer make a difference in 
this system. Just the other day my campaign received a $15 donation 
from a woman in Washington State. She included a note to me that said, 
``Senator Murray, please make sure my $15 has as much impact as people 
who give thousands.'' She knows what she is up against, but she is 
still willing to make the effort. Unfortunately people like her are 
fewer and farther between, and less able than ever to make that 
difference.
  We see her problem when people like Malcolm Forbes, Jr., are able to 
use inherited personal wealth to buy their way into the national 
spotlight. Ninety-nine percent of the people in America could never 
even imagine making that kind of splash in politics. Are we to rely 
solely on the benevolence of the wealthy to ensure strong democracy in 
this country? I don't think that is what the Founding Fathers had in 
mind.
  All of this occurs against the backdrop of a campaign finance system 
that hasn't been reformed since Watergate, over 20 years ago. I would 
even say 

[[Page S860]]
public faith in Government today has sunk below what it was in 1974. I 
should know; this lack of faith is what inspired me to seek this office 
in 1992. If I've learned anything in my brief career, it's this: If you 
give any good set of political lawyers 20 years, they will find a way 
to exploit even the best system to maximum personal advantage. We have 
to reform the campaign financing laws, and we have to do it soon.
  Given the voters' unambiguous message in the 1992 election, we tried 
to enact significant reform in the 103d Congress. The Senate 
overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill in 1993, and the House followed 
suit later. As a newly elected Senator at the time, I was proud to 
support that bill. Unfortunately, this effort fell prey to partisan 
rancor in 1994, and ultimately died in a Republican filibuster in the 
Senate.
  So here we are again, considering various reform proposals in the 
104th Congress. There are two bills currently pending in the Senate 
that reflect my concerns about campaign reform: S. 1219, introduced by 
Senators McCain and Feingold, and S. 1389, introduced by Senator 
Feinstein.
  The McCain-Feingold bill is very broad, and treats nearly every 
aspect of the system. It restricts Political Action Committee 
contributions; it imposes voluntary spending limits; it provides 
discounted access to broadcast media for advertising; it provides 
reduced rates for postage; it prohibits taxpayer-financed mass mailings 
on behalf of incumbents during an election year; it discourages 
negative advertising; it requires full disclosure of independent 
expenditures; and it reforms the process of soft money contributions 
made through political parties.
  Mr. President, these are very strong, positive steps. If enacted as a 
package, they would make our system of electing Federal officials more 
open, competitive, and fair. I feel strongly that we must take such 
steps to reinvigorate peoples' interest in the electoral process, and 
in turn to restore their confidence in the system.
  There are some provisions in S. 1219 that could be problematic, 
however. For example, the bill would require a candidate to raise 60 
percent of his or her funds within the State. This might work fine for 
someone from New York or California. However, it could put small State 
candidates at a real disadvantage, particularly if their opponent is 
independently wealthy. The fact remains that modern Federal elections 
are very expensive. Therefore, I think we should review this provision 
of S. 1219 very carefully before making a final decision.
  Mr. President, the Feinstein bill, S. 1389 is slightly different. It 
proposes some similar reforms, such as voluntary spending limits, free 
broadcast access under specified conditions, discounted media in 
general, and reduced postage rates. The bill also discourages the use 
of personal wealth for election campaigns, and takes a hard line 
against negative advertising. Like the McCain-Feingold bill, these are 
positive steps which, as a package, could significantly improve the 
quality of our elections.
  S. 1239 differs from S. 1219 in one respect: It does not restrict 
Political Action Committees. In taking this approach, the bill suggests 
that PAC's have a legitimate role in the process, and I am inclined to 
agree for two reasons. First, PAC's are fully disclosed, and subject to 
strict contribution limits. That means we have a very detailed paper 
trail from donor to candidate for everyone to see. Second, they give a 
voice to individual citizens like women and workers and teacher who, if 
not organized as a group, might not be able to make a difference in the 
process.
  A serious question about PAC's remains, however: Do they unfairly 
benefit incumbents at the expense of challengers? This is a legitimate 
question, and one I think we should address in any final reform 
legislation.
  Mr. President, these are not the only two bills on campaign reform 
pending in the Senate, but they are the two that most closely reflect 
my thinking. We need to reduce, or at a minimum control, the amount of 
campaign spending. We need to make campaigns more civil. Most of all, 
we need to make campaigns more fair, more competitive, and more 
inclusive of all citizens. I think these two bills would move us 
substantially in that direction.
  Therefore, I am happy to announce today that I have become a 
cosponsor of both S. 1219 and S. 1389. S. 1219 in particular is the 
product of the strongest bipartisan reform effort in many years, and I 
commend senators McCain and Feingold for moving the issue forward. I 
also commend Senator Feinstein for bringing her personal experience and 
ideas to this issue. After two California campaigns in 2 years, she 
knows the flaws in the current system as well as anyone.
  Mr. President, I hope real reform is enacted in 1996. The President 
of the United States made it very clear in his State of the Union 
Address the other night: This is a high personal priority for him, and 
he will sign a bill if we send him one. It may not be exactly these two 
bills, and I know there are several others on this issue currently 
pending. For example, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, has a 
bill that is very similar to the one filibustered in 1994. It will be 
our responsibility as legislators to find the best elements among these 
bills and refine them into a workable reform package.
  The people in this country want to feel ownership over their 
elections; they want to feel like they, as individuals, have a role to 
play that can make a positive difference. Right now, for better or 
worse, not many people feel that way, and the trend is in the wrong 
direction. Campaign reform isn't the silver bullet; but it is very 
important. I believe real campaign reform efforts by Congress would be 
one of the strongest, easiest steps we could take to begin restoring 
peoples' faith in the process.

                          ____________________