[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4456-S4457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, just briefly, before we go back on to 
the important business at hand, the immigration bill, I just want to 
call to the attention of the body an article today in the Washington 
Post entitled ``Campaign Finance Proposal Drawing Opposition From 
Diverse Group.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that 
article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 1, 1996]

    Campaign Finance Proposal Drawing Opposition From Diverse Group

                            (By Ruth Marcus)

       An unusual alliance of unions, businesses, and liberal and 
     conservative groups is trying to defeat campaign finance 
     legislation that would abolish political action committees 
     and impose other restrictions on election spending.
       The informal coalition, which met for the second time 
     yesterday, includes groups that usually find themselves on 
     opposite sides of legislative and ideological battles: unions 
     including the AFL-CIO, National Education Association and 
     National Association of Letter Carriers, and the National 
     Association of Business Political Action Committees (NABPAC), 
     which represents 120 business and trade association PACs.
       Also among the 30 organizations at the meeting were 
     conservative groups such as the Cato Institute, Conservative 
     Caucus and Americans for Tax Reform; liberal groups such as 
     EMILY's List, the women's political action committee; and 
     others, including U.S. Term Limits, the National Women's 
     Political Caucus, the National Association of Broadcasters 
     and the American Dental Association.
       Yesterday's meeting, at AFL-CIO headquarters here, was 
     organized by Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of 
     the American Electorate, a nonpartisan organization that 
     studies voter turnout. Gans opposes the campaign finance 
     proposal pending in Congress.
       ``The unifying principle is essentially that the approaches 
     that have been pushed by Common Cause and Public Citizen are 
     wrong . . . and their answers to the problems are wrong,'' 
     Gans said, referring to two of the leading groups pushing the 
     campaign finance legislation.
       He said the groups that met yesterday were ``unanimous'' 
     about the need to do ``public education'' activities to 
     counter a debate that Gans said ``has essentially been 
     dominated by the Common Cause position.'' But the diverse 
     assemblage was unable even to agree to Gans's draft joint 
     statement about the issue.
       Common Cause president Ann McBride said the meeting showed 
     ``labor and business . . . coming together and agreeing on 
     the one thing that they can agree on, which is maintaining 
     the status quo and their ability to use money to buy outcomes 
     on Capitol Hill.''
       The meeting reflects a stepped-up effort by foes of the 
     proposal. NABPAC has launched a print and radio advertising 
     campaign here and in districts of members who support the 
     bill. The ads target individual lawmakers by name.
       ``Legislation sponsored by Rep. David Minge . . . will make 
     it harder for average

[[Page S4457]]

     Americans to contribute to campaigns and to run for office,'' 
     said a newspaper ad that ran in the Minnesota Democrat's 
     district. ``The next time you see Rep. David Minge ask him 
     this simple question: Why do you want more millionaires in 
     Congress?''
       NABPAC also is encouraging its members to cut off 
     contributions to lawmakers who support the bill, and last 
     month sent a memorandum to members of Congress enclosing 
     copies of its ads. ``The plans are to aggressively market 
     this in other appropriate areas of the country,'' NABPAC 
     executive vice president Steven F. Stockmeyer said in the 
     memo.
       Three sponsors of the campaign finance bill in the House, 
     Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) 
     and Linda A. Smith (R-Wash.), fired back at NABPAC in a 
     letter to its members last week, calling the memorandum a 
     ``thinly veiled threat to keep members from co-sponsoring'' 
     the legislation.
       ``[I]ntimidating members into staying off of the bill by 
     either subtly or blatantly threatening to withhold campaign 
     contributions is disgraceful and justifies why our 
     legislation is needed,'' they wrote. ``Frankly, these efforts 
     simply inspire us further to try to end the system of 
     checkbook lobbying in Washington.''
       But Shays said yesterday that ``some members are [scared] 
     because they don't want to be the enemy of these groups.'' A 
     Common Cause study released last week found that NABPAC 
     members gave $106 million to current members of Congress from 
     1985 to 1995.
       In addition to abolishing PACs, the campaign finance bill, 
     sponsored in the Senate by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), 
     Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), 
     would set voluntary state-by-state spending limits and, for 
     those who agree to the limits, require television stations to 
     offer 30 minutes of free time in evening hours and cut rates 
     for other advertising before primary and general elections.
       Critics contend that abolishing PACs would diminish the 
     ability of average citizens to join together to have their 
     voices head and would increase the influence of wealthy 
     citizens.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what this article is about is a reaction 
to the effort that Senator McCain and I and others have been preparing 
to try to change our Nation's campaign financing system. There are 
those who have indicated that the effort will go nowhere because it is 
already too late in the 104th Congress, and that it is just going to go 
the way of all other campaign finance reform efforts in the past.
  Frankly, Mr. President, this article gives me heart. It is eloquent 
testimony to the reason why we have got to have campaign finance reform 
in this country and why we need it now. What happened yesterday was, 
according to the article, an unusual alliance of unions, businesses, 
and liberal-conservative groups trying to defeat campaign finance 
legislation that would abolish political action committees and other 
restrictions on election spending, got together, all together, to try 
to kill the McCain-Feingold bill. It included groups such as the AFL-
CIO, the NEA, National Association of Letter Carriers, the National 
Association of Business Political Action Committees, Cato Institute, 
Conservative Caucus, Americans for Tax Reform, EMILY's List--you name 
it--National Association of Broadcasters, the American Dental 
Association. This was a gathering of all the special interests in 
Washington, even before we have had the bill come up, saying, ``Let's 
kill it before it has a chance to live.''
  The reason it gives me heart, Mr. President, really, there are two 
reasons. First of all, if this bill is not going anywhere, what are 
they worried about? Why are they coming together, as they so 
infrequently do, to kill a piece of legislation that is the first 
bipartisan effort in 10 years in this body to try to do something about 
the outrageous amount of money that is spent on campaigns and the 
outrageous influence that this community, Washington, has on the entire 
political process in this country?
  I recall when I ran for the U.S. Senate, I might talk to somebody 
from the labor community or to an independent banker, and they would 
say, ``Gee, we think you are a pretty good candidate, but first I have 
to check with Washington to see if I can support you.'' That is how the 
current system works. You have to check in with Washington first. I 
think that gives way too much power to this town and way too much power 
to these special interests that want to kill campaign finance reform in 
this Congress.
  It gives me heart that there is concern. It also gives me heart that 
they are drawing attention to the fact. In fact, this article is 
eloquent testimony to what is really going on in this country. There is 
too much money in this town; there is too much money in these 
elections. What they are trying to do, Ann McBride of Common Cause 
pointed out, is to preserve the status quo, the meeting of labor and 
business coming together and agreeing on the one thing they can agree 
on, which is maintaining the status quo and their ability to use money 
to buy outcomes on Capitol Hill.
  What our bipartisan effort is about is returning the power back to 
the people in their own home States, to let them have more influence 
over elections than the special interests that run this town. We will 
join this issue on the floor, and we will fight these special interests 
head on, regardless of their new coalitions.
  Mr. President, I simply indicate we are prepared, as I did a couple 
of days ago along with other Senators, we are prepared to offer this as 
an amendment to a bill in the near future, or if the leadership sees it 
this way, to bring this up as separate legislation. The time is drawing 
near for campaign finance reform.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________