[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.
____________________