[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S138-S140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN THE 105TH CONGRESS

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, as we begin a new Congress, we begin with 
the hope that the bipartisanship that existed at the end of the 104th 
Congress will carry through the 105th Congress.
  Together, Democrats and Republicans were able to put aside partisan 
differences and pass meaningful and important legislation, from raising 
the minimum wage to the Kennedy-Kassebaum health care bill, to the 
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and the airport 
improvement program, and adding additional funds to education.
  Madam President, I think in not only the minds of some in this body 
but the general public, one glaring example where we fail to come 
together is campaign finance reform. While the American people saw that 
we can work together to pass legislative solutions to everyday 
problems, the American people also saw our failure to restore integrity 
to our political system with the passage of campaign finance reform.
  Unfortunately, this last election cycle once again demonstrates that 
we need fundamental campaign finance reform. This last election cycle 
demonstrated that the money chase continues. Only this time, the pace 
was more intense.
  Preliminary figures from the Federal Election Commission for the 1996 
cycle are astounding. Fundraising by the Republican and Democrat 
Parties--``parties'' I underscore--in the period from January 1, 1995, 
through November 25, 1996, totaled $882 million. That represents a 73-
percent increase over the same period for the 1992 Presidential 
election cycle.
  The largest increase in funding and spending by the parties was soft 
money. The Republican National Committee raised $141.2 million, a 183-
percent increase over 1992's $49.8 million. Republicans spent $149.6 
million compared to their spending in the 1992 election cycle, an 
increase of 224 percent. Democrats raised $122 million, a 237-percent 
increase over 1992's $36.5 million, and spent $117.3 million, a 250-
percent increase over 1992 when Democrats spent $32.9 million.
  Madam President, the money chase does not stop there. Based on 
reports by the Federal Election Commission, congressional candidates--
that includes the House and the Senate--spending may be at an all-time 
high. Totals for both the House and the Senate general election 
candidates show they raised $659.6 million, an 8-percent increase over 
1994. That is in addition to the other money that I am talking about. 
So we are nearing the $2 billion figure as it relates to spending in 
campaign finance in campaigning.

[[Page S139]]

  One thing we will become in the House and the Senate will be bit 
players in the political aspects of this country--bit players because 
money will put us on television and money will do the work for us. So 
the big player will become the consultant, will become television, 
become advertising, and so we will become bit players in this stage 
called the American political system.
  An average winning Senate candidate in all 34 races this past 
election spent $4.4 million. Compared to 1994, this represents, by the 
way, an 8-percent decrease. However, the States in which Senate races 
were held in 1996 included most of the smaller and less populated 
States. Nevertheless, when you break down the $4.4 million per race, 
that means the average a candidate would have to raise is approximately 
$13,969 each week for 6 years. Someone dismissed that figure by saying 
that most candidates raise approximately 80 percent of their funds in 
the 2 years prior to the election. If you accept that statistic, then 
the amount you have to raise each week occurring in that 2-year period 
is almost $34,000. With those statistics, one would be hard pressed to 
argue that there is no money chase.
  Some have suggested that we simply do not spend enough in our 
elections. They have even been so bold as to suggest that we should 
spend more. They say we spend more on bubble gum than we spend on 
elections. Well, this is not about bubble gum. This is about running 
this great country of ours and keeping it on the right track and a 
leader of the world.
  How much more can we spend, Madam President, when you have to raise 
$13,000 a week for every week of your Senate term? How can we say that 
we are truly doing the people's business? The more time that we have to 
devote to raising money, the less time we have to commit to our 
constituents. That is certainly the perception of the average citizen. 
I argue that this is one area where the perception is the reality.
  Furthermore, Madam President, I suggest that the more money raised 
and spent in our elections does not necessarily mean that we have 
better campaigns. Al Hunt recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal 
that there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that the more 
candidates spend, the more negative the campaign. No, Madam President, 
I do not believe the answer is more money in our election. Rather, I 
believe, that the solution for real and effective campaign finance 
reform must include spending limits. The terms of those limits should 
be open to negotiation and discussion. In the end, there cannot be any 
real and meaningful reform without spending limits.
  Changing the current system is difficult. You can understand why 
someone opposes changing the status quo because it is a system that got 
them in office, and by and large keeps them in office. I recognize that 
spending limits pose constitutional difficulties. I believe that we can 
craft a system of voluntary spending limits that will sustain 
constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court. I also believe that in 
order to restore the integrity of our political system, imposing 
spending limits is the right course of action. If we must--and I 
underscore if we must--then it might be worth the task to amend the 
Constitution.
  The fact is, Madam President, when it comes to putting an overall cap 
on candidate spending, the Congress is way behind the curve. Just this 
past November, I believe the voters in the great State of Maine passed 
a ballot initiative that would impose spending limits on their State 
races.
  I direct the attention of my colleagues to my own home State of 
Kentucky. In 1995, we had our first gubernatorial election with 
spending limits, $1.8 million. The previous election was $12 million. 
Overall, these reforms in my State worked well for the candidates and 
for the voters. The Kentucky system has a general election spending cap 
of $1.8 million. Everyone agrees the Kentucky system still has some 
problems and some loopholes that need to be addressed. But on the 
whole, I think the candidates and the electorate approved of the 
spending limit plan. In fact, spending limits in the Kentucky race 
changed the overall course of the election. With a limit on the amount 
they could spend, both the Republican and the Democrat candidates had 
to revise the campaign play book.
  Spending limits put a premium on debates. A premium on debates--think 
about that. You try not to debate your opponent in this day and age, 
you try to stay away from him because he is unknown, the people are not 
knowledgeable. So you do not want to give him any publicity, so you do 
not want to have debates, maybe one or two on educational television 
that maybe nobody would watch while there is a basketball game, 
football game, or baseball game going on at that time. I have seen it. 
I played that game. I am no spring chicken at this game. I am still 
spry, but no spring chicken.
  In fact, the spending limits put a premium on debates and joint 
appearances across our Commonwealth. The candidates didn't fly; they 
drove because it saved money. They were looking for every Rotary Club, 
Lion's Club, every J.C. Club, whatever groups were together. They were 
wanting to express their desires and hopes for the future of our great 
State. Overall, I think most Kentuckians were pleased with the results, 
because the candidates came and talked about issues rather than being 
on television. The net result was a better informed electorate and 
therefore a better campaign.
  So, Madam President, I believe that the terms of spending limits 
should be open to negotiation. All items should be on the table for 
discussion. But I believe that we simply cannot have effective and 
meaningful reform without the restriction of limits that one might 
spend in a campaign.
  In addition to spending limits for congressional campaigns, 
meaningful reform also requires us to close the soft money loophole. As 
I mentioned earlier, we saw a dramatic increase by the national parties 
in the raising and spending of soft money.
  We also need to address issues like independent expenditures and 
issue advocacy. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court require the 
Congress, I think, to reexamine the current law. We cannot prevent an 
individual or group of individuals from engaging in political activity 
independent of a candidate or political party. But we can make sure 
that such activities are truly independent and that those expenditures 
are adequately and fully disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. 
We will hear a little more about the hand-off funding as we proceed 
into the debate on campaign finance reform. If you don't understand 
hand-off funding, see me or listen to one of my speeches. I will try to 
tell you what that is.
  Finally, Madam President, I believe that we need to examine the 
structure and authority of the Federal Election Commission. If we are 
going to have an agency charged with a mission to enforce our campaign 
finance laws, then I believe it is incumbent upon us to make sure that 
the FEC has the authority and the means by which to execute that 
authority.
  As the former chairman of the Rules Committee and now ranking member, 
I have sat through countless hearings on the issue of campaign finance 
reform. I can go back to the archives of the Rules Committee and 
produce volumes and volumes and volumes of testimony and printed 
records of hearings where the committee received testimony from 
Members, from professors, from campaign consultants, and all the 
election experts you could ever think up. We can easily identify the 
problems. The question is, Are we ready to try to work on solutions? 
The problems are there and we understand them, but are we ready to work 
on solutions?
  Madam President, with all due respect, we do not need more hearings 
on these issues. We know all too well what the problems are. We need to 
sit down together--and I underscore together--to craft the solutions. 
In the past, campaign finance reform has been an issue that has 
received too much lip service. We can no longer afford to let the 
opportunity to enact meaningful reform pass us by. The time to act is 
now. I hope that we can move forward and make campaign finance reform 
one of the first and lasting accomplishments of the 105th Congress. I 
know that many of my colleagues share a similar commitment to reforming 
our campaign finance laws. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues. Hopefully, through this campaign finance reform, we can 
restore trust and we

[[Page S140]]

can restore integrity to our electoral system by enacting meaningful 
campaign finance reform legislation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I know my colleagues have been waiting 
patiently. Would they mind if I went ahead for a few minutes?
  Mr. GRAMS. That is fine.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the introduction of S. 9 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  (The remarks of Mr. Nickles, Mr. Grams, and Mr. Hutchinson pertaining 
to the introduction of S. 9 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________