[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 31 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2173-S2201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CAMPAIGN FINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in accordance with the unanimous-consent 
agreement, I call up Senate Joint Resolution 18 on behalf of myself, 
Mr. Specter, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Biden, 
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Ford, 
and Mr. Harkin, and ask the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 18, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States relating to 
     contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in a line, what we say is that the 
Congress is hereby authorized to regulate or control expenditures in 
Federal elections.
  Let me say that I come now to this particular subject of a 
constitutional amendment, which we have been on for over 10 years, with 
some hope, because I noticed on yesterday, Mr. President, we had a fit 
of conscience. We were about to pass a resolution that said Congress 
was only going to look at illegal contributions and not at improper 
ones, and, finally, in a fit of conscience, the Congress, particularly 
here in the Senate, decided that was not going to fly. It would appear 
to be, if we took that course, a coverup whereby we did not want to get 
into soft money and all of these other extravaganzas, legal as they 
are, says the Supreme Court, but as improper as can be.
  That is what is causing the headlines and the consternation and the 
money chase that we read in the headlines and news stories. We had a 
fit of conscience when we passed the 1974 act. This act came about due 
to the untoward activity in the 1967 and 1971 Presidential races. In 
the 1967 race, President Nixon had designated Maurice Stans, later the 
Secretary of Commerce, to collect the money.
  And I will never forget; he came to the State of South Carolina, and 
he told our textile friends, ``your fair share is $350,000,'' almost 
like the United Fund or Community Chest. Well, I had been their 
Governor and everything else and had never gotten $350,000 out of the 
textile industry, and they were all my friends. But the ten of them, at 
$35,000 apiece, got up the money, and more than that. There were other 
large contributions, including one of $2 million from Chicago.
  The fact was, after President Nixon took office, Treasury Secretary 
John Connally went to the President and said, ``Mr. President, you have 
got a lot of good support and you have not even met these individuals 
much less thanked them. Why not come down to the ranch and we will put 
on a barbecue and you can meet and thank them.'' President Nixon said, 
``fine business,'' and they did. But as they turned into the weekend 
ranch barbecue on the Connally Ranch in Texas, there was a big Brinks 
truck. Dick Tuck, the prankster from the Kennedy campaign, had 
stationed a truck with signs out there. A picture of it was taken. And 
we in Washington, Republican and Democrat, said, ``heavens above, the 
Government's up for sale.'' Thereafter, you had the extremes of 
Watergate, which everyone is familiar with. So, in 1974 we had a fit of 
conscience. Yes, everybody thought they had advantages with respect to 
getting the money. They had gotten here on the ground rules as they 
then appeared, and said ``Why change? I can operate as the rules are.''

  But, with that fit of conscience, we came and passed the 1974 act. I 
want to remind everyone that this was a very deliberate, bipartisan 
effort at the time. It set spending limits on campaigns, limited 
candidates' personal spending on their own behalf, limited expenditures 
by independent persons or groups for or against candidates, set 
voluntary spending limits as a condition for receiving public funding, 
set disclosure requirements for campaign spending and receipts, set 
limits on contributions for individuals and political committees, and 
created the Federal Election Commission.
  When you hear the debates, some of the new Members will come on the 
floor talking about what we really need is disclosure. That is what we 
have, still, under that 1974 act. I am required to record every dollar 
in and out with both the Secretary of the Senate on the one hand and 
the secretary of state back in the capital of my State, Columbia, SC, 
on the other. We have complete disclosure. You cannot take cash.

[[Page S2174]]

 I had always thought it was illegal to take a contribution on 
Government property. And we thought we had soft money and independent 
contributions regulated.
  But, in Buckley versus Valeo they stood the original intent of the 
Congress on its head. It is this original intent of limited 
expenditures in Federal elections that our constitutional amendment is 
offered, in a bipartisan fashion, with the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and myself in the lead, along with the 
strong support of those I have enumerated.
  Now, back to the fit of conscience. I initiated this particular 
approach, in frustration, over 10 years ago, after realizing, like a 
dog chasing its tail, we were not getting anywhere. We had 
voluntariness prescribed by giving certain amounts of money if you 
voluntarily limited. There was free TV. You had public financing. You 
had all the different little tidbits of the different bills that have 
come around.
  Necessarily, I support them for the simple reason I am looking for 
votes. I am looking to finally get a concurrent majority of 67 
Senators, so I do not want to turn off any of these sponsors, even 
though I know there are constitutional questions under the Buckley 
versus Valeo decision. But the real opposition is not the freedom of 
speech under the first amendment in the Bill of Rights to the 
Constitution. The real opposition, if you please, is a small group 
among us Senators who feel like this money is a tremendous advantage 
and they are not going to give it up.
  I know where the opposition lies. It is in the very thought that we 
are not spending enough. As was said in the debates here on the floor: 
``On Kibbles and Bits cat and dog food we spend $4 billion; why don't 
we spend $4 billion on national elections?'' So I hope we can flush 
those who really believe this to come up and debate this idea on its 
merits.
  They will come under the cover of the freedom of speech. It is very 
interesting that what we have under consideration is paid speech, not 
free speech. Heavens above, we have all the free speech that you can 
think of.
  I remember for 20 years in politics we had more or less a one-party 
system in my State. We would go around stump speaking, as we call it, 
from county to county. In some of the larger counties several speeches 
were made. Each of the candidates would come and get up on the stump 
and say what they stood for. The battle was not in the financial arena; 
the battle was in the political arena. It was not who had the most 
money but who had the better ideas, the better initiatives, the better 
vision, the better programs. But they have tried, following the Buckley 
decision, to equate just exactly that. What you pay for is free.
  It amuses me when they come up here and read the Washington Post 
editorials. Go down to the Washington Post and say, ``Now I want some 
of that free speech. I would like about a quarter page of that free 
speech, or a half page of that free speech you just editorialized 
about.'' And they will say, ``Son, bug off. There is nothing free down 
here in this newspaper. You are going to have to pay for it, and you 
are going to have to pay for it under our rules and our regulations and 
our limits.'' The very crowd editorializing about free speech is the 
very crowd that is demanding their pay--paid speech. So let us not come 
here with an adulteration of the first amendment.

  As Judge J. S. Wright stated in the Yale Law Journal, ``Nothing in 
the first amendment commits us to the dogma that money is speech.'' 
That was their finding. But, unfortunately, the Supreme Court found 
that you should have total freedom with respect to spending, speech, 
and politics. But when it came to the contributions, the court's 
Buckley decision amended them. They may come now and say the first 
amendment has never been amended in 200 years. They are very 
authoritative, but Buckley versus Valeo amended the first amendment. It 
limited speech of those who contribute.
  What did Chief Justice Burger say about that? I will quote from the 
Buckley versus Valeo dissent of the Chief Justice.

       The Court's attempt to distinguish the communications 
     inherent in political contributions from speech aspects of 
     political expenditures simply will not wash.

  That was Chief Justice Burger. And, as everybody with common sense 
knows, here was the original intent. Here were the big ads. Here were 
the big contributors. Here was all the cash and the corruptive 
influence of large amounts of money. And after Congress acted in a 
bipartisan fashion in 1974, here came the United States Supreme Court, 
in a 5-to-4 decision, if you please, and by a 1-vote margin, with this 
distortion, this more or less amendment of the first amendment.
  Certainly it is an amendment with respect to contributors' speech. If 
I am a contributor and I want to contribute to the distinguished 
Presiding Officer, I am limited in my speech, my political expression. 
I can only give him $1,000 in his primary and $1,000 in his general 
election. That is the limit in Buckley versus Valeo, amending, if you 
please, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  We act as if, Mr. President, there is some sanctimony or sanctified 
position of the first amendment, and, of course, the Senator would 
agree in a breath that there should be. We should really approach 
amending the Constitution of the United States with trepidation. I know 
some of the arguments are: Wait a minute, the President's got one on 
victims rights, and others have one on prayer in school. Somebody else 
has a constitutional amendment about the flag. Someone else has another 
constitutional amendment. This is an exception, already written in the 
Constitution and recognized in the Constitution in the 24th amendment, 
the influence of money on political expression, the influence of money 
on the freedom of political speech.
  I have to emulate the distinguished leader from West Virginia, the 
Honorable Senator Robert Byrd, who says he carries his contract up here 
in his left-hand pocket, and I find that is a pretty good habit.
  Let me read amendment 24, section 1:

       The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any 
     primary or other election for President or Vice President, 
     for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator 
     or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or 
     abridged by the United States or any State by reason of 
     failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
       Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this 
     article by appropriate legislation.

  So they said, if you are going to put a financial burden on the voter 
that he can't participate in the freedom of political expression 
because of a tax, that is unconstitutional, and we have expressed 
already in that 24th amendment our abhorrence of the financial 
influence and corruption, so to speak, upon political expression.
  In a sense, it gives us one man, one vote. The poorest of the poor 
can cancel out the richest of the rich. I can take Bill Gates and say, 
``Ha-ha, I vote the other way,'' and his vote is gone. I can take Steve 
Forbes and say, ``Ah, yeah, you can pay your own $35 million,'' or 
whatever it was, ``to get in the race at the last minute and mess up 
Bob Dole.'' I better not get off on too candid a delivery here this 
afternoon. But, in any event, Steve Forbes cannot only buy a vote, he 
can buy several States in the primaries. He has proven that. But when 
it comes down to one vote, I can cancel him. That is the greatness of 
our democracy, our republic form of Government.
  Here we are coming around and talking totally out of mystery and 
nonsense about the unlimited freedom of speech, that it has never been 
amended in 200 years. I want the Senator from Kentucky to come, because 
we are going to read those amendments. One, obviously, is with respect 
to public safety. You can't walk into a theater and shout, ``Fire.'' 
That is a limit on your freedom of speech and an amendment of the first 
amendment.
  You have the exemption for national security with respect to 
disclosing secrets of the Government itself. Senator Moynihan just sent 
around a book this thick about secrets and classifications and 
everything else. Perhaps the distinguished Senator is correct, we ought 
to do away with at least half of them, because when you see that book, 
you say, ``We are overwhelmed now with the so-called classified, the 
so-called eyes only, the so-called top secret.''
  Although we have the best of the best intelligence systems, we didn't 
even know about the fall of the wall. It happened, and we all got the 
news within 24 hours. The intelligence community

[[Page S2175]]

--and I was on the Intelligence Committee at the time--had nothing to 
say. We were talking about all the other extraneous things, but nothing 
about the greatest happening, in a sense, in the last generation of our 
time.
  So we have the exception, too, for fighting words, where they would 
provoke retaliation or cause retaliation. We know about that one.
  We know about the exception for obscenity. In fact, the FCC has been 
given the authority--we had the seven or eight little dirty words on a 
radio station out on the west coast, and that decision, Pacifica, went 
all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we found out that, yes, 
the Federal Communications Commission, the entity and agency of the 
executive branch, the administrative body, could determine whether or 
not it was a violation on the public airwaves of obscene talk and 
speech, and that is limited. We said it could be limited. We legislated 
that it could be limited.

  False and deceptive advertising. If you want to come up to just 2 
weeks ago, Mr. President, they had the buffer zone--I hate to raise the 
question of abortion--but by legislation, they put a buffer zone around 
these abortion clinics, and those who demonstrate and say, ``Wait a 
minute, we have the freedom of speech,'' the Supreme Court ruled 2 
weeks ago, ``No, you don't, not in that buffer zone, keep your mouth 
shut, stay out of that zone, your freedom of speech is limited.''
  Mr. President, I certainly want to hear from the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada. He has been a strong supporter and leader in this 
particular cause, and he has other commitments. So, at the present 
time, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend for his courtesy and 
his most generous remarks and to say, again, as I have on previous 
occasions, that I am very pleased to be a supporter of this 
constitutional amendment that he has authored each and every Congress 
that I have been here since 1989. I believe what we are discussing 
today is central to the issue of meaningful campaign reform, and I want 
to publicly commend him for his leadership and express my admiration 
for him and my conviction that I share with him that this is the 
essence of what we need to do.
  Let me just say that I believe that the most corrosive force in our 
political culture today, and what lies at the heart of many problems in 
our political system, is the amount of money required to run a campaign 
for elective office. Money has become the dominant factor in deciding 
who runs, who wins and, too often, who has the influence and power in 
the halls of Government.
  Mr. President, I don't say that with a partisan vein. That is true 
with respect to the system that we are all a part of--Democrats, 
Republicans and Independents alike.
  Every year, the expense of campaigning increases, and the pressure to 
seek financial support, wherever it can be found, intensifies. Clearly, 
good people are trapped in a system where the amount of money needed to 
run a campaign can overshadow their views and the issues. Too often, 
candidates are forced to spend as much time raising money as going out 
and meeting the voters or to develop responsible solutions to the 
critical issues that face our society.
  It is a fact that all of us would acknowledge that every night here 
in Washington someone has a political fundraiser, either a Democrat or 
a Republican running for office, running for reelection.
  And much like an ever-escalating arms race, the cost of Senate 
campaigns have increased sixfold over the last 20 years, from $609,100 
in 1976, to $3.6 million in 1996.
  The average cost for a winning House candidate during that same 
period of time increased from $87,000 in 1976, to $661,000 in 1996.
  And between 1992 and 1996, fundraising by political parties increased 
73 percent.
  Simply put, Mr. President, there is too much money in the political 
process.
  Mr. President, the recently concluded Presidential and congressional 
campaigns were the most costly ever in American political history, with 
combined amounts of more than $2 billion. The two parties raised $263.5 
million in soft money in the 1996 campaign, almost three times the 
amount raised in the 1992 election.
  Unless the rules are changed, candidates and their parties will 
continue to pursue the money chase and the amount of money involved in 
future campaigns will continue to grow exponentially.
  Mr. President, I might make an aside here, if the distinguished 
primary sponsor has a moment for me to expand for just a moment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Sure.
  Mr. BRYAN. And I say that we all lament the declining participation 
in the political electoral process in America. The 1996 election 
turnout was said to be the lowest since 1920. I would offer this as at 
least a significant contributing factor. There is no question the folks 
back home are pretty upset with those of us who serve in the Congress. 
I believe that that is their thought, seeing each party and each of us 
who are part of this system--I want to be clear, Mr. President, I 
include myself as being part of this system--who are forced to go out 
there and raise these inordinate, scandalous amounts of money to be 
competitive--to be competitive.
  In the State of Nevada, it was about $3.5 million for my last 
campaign for reelection to the U.S. Senate. They see this. And I think 
it has engendered a sense of public cynicism that all of this money 
that is involved--I believe in the public mind, they frequently link 
the big money, the big contributors to the political system that we 
have today. And because most of them are not in the category of being 
big money contributors, they have been turned off. The system no longer 
works for them, the system is no longer responsive to their needs, is 
their perception.
  So, as a result, I hear good people, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
in increasing and in alarming numbers saying, ``I'm not going to vote. 
I'm not going to vote.'' I do not agree with that proposition and get 
into spirited discussions. ``What difference does my vote make? Look, 
the folks who have got the money, they're the ones who really control 
the electoral process in America today. Why should I get involved?'' 
And I must say, as we see these campaign expenditures continue to 
mount, I believe that we provide the evidence for their rising levels 
of cynicism.
  I was a young man in the State legislature in the 1970's, and the 
centerpiece to the Watergate reform was, as the distinguished junior 
Senator from South Carolina has pointed out, the concept of controlling 
and limiting the amount of money that is spent in running for office.
  The other provisions which continue to survive--individual campaign 
contribution limits and the Federal Election Commission disclosures, 
the distinction between soft money and hard money--which are still very 
much a part of the political environment, have survived, to some 
extent, successive legal challenges in the courts.
  But the centerpiece, limiting the amount of money spent for running 
for office, has essentially been eviscerated by the Buckley versus 
Valeo decision. I was in the legislature and responding to some of the 
reforms that came out of the Watergate Congress. We adopted, in the 
State of Nevada, a series of campaign limitations. Those, too, fell by 
the wayside by the Supreme Court's decision in the Buckley versus Valeo 
case in 1976, which I believe to be an ill-considered decision, but 
which, as everybody in this Chamber knows, essentially equated 
political expenditures on behalf of the individual candidate as being 
tantamount to free speech, and any attempt to limit the amount of money 
that a candidate can spend is constitutionally infirm.
  I must say, recent decisions in the Court, and the recent Colorado 
decision, give us no hope to believe that the Court is about to 
reconsider its position. It is my humble opinion that the Colorado case 
has made matters even more difficult and has continued to shred what 
vestiges remain of a comprehensive and, I think, carefully thought-out 
campaign finance reform legislation in the aftermath of the Watergate.
  Amending the Constitution is not something that should be undertaken 
lightly. That admonition is frequently given by our colleagues. And 
they are

[[Page S2176]]

right. We ought not just to do that. We ought not to think of the 
Constitution as a rough draft that we can improve upon with a wholesale 
series of amendments. I agree with that admonition.
  But I would say, Mr. President, with great respect, that our 
forefathers could never have anticipated the consequences of the 
electoral system they put in place, with all of its checks and balances 
and with the genius that we all revere, Democrat and Republican alike, 
that this has increasingly become a money chase. So it seems to me we 
have two choices: To either do nothing and to allow a situation which I 
believe to be appalling to get measurably worse, or we can take 
corrective action.
  The American people want us to take corrective action. The American 
people do not fully understand that it is the Court's decision itself 
that prevents us from legislative action to impose a limit on the 
amount of money as candidates we spend in running for the Congress and 
in other elective offices in America.
  I believe one of the most important steps we can take to restore 
public confidence in our political process is to pass the amendment, 
which I am proud to cosponsor with my friend and colleague from South 
Carolina, and to give the Congress and to give State legislatures power 
that they thought that they possessed in the 1970's and to impose 
limitations on the amount of money that is spent in running for public 
office.
  Individuals who want to run for Congress and other elective offices 
ought to be able to run on the basis of the ideas that they represent, 
the vitality that they bring to the process, not as is so often the 
case, ``Can I raise $3 million or $4 million or $10 million or, in some 
instances, $20 million?''
  Unless we can find a way to limit the amount of money spent on 
Federal campaigns and place a greater emphasis on getting support from 
the people back home that we represent, we will fall short of real 
reform. Any serious reform proposal must start with the constitutional 
amendment to allow the States and Congress to craft measures that would 
take Government out of the pockets of the special interests and back in 
the hands of the American people who we represent.
  Mr. President, I am not unmindful of the fact that our task is 
difficult. Many of our colleagues do not agree. But I must say that as 
I talk with my own constituents, I think there is an overwhelming 
interest across a broad spectrum, Republican, Democrat, liberal and 
conservative, to do something about this political process that we are 
all a part of.
  In the Nevada legislature this year there is a proposal that will 
require further disclosure on the amount of campaign contributions. 
That, so far, the Supreme Court has said is legal, and that enjoys 
bipartisan support and is likely to pass overwhelmingly.
  A ballot proposition on the Nevada ballot this past fall which sought 
to further limit the amounts of individual campaign contributions in 
statewide and local races passed by 71 percent.
  I understand if you ask people about things that concern them most in 
life, they are not going to list campaign finance reform. They are 
interested in crime, in schools, in drugs, and those kinds of issues, 
which I understand. But I have yet to be in an audience of any size in 
which you ask people about this system that we are part of, and they do 
not say, ``I hope that you will do something to reform it. Campaign 
finance reform is something that you should undertake.'' They 
understand, as do each of us in this Chamber, it will not come about 
without bipartisan support.

  Mr. President, let me again commend my friend and colleague, who has 
really been the laboring force on behalf of this constitutional 
amendment, for his courage and tenacity and, I think, the wisdom of his 
proposal. I am proud to support in this Congress, as I have previous 
Congresses, such a constitutional amendment.
  I thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to speak, as I need to 
return to a committee hearing.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The distinguished Senator from Nevada made a very 
valuable contribution to the consideration of this all-important 
initiative.
  Our democracy has cancer. It has to be excised. As I explained in my 
opening remarks, and as has been emphasized by the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada, all of these little things that come about--
whether you get the money from the State, whether you get the money 
from bundling, soft money, hard money, voluntarism, free TV--just go 
around and everybody has an eye on it. But if you put a limit, as the 
1974 act said, of so much per registered voter, then you have stopped, 
once and for all, that problem, because with disclosure you can see 
exactly what you have on top of the table.
  I remember in one of the debates we had with the distinguished then-
Senator from Louisiana, Senator Russell Long, and we both agreed that 
if I appeared, by my disclosure, to get a substantial sum of 
contributors from the textile industry, call me the textile Senator. 
There it is. I defend it. I frankly brag about it. If he gets the 
contributions all from the oil industry and is known as the oil 
Senator, so be it. The distinguished Presiding Officer, the farm 
Senator, the agriculture Senator, because his leading talent has been 
in that field over the years.
  But by disclosure you can see it, and by the limit you cut out all of 
the shenanigans of the soft money, hard money, bundling and all of the 
roundabout end course taken to get around the law.
  This amendment, Mr. President, is absolutely neutral. My friend from 
Kentucky, Senator McConnell, who has been the leader in opposition, can 
still prevail under the amendment. The amendment says Congress is 
authorized to limit. It does not say limit; it does not say not to 
limit. It just gives the authority to Congress to act so that when we 
do get out here, we can have a majority vote so without going through 
the legal hurdles and delay and put off that we have been going through 
now for 30 years. That is why I say a constitutional amendment is our 
only recourse.
  I got into a debate on this in 1967 when we passed an act. It is now 
1997. We have been trying to get our hands around this problem of 
campaign finance without a constitutional amendment. Having made the 
good college try now over the many, many years and listened to all the 
others, and analyzed as they put up McCain-Feingold and the many other 
fine initiatives, you can look at the Supreme Court, particularly in 
the Colorado case, not just the Buckley case, and you can say you are 
wasting your time. The voluntarism we know in politics means temporary. 
You saw this in the race up in Massachusetts. They voluntarily said 
they would have a limit. They got down to the wire and that limit went 
out of the window.
  What we are trying to do is give everybody back their freedom of 
speech. Namely, that I may not be extinguished by money. When I say 
that I say that advisedly. I know the mechanics of political campaigns, 
and when you have an opponent with $100,000 and I have $1 million, all 
I need do is just lay low. He only has $100,000 and I know that he 
wants to wait until October when the people finally turn their interest 
to the general election in November. Say he is only in print, in polls, 
and what have you, he spent over $25,000 and you cannot get a good poll 
for less than $26,000 or $27,000, but he only has $50,000 to $75,000 
left, and then I let go, come October 10. That is 3 to 4 weeks leading 
into the campaign, and I have yard signs, billboards, newspapers, TV, 
radio for the farmer in the early morning, I have early morning 
driving-to-work radio, I have radio for the college students. I know 
how to tailor make with my million bucks, and I can tell you by 
November 1, after 3 weeks of that, my opponent's family has said what 
is the matter? Why are you not answering? Are you not interested 
anymore?

  I have, through wealth, taken away his speech. I know that, you know 
that, that is the reality, the political game. That is what we are 
talking about, making it so that you cannot take away that freedom of 
speech, so that you can reinstill the meaning of the first amendment. 
It was adult rated by the five-vote majority against the four minority 
in Buckley versus Valeo.
  We will see what the Court said and go to some of the expressions, 
Mr. President. Here is not what politician Hollings said, but what a 
Supreme Court Chief Justice says, ``The Court's result does violence to 
the intent of

[[Page S2177]]

Congress.'' Can I say that again for all those who are listening? That 
is exactly the belief of this Senator. I am not saying because I need 
money or want money or I think I have a financial advantage or whatever 
it is.
  Incidentally, I can get on to the point of incumbency. We just swore 
in some 15 new Senators about 6 or 8 weeks ago. All my incumbents, 
friends I used to sit around with, are just about gone. I know it is 
less than 10 years average in the House of Representatives, and I think 
it is exactly that on the Senate side. What did incumbent minority 
assistant leader Senator Wendell Ford of Kentucky say just the day 
before yesterday about money? He said, ``I neither have the time nor 
the inclination to collect that $14,000 to $20,000.'' He has to get $5 
million in Kentucky. I think he mentioned $100,000. But he said ``Look, 
in order to qualify as a candidate, I have to defend my incumbency 
role, and my incumbency role involves thousands of votes.'' I can say 
to the other side of the aisle, I have been in the game. They are very 
clever. They know how to put up and force-feed votes on very, very, 
controversial amendments or subjects.
  How do you explain in this day and age in a 30-second sound bite, a 
particular vote? You take 5 minutes, and you can go down to WRC, right 
here in Washington, with all the money they talk about, or freedom of 
speech as they call it, with the wealth of Bill Gates, and say I want 
to buy an hour on the eve of the election, the night before the 
election. They will tell him to bug off, it is not for sale. It is 
limited. It is paid speech.
  Free speech--I am trying to reinstill a freedom of speech among those 
who are financially limited so we make certain that our democracy is 
not imperiled.
  I read again what Chief Justice Burger said. ``The Court's result 
does violence to the intent of Congress.'' He is exactly right. I was 
there in 1974.

       In the comprehensive scheme of campaign finance, the 
     Court's result does violence to the intent of Congress. By 
     dissecting bit by bit and casting off vital parts, the Court 
     fails to recognize the whole of this act is greater than the 
     sum of its parts. Congress intended to regulate all aspects 
     of Federal campaign finances but what remains after today's 
     holding leaves no more than a shadow of what Congress 
     contemplated.

  Now, I cannot say it any better. That is exactly what we had in mind, 
to limit the spending. And that is exactly what they did not do. They 
limited the contributions on the premise that it gave the appearance of 
corruption, or was corruption itself, but not the expenditures. Let's 
see what Byron Raymond White, the Associate Justice said:

       Congress was plainly of the view that these expenditures 
     also have corruptive potential, but the Court strikes down 
     the provision, strangely enough, claiming more insight as to 
     what may improperly influence candidates than is possessed by 
     the majority of Congress that passed this bill and the 
     President who signed it. Those supporting the bill undeniably 
     included many seasoned professionals who have been deeply 
     involved in the elective processes and who have viewed them 
     at close range over many years. It would make little sense to 
     me--and apparently made none to Congress--to limit the 
     amounts an individual may give to a candidate or spend with 
     his approval, but fail to limit the amounts that could be 
     spent on his behalf.

  There, again, I could not say it better. That was Justice Byron 
White.
  I quote him further:

       The judgment of Congress was that reasonably effective 
     campaigns could be conducted within the limits established by 
     the act and that the communicative efforts of these campaigns 
     would not seriously suffer. In this posture (section 264 of 
     the case) there is no sound basis for invalidating the 
     expenditure limitations so long as a purpose is served or is 
     legitimately and sufficiently substantial, which, in my view, 
     they are.

  We might get into the debate, Mr. President, about the word 
``reasonable.'' That word appears, if you please, because of the 
suggestion by the commission on the constitutional system. They wanted 
``reasonable'' limits. I think they were right. I am going back to the 
Court's decision, trying to aim the gun barrel down the 
constitutionality of the better constitutional thought in these 
dissenting opinions.

       Expenditure ceilings reinforce the contribution limits and 
     help eradicate the hazard of corruption.

  That is exactly what common sense would indicate. Here is a court 
finding that expenditures do not contribute at all to any kind of 
corruption whatsoever and, therefore, spend to the ceilings. We will 
have a chart here and put it up and show you how, as the Senator from 
Nevada said, a Senate race used to be. In 1980, it was about $1 
million. By 1986, it was $2 million. By 1990, it was $3 million. By 
1994, the average one was $4 million. So it keeps going up, up and 
away. Expenditures in the Presidential race are up around $670 million. 
It has gone through the roof.
  Now, Mr. President, I will quote further Justice White:

       I have little doubt that, in addition, limiting the total 
     that can be spent will ease the candidate's understandable 
     obsession with fundraising and so free him and his staff to 
     communicate in more places and ways connected with the 
     fundraising function. There is nothing objectionable, and 
     indeed it seems to me a weighty interest in favor of the 
     provision, in the attempt to insulate the political 
     expression of Federal candidates from the influence 
     inevitably exerted by the endless job of raising increasingly 
     large sums of money. I regret that the Court has returned 
     them all to the treadmill.

  Here, this was written 20 years ago. How pathetic. ``Treadmill.'' 
When I was first here in the U.S. Senate, from time to time we would 
rearrange the fundraisers in accordance with the schedule that we had. 
You would not dare go up to a leader on either side of the aisle and 
say: Mr. Leader, I hope we can get a window, or whatever it is, because 
I have a fundraiser. He would look at you and--if nothing else, I guess 
it was unethical. They ought to refer that to the Ethics Committee. But 
we have given up on that now. It is like the tail is wagging the dog. 
It is now turned around, and we schedule the Senate around the 
fundraising schedules--what 20 years ago Justice White called the 
treadmill. You are just constantly having a fundraiser to get on TV, to 
have a fundraiser to get on TV, to have a fundraiser to get on TV; all 
paid speech, not free. I haven't seen anything free yet out of that TV 
crowd. They will charge you for it one way or the other.

  I will quote Justice Marshall, and then I will yield. I see that my 
colleague is prepared to comment. Justice Marshall said:

       It would appear to follow that the candidate with a 
     substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a 
     significant head start. Of course, the less wealthy candidate 
     can potentially overcome the disparity and resources through 
     the contributions from others. But ability to generate 
     contributions may itself depend upon a showing of a financial 
     base for the campaign or some demonstration of preexisting 
     support, which in turn is facilitated by expenditures of 
     substantial personal sums. Thus, the wealthy candidate's 
     immediate access to a substantial personal fortune may give 
     him an initial advantage that his less wealthy opponent can 
     never overcome. And even if the advantage can be overcome, 
     the perception that personal wealth wins elections may not 
     only discourage potential candidates without significant 
     personal wealth from entering the political arena, but also 
     undermine public confidence in the integrity of the electoral 
     process.

  And here we continue and oppose, willy-nilly, any effort, really, to 
excise this cancer.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is a very important debate, which 
I always enjoy with my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, who 
fully admits that the various campaign finance reform bills we have 
tried to pass here in the last few years are unconstitutional. He is 
right, and I commend him for his observation.
  That having been stated, clearly, the only way you can do the kinds 
of reform bills that have been proposed around here in the last 10 
years is to amend the Constitution--amend the first amendment for the 
first time in history, to give the Government the power to control the 
speech of individuals, groups, candidates, and parties. The American 
Civil Liberties Union calls that a recipe for repression. It clearly 
is, and I am happy today that we are finally having the debate on this 
amendment, which is indeed a recipe for repression.
  I see my good friend, the Senator from Kansas, here, who is anxious 
to speak on this. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I come to this issue not only as a Member 
of

[[Page S2178]]

the Senate, but also as a former newspaperman. So when we get to the 
freedom-of-speech issue, I have some pretty strong feelings. In saying 
that, I want to make it abundantly clear--very clear--that I do not, in 
any way, question the intent of the supporters, but I do question their 
practical effect.
  When I was presiding, I listened intently to the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina, whom I respect. I was very interested in 
his comments with regard to the kind of political debate that he would 
like to go back to, that I would like to go back to. He calls it a 
stump speech. In South Carolina, it is a stump speech. My wife is from 
South Carolina. Many times I have listened to the distinguished 
Senators from South Carolina. It is a privilege to hear them discuss 
the issues--old-style campaigning and politics, grassroots politics. In 
Kansas we call it ``listening tours.'' I had the privilege before 
serving in this body to be in the lower body. I represented 66 
counties. I went on a listening tour every August. It took about 5,000 
miles and about 3 weeks. That is the old style of discussing the issues 
for people where they come to the courthouse and the sale barn or the 
Rotary Club. And we would discuss the issues. I enjoyed that. The 
Senator from South Carolina is a master. That is why the people 
doubtless send him back to represent that outstanding State.

  In entering this debate I am reminded that America has been here 
before. It seems to me that our task today is a moral and ethical and 
philosophical exploration of free speech, and its role in the political 
affairs of mankind. It is that serious. It is that encompassing.
  ``Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered,'' said the patriot 
Thomas Paine in ``Common Sense.''
  This resolution--not the intent, but this resolution--in terms of 
practical effect is tyranny. Adopt it and wonder whether ``Common 
Sense'' could exist in our time in terms of public distribution and 
dissemination and understanding.
  This resolution is tyranny of the worst kind: Government tyranny. 
Adopt it and wonder whether ``The Federalist Papers,'' written by James 
Madison and John Jay to influence voters in New York to adopt a new 
Constitution, could, in fact, exist in our time.
  Listen carefully to this resolution where Congress and the States are 
given unlimited power to set limits. Limits on what? Limits on ``* * * 
the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of 
expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to a 
candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to * * *'' 
Federal, State, and local offices.
  Now my colleagues, I urge you. Do not be misled. The debate today is 
not about elections. It is not about campaign finance reform. We are 
all for that, more especially in regard to public disclosure, as the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina certainly has described in 
his remarks. It is not about Republicans, or Democrats, or what party 
controls the Congress. That is not what it is about.
  It is, rather, about the most basic right of individuals guaranteed 
by our Constitution--the right of free speech, the right written first, 
the right without which no other right can long exist.
  Listen carefully again to the language of the first amendment, which 
we proposed to change:

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
     abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
     right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition 
     the government for a redress of grievances.

  My colleagues, those words have magic. They are among the most 
important accomplishments of mankind. Democracy is an experiment in 
progress. Yet, the rights guaranteed in the first amendment have stood 
for more than 200 years. Seldom have legislative assaults on the first 
amendment been so far-reaching and so onerous as the resolution that we 
debate today.
  Columnist George Will has called this effort more dangerous than the 
infamous Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798. Those laws placed 
Government controls on specific kinds of speech. This resolution 
proposes general Government controls on both the quantity and the 
quality of political speech.
  The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by a young country that had 
adopted, but did not fully appreciate, the first amendment rights of 
free speech. They were passed because some in the Government didn't 
like what some of its citizens were saying about politicians, politics, 
and Government.
  Like we are today, some in the Government were worried, of course, 
about the national security. But it is instructive to note that 
Government's attempt to limit free speech is like walking in a swamp--
your good intentions are tugged and pulled simply from all sides.

  Abigail Adams, for example, urged passage of the acts to deal with 
Benjamin Franklin Bache. He was an editor who had referred to her 
husband as ``old, querulous, bald''--I can sympathize with that--
``blind, crippled, toothless.''
  He was arrested but died before he could be prosecuted, according to 
historians Jean Folkerts and Dwight Teeter in their book, Voices of a 
Nation.
  Twenty-five persons were charged under the sedition laws. Included 
was one unlucky customer in a Newark tavern who staggered into the 
sunlight to make a negative comment about John Adams' anatomy as the 
President's carriage passed by.
  Only after the rights of American citizens to speak freely were 
trampled by their Government did our young country come to appreciate 
the real meaning of the first amendment.
  James Madison and Thomas Jefferson objected to the attack on free 
speech with their Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.
  Madison presented the importance of free speech to democratic 
government. His argument has great relevance to our discussion today as 
he drew the connection between free speech and elections.
  ``Let it be recollected, lastly, that the right of electing members 
of the government constitutes more particularly the essence of a free 
and responsible government. The value and efficacy of this right 
depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and demerits of the 
candidates for public trust; and on the equal freedom, consequently of 
examining and discussing these merits and demerits of the candidates 
respectively.''
  That is the essence of free political speech. That is the essence of 
the philosophy advanced by the great philosophers like John Milton, 
John Locke, John Stuart Mill: The consent of a marketplace of ideas 
based on unfettered speech and thought.
  Mill argued that people could trade their false notions for true ones 
only if they could hear the true ones. And he denounced all government 
attempts to censure expression.
  One of America's great jurists, Louis Brandeis, warned us to ``be 
most on guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are 
beneficent * * *''
  We could substitute ``reform'' for ``beneficent.''
  ``* * * the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious 
encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.''
  Well, the advocates of this resolution want us to believe that the 
need for Congress to limit campaign spending is so great that the first 
amendment's rights are secondary. Well, first let me lay to rest any 
notion that virtually everybody in this distinguished body is somehow 
against campaign reform. It is the definition of campaign reform in the 
practical effect that is exceedingly important. But the proponents of 
this legislation further argue that limits on campaign spending are 
really not limits on speech at all. I think that is the point that was 
made by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
  The Supreme Court, in its Buckley decision, dispensed with that 
argument in this way: Yes. It was a 5-to-4 vote. Yes. I know it is 
controversial. But listen.
  ``A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on 
political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the 
quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, 
the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.
  I can go to 66 counties or 105 counties in Kansas, and I can meet 
with every

[[Page S2179]]

farmer, businessman, any member of a civic group, and I can discuss the 
issues. And when I am done, I have probably touched 1 percent of the 
populace.
  This decision by the Supreme Court certainly applies.
  ``This is because,'' and I am quoting again, ``virtually every means 
of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure 
of money.''
  I wish it was not so but that is the case.
  ``The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails 
printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally 
necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event.''
  ``The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio''--and 
I am quoting again from the Buckley decision--``and other mass media 
for news and information has made these expensive modes of 
communication indispensable instruments of effective political 
speech.''
  Now, in Kansas, Mr. President, a full-page advertisement in the 
Topeka Capital Journal costs $4,400. One 30-second television ad to 
reach across the State costs more than $33,000. Too much? Well, I would 
think it would be too much. Of course, if you are the publisher of the 
Capital Journal, or the advertising manager, or the same in regard to 
the TV station and you look at your costs and the comparative costs of 
what is happening in today's mass communications, it might not be too 
much. That is the going rate. I do not think we can legislate that 
rate. Even speech via the Internet or the Postal Service requires the 
spending of resources.
  Now, suppose we adopt this resolution and that it is ratified by the 
States. What will we tell the Kansas business owner who wishes to 
petition his Government either for a redress of any kind of a grievance 
or to criticize a candidate or to urge the election of another 
candidate? Will we say that free political speech is only a half-page 
of advertisement? In our infinite wisdom as incumbents in office, will 
we say free speech only applies to 15 seconds at one TV station?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to yield to the distinguished 
Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reading from the Hollings amendment, it says, ``A 
State''--this is referring to the power given to the States. Same power 
to the Federal Government. ``A State shall have the power to set 
reasonable limits.'' I say to my good friend, the Senator from Kansas, 
put another way, the Government would decide how much speech is 
reasonable. Is that the interpretation of my good friend?
  Mr. ROBERTS. The incumbents of the Government, whether it be State, I 
suppose county, or in the Congress of the United States, would decide 
what is appropriate in terms of spending limits not only for themselves 
but for their challengers.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So it would not be inconceivable then that all of us 
in the Senate and House might decide that what is a reasonable amount 
of speech for a challenger could be $5,000 in the next election.
  Mr. ROBERTS. That might be a little harsh.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We have total power to do that under the amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my good friend from Kansas, if the candidates 
in the next election in a typical race were limited to spending $5,000, 
who does my good friend from Kansas think would win?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I think probably the incumbent would have an edge.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Just might. So the Government here has the power to 
determine how much speech there may be. I thank my good friend from 
Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his contribution 
and his leadership.
  If this resolution is adopted, what will we tell the local citizens 
group working to elect a new mayor or a city council? Will we say that 
free speech extends no further than the classified advertisements? 
Remember, we have full-page ads costing x and we have 30-second 
television ads costing x but you put a limit on it: Sorry, no TV. Maybe 
it will get on the news, maybe not.
  The Supreme Court in Buckley put it this way: ``Being free to engage 
in unlimited public expression subject to a ceiling on expenditures is 
like being free to drive an automobile as far and as often as one 
desires on a single tank of gasoline.'' You can't get there from here 
to Kansas on a single tank of gasoline--whether it is traveling the 
State or in regards to any kind of expression in regard to any kind of 
politics or any kind of campaigning.
  The tyranny of this resolution, like tyranny forever, is based on a 
false assumption that somehow we have too much, too much political 
speech and it should be limited. How much political speech in a 
democracy is too much?
  Last year, millions of Americans gave $2.6 billion to fill 476 
offices. Again, columnist George Will points out they still had enough 
left over to spend $4.5 billion on potato chips. We spent more on 
yogurt in this year than we spent on political discourse, discussing 
the great issues of the day. Or put another way, one Super Bowl ad 
could finance two campaigns for Congress. One Super Bowl ad, 2\1/2\ 
districts in the Congress. How much is enough? I submit we need more 
political speech, not less. And further, what will be the chilling 
impact of this resolution on citizen involvement in the election and 
the governmental process?
  The Senator from Nevada said people are sick and tired of politics 
and business as usual and they are not choosing to vote. I submit it is 
not because we need to give more power to the Federal Election 
Commission and limit political debate. The problem is, in my view, that 
too many candidates do not speak out on the issues in candor and say 
they are for something that identifies with the individual who is going 
to vote.
  Our democracy survives solely on the consent of the governed. That is 
pretty basic. That consent is given as long as the governed have 
confidence in the men and women they elect to public office.
  We have in place a number of filters through which candidates must be 
sifted to ensure those who survive receive a consensus. These filters 
give the electorate opportunities to eliminate candidates, many 
candidates who aspire to public office but quite frankly, judged in the 
eyes of the public, are not serious candidates, they sift out those who 
cannot attract a consensus. We do this in order that our form of 
government can so long exist.
  I want to ask the question. There is a feeling here in this body that 
Senators feel put upon that they have to sit, hopefully in another 
office, and raise campaign funds. My word, what a terrible chore. What 
a condescending, elitist point of view, that we should be free of 
asking people for their trust and their support, their investment in 
good government, their partnership in good faith so we can shine the 
light of truth in the darkness and discuss these issues free from that 
terrible burden. What a terrible burden.
  Is a candidate's ability to attract campaign funds--let me repeat 
this. Is a candidate's ability to attract campaign funds any less 
important to this process than his or her ability to attract votes? How 
can a candidate expect to get the consent of the governed if he or she 
cannot attract their support in funds to wage a campaign?
  Make no mistake. Our debate today is important. It is about freedom. 
Said the distinguished Hugo Black: ``There are grim reminders all 
around this world that the distance between individual liberty and 
firing squads is not always as far as it seems.''
  The great men and women who debated this issue before us arrived at a 
simple but eloquent conclusion--to limit political speech is to limit 
and lose freedom. We are called again to reach this same conclusion. I 
urge rejection of the resolution. Said the statesman George Mason: ``No 
free Government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any 
people, but by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.''
  First amendment freedoms are fundamental principles. Let us preserve 
the blessings of liberty.
  I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from

[[Page S2180]]

Kansas for an excellent speech. I ask him if he has just one more 
moment here before he leaves the floor?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to respond.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Kansas, in looking at the 
Hollings amendment, in addition to giving to the Government the power 
to control the speech of candidates, as we just discussed in our 
earlier colloquy, which could be, presumably, $5,000, which would 
certainly guarantee the election of every incumbent, I would also ask 
my good friend how he would interpret the following power given to the 
Government. It says the Government could limit the amount of 
expenditures that may be made ``by''--I assume that is the candidate--
``in support of the candidate, or in opposition to the candidate.''
  Now, let me ask my good friend from Kansas, since we would be making 
the rules here in Congress, and since we would be given the permission 
to make these rules since this is an amendment to the first amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States for the first time in history, 
I ask my good friend from Kansas, might it not be a shrewd move on the 
part of all incumbents to say that those in support of or in opposition 
to a candidate cannot speak at all?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I really had not thought of that proposal because it is 
so farfetched from democracy as we know it and participation in the 
election process as we know it. It could happen. It could happen. I 
have confidence it would not happen, but, then, one never knows.
  Could I ask the distinguished Senator a question? And that is this: 
Right now, in the campaign process, we have regular contributions. As 
the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has pointed out, there 
are limits in terms of giving; in terms of individuals it is $1,000 an 
individual, et cetera. And he uses that as a reference point from which 
to control the total spending.
  But in the real world, what we have found, more specifically in this 
last election cycle, those regular contributions are reported. If there 
is one thing I agree very strongly with the Senator from South Carolina 
on, it is we need full public disclosure. He referred to Steve Forbes. 
As a matter of fact, he was very candid with regard to Mr. Forbes' 
candidacy, and what happened to my dear friend and former senior 
Senator from Kansas, Bob Dole, in his campaign. So, public disclosure, 
I think, is very important. I think the American people are six jumps 
ahead of the whole process. If they discover where the money comes from 
and the amount of money spent, they make the appropriate decision.
  But we have other contributions. We have independent expenditures, 
and in the Colorado case it is very clear where the court is. So here 
is the challenger and the incumbent limited in terms of spending, and 
then in comes a ``independent expenditure,'' which we all know in some 
cases are not quite so independent.
  Then, second, we have other expenditures. They are called 
``educational ads.''
  How on Earth do we control those expenditures with the campaign 
limits envisioned in many of the alleged campaign reform bills? I can 
tell you, we have colleagues who subscribe to State campaign limits, 
only to find we have these other contributions coming in, these other 
expenditures, and, frankly, they were beaten about the head and 
shoulders so much in the last part of the campaign, they had to violate 
that campaign limit or they would have been defeated, paying a fine, 
filling out paperwork. It is a very unfair system. I do not see 
anything in this particular endeavor that would prevent that.
  That is a long question for the Senator to answer.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Kansas, most of us in 
the political arena do not like independent expenditures. But the court 
has made it quite clear that it is constitutionally protected speech. 
No matter how much we do not like it when people criticize us, these 
individuals and groups have a constitutional right to engage in these 
independent expenditures. As a result of the Colorado case, parties do 
as well.

  In looking at the Hollings amendment, it seems to me that Congress 
would be given the power to completely shut up these groups. They could 
say, ``No longer can you speak at all.'' That way, we would be able to 
silence all of these people who do not like what we stand for, 
totally--totally--under this. If Congress is given the power to control 
the amount of expenditures that may be made ``by''--I assume that is 
the candidate--``in support of,'' referring to outside groups, or ``in 
opposition to,'' referring to outside groups, why, by golly, under this 
amendment we could shut them up entirely. Our lives would be a lot 
easier. We could just limit spending in the campaign to about $5,000, 
eliminate all the speech of these outside groups. Boy, you would never 
have any turnover here, would you?
  Mr. ROBERTS. If I could ask one other question of the Senator, I 
think an additional two questions that people should be asking are: Who 
decides? Who decides what the limit is?
  Mr. McCONNELL. We do.
  Mr. ROBERTS. That is the incumbency, with all due respect. And 
second, who is going to enforce all this? We are going to need a SWAT 
team down at the Federal Election Commission.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I may say to my friend, I often say the FEC would 
soon be the size of the rest of the administration. There would be 
battalions of auditors and lawyers crawling all over the books, not 
just of candidates for public office but every organized group out in 
America seeking to express itself in the course of the campaign. They 
would be crawling all over them. Let some little group in Kansas utter 
a peep in the next race against Senator Roberts, and the FEC could come 
down on them like a house of bricks saying, ``Shut up. Congress has 
said you don't get to speak. You don't get to say how you feel in the 
election--or any other time. Shut up.''
  All of that is possible under this amendment, to amend the first 
amendment for the first time in history, to give this Congress the 
power to quiet the voices; quiet the voices, not just of Members of 
Congress and the people who may oppose them, but anybody else who may 
oppose it, any individual, any group, anybody. We could shut them all 
up. And in what way would America be better for that?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for his contribution and again would 
only summarize by saying that we could get at much of the problem here 
with real campaign reform legislation that centers on public 
disclosure. I repeat my remarks that I think the American people are 
six jumps ahead of the process here. It has been my experience, if they 
know how much money is being spent and where the money is coming from, 
they make a pretty good decision. Candidates cannot--well, in some 
cases it might work --but in most cases they cannot buy elections. It 
works against them. I will put my money on the free press and free 
speech and public disclosure, and I urge rejection of this resolution.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, once again I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas for an outstanding speech. I appreciate his 
contribution to this debate.
  The question before us, as I have said, as we all know, is whether to 
amend the first amendment for the first time in history to give to the 
Government the power to control the political discourse in this country 
across the board; the political speech of candidates, political speech 
of individuals, the political speech of groups--all of this, because we 
have concluded that there is too much political discourse in this 
country.
  Senator Roberts mentioned, and others are familiar with, some of the 
statistics. Of all the commercials run in the previous year, 1 percent 
of them were about politics; 1 percent of them. The notion that we have 
an excessive amount of political discussion in this country is absurd 
on its face. It is absurd on its face.
  The good thing about the debate that we are having is it is an honest 
debate. The Hollings amendment concedes that there is very little you 
can do, consistent with the first amendment, in the campaign finance 
reform field that the Supreme Court will not strike down. The measure 
most commonly referred to by the reformers, the McCain-Feingold 
proposal, is unconstitutional at least 12 different ways. It would be 
dead on arrival in the Federal courts.

[[Page S2181]]

 At least this debate helps sum up what is really needed if Senators 
believe that there is too much political discussion in our country.
  It should not be surprising, Mr. President, that this amendment has 
almost no constituents. Common Cause, the group most often thought of 
when you think of the subject of campaign finance reform, opposes this 
constitutional amendment. The Washington Post, which writes a story on 
these kinds of issues virtually daily, opposes this amendment. The New 
York Times opposes this amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union 
opposes this amendment.
  In short, even the proponents of some kind of effort to restrict the 
speech of people who are involved in the American political process 
look at this particular effort to carve a big hunk out of the first 
amendment for the first time in history as an overreaching and ill-
advised step in the wrong direction.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter I received from the ACLU dated March 6, 1997, in opposition 
to the constitutional amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   American Civil Liberties Union,


                                   Washington National Office,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 1997.
       Dear Senator: The American Civil Liberties Union strongly 
     opposes S.J. Res. 18, the proposed constitutional amendment 
     that permits Congress and the states to enact laws regulating 
     federal campaign expenditures and contributions.
       Whatever one's position may be on campaign finance reform 
     and how best to achieve it, a constitutional amendment of the 
     kind here proposed is not the solution. Amending the First 
     Amendment for the first time in our history in the way that 
     S.J. Res. 18 proposes would challenge all pre-existing First 
     Amendment jurisprudence and would give to Congress and the 
     states unprecedented, sweeping and undefined authority to 
     restrict speech protected by the First Amendment since 1791.
       Because it is vague and over-broad, S.J. Res. 18 would give 
     Congress a virtual ``blank check'' to enact any legislation 
     that may abridge a vast array of free speech and free 
     association rights that we now enjoy. In addition, this 
     measure should be opposed because it provides no guarantee 
     that Congress or the states will have the political will, 
     after the amendment's adoption, to enact legislation that 
     will correct the problems in our current electoral system. 
     This amendment misleads the American people because it tells 
     them that only if they sacrifice their First Amendment 
     rights, will Congress correct the problems in our system. Not 
     only is this too high a price to demand in the name of 
     reform, it is unwise to promise the American people such an 
     unlikely outcome.
       Rather than assuring that the electoral processes will be 
     improved, a constitutional amendment merely places new state 
     and federal campaign finance law beyond the reach of First 
     Amendment jurisprudence. All Congress and the states would 
     have to demonstrate is that its laws were ``reasonable.'' 
     ``Reasonable'' laws do not necessarily solve the problems of 
     those who are harmed by or locked out of the electoral 
     process on the basis of their third party status, lack of 
     wealth or non-incumbency. The First Amendment properly 
     prevents the government from being arbitrary when making 
     these distinctions, but S.J. Res. 18 would enable the 
     Congress to set limitations on expenditures and contributions 
     notwithstanding current constitutional understandings.
       Once S.J. Res. 18 is adopted, Congress and local 
     governments could easily further distort the political 
     process in numerous ways. Congress and state governments 
     could pass new laws that operate to the detriment of dark-
     horse and third party candidates. For example, with the 
     intention of creating a ``level playing field'' Congress 
     could establish equal contribution and expenditure limits 
     that would ultimately operate to the benefit of incumbents 
     who generally have a higher name recognition than their 
     opponents, and who are often able to do more with less 
     funding. Thus, rather than assure fair and free elections, 
     the proposal would enable those in power to perpetuate their 
     own power and incumbency advantage to the disadvantage of 
     those who would challenge the status quo.
       S.J. Res. 18 would also give Congress and every state 
     legislature the power, heretofore denied by the First 
     Amendment, to regulate the most protected function of the 
     press--editorializing. Print outlets such as newspapers and 
     magazines, broadcasters, Internet publishers and cable 
     operators would be vulnerable to severe regulation of 
     editorial content by the government. A candidate-centered 
     editorial, as well as op-ed articles or commentary printed at 
     the publisher's expense are more certainly expenditures in 
     support of or in opposition to particular political 
     candidates. The amendment, as its words make apparent, would 
     authorize Congress to set reasonable limits on the 
     expenditures by the media during campaigns, when not strictly 
     reporting the news. Such a result would be intolerable in a 
     society that cherishes the free press.
       Even if Congress exempted the press from the amendment, 
     what rational basis would it use to distinguish between 
     certain kinds of speech? For example, why would it be 
     justified for Congress to allow a newspaper publisher to run 
     unlimited editorials on behalf of a candidate, but to make it 
     unlawful for a wealthy individual to purchase an unlimited 
     number of billboards for the same candidate? Likewise, why 
     would it be permissible for a major weekly news magazine to 
     run an unlimited number of editorials opposing a candidate, 
     but impermissible for the candidate or his supporters to 
     raise or spend enough money to purchase advertisements in the 
     same publication? At what point is a journal or magazine that 
     is published by an advocacy group different from a major 
     daily newspaper, when it comes to the endorsement of 
     candidates for federal office? Should one type of media 
     outlet be given broader free expression privileges than the 
     other? Should national media outlets have to abide by fifty 
     different state and local standards for expenditures? These 
     are questions that Congress has not adequately addressed or 
     answered.
       Moreover, the proposed amendment appears to reach not only 
     expenditures by candidates or their agents but also the truly 
     independent expenditures by individual citizens and groups--
     the very kind of speech that the First Amendment was designed 
     to protect.
       If Congress or the states want to change our campaign 
     finance system, then it need not throw out the First 
     Amendment in order to do so. Congress can adopt meaningful 
     federal campaign finance reform measures without abrogating 
     the First Amendment and without contravening the Supreme 
     Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo. Some of these reform 
     measures include: public financing for all legally qualified 
     candidates--financing that serves as a floor, not a ceiling 
     for campaign expenditures; extending the franking privilege 
     to all legally qualified candidates; providing assistance in 
     some form for broadcast advertising through vouchers or 
     reduced advertising rates; improving the resources for the 
     FEC so that it can provide timely disclosure of contributions 
     and expenditures; and providing vouchers for travel.
       Rather than argue for these proposals, many members of 
     Congress continue to propose unconstitutional measures, such 
     as the McCain/Feingold bill that are limit-driven methods of 
     campaign finance reform that place campaign regulation on a 
     collision course with the First Amendment. Before Senators 
     vote to eliminate certain first Amendment rights, the ACLU 
     urges the Congress to consider other legislative options, and 
     to give these alternatives its considered review through the 
     hearing process.
       The ACLU urges Senators to oppose S.J. Res. 18.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Laura W. Murphy.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Also, I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post 
editorial of Monday, December 2, 1996, in opposition to the 
constitutional amendment, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Wrong Way on Campaign Finance

       Campaign finance reform is hard in part because it so 
     quickly bumps up against the First Amendment. To keep offices 
     and officeholders from being bought, proponents seek to limit 
     what candidates for office can raise and spend. That's 
     reasonable enough, except that the Supreme Court has ruled--
     we think correctly--that the giving and spending of campaign 
     funds is a form of political speech, and the Constitution is 
     pretty explicit about that sort of thing. ``Congress shall 
     make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech'' is the 
     majestic sentence. So however laudable the goal, you end up 
     having to regulate lightly and indirectly in this area, which 
     means you are almost bound to achieve an imperfect result.
       As a way out of this dilemma, Senate Minority Leader Tom 
     Daschle added his name the other day to the list of those who 
     say the Constitution should be amended to permit the 
     regulation of campaign spending. He wasn't just trying to 
     duck the issue by raising it to a higher level as some would-
     be amenders have in the past. Rather, his argument is that 
     you can't win the war without the weapons, which in the case 
     of campaign finance means the power not just to create 
     incentives to limit spending but to impose spending limits 
     directly.
       But that's what everyone who wants to put an asterisk after 
     the First Amendment says: We have a war to fight that we can 
     win only if given the power to suppress. It's a terrible 
     precedent even if in a virtuous cause, and of course, it is 
     always in a virtuous cause. The people who want a flag-
     burning amendment think of themselves as defenders of civic 
     virtue too. These amendments are always for the one cause 
     only. Just this once, the supporters say. But having punched 
     the one hole, you make it impossible to argue on principle 
     against punching the next. The question becomes not whether 
     you have exceptions to the free speech clause, but which 
     ones?
       Nor is it clear that an amendment would solve the problem. 
     It would offer a means but not the will. The system we have 
     is a system

[[Page S2182]]

     that benefits incumbents. That's one of the reasons we 
     continue to have it, and future incumbents are no more likely 
     to want to junk it than is the current crop.
       The campaign finance issue tends to wax and wane, depending 
     on how obscene the fund-raising was, or seemed, in the last 
     election. The last election being what it was, Congress is 
     under a fair amount of pressure to toughen the law. The 
     Democrats doubtless feel it most, thanks to the revelations 
     of suspect fund-raising on the part of the president's 
     campaign, though the Republicans have their own sins to 
     answer for--not least their long record of resistance to 
     reform. with all respect to Mr. Daschle, a constitutional 
     amendment will solve none of this.
       The American political system is never going to be 
     sanitized nor, given the civic cost of the regulations that 
     would be required (even assuming that a definition of the 
     sanitary state could be agreed upon), should that be anyone's 
     goal. Rather, the goal should be simply to moderate the role 
     of money in determining elections and of course the policies 
     to which the elections lead. The right approach remains the 
     same: Give candidates some of the money they need to run, but 
     exact in return a promise to limit their spending. And then 
     enforce the promise. Private money would still be spent, but 
     at a genuine and greater distance from the candidates 
     themselves. It wouldn't be a perfect world, and that would be 
     its virtue as well as a flaw.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Senator Roberts referred to the recent George Will 
column entitled ``Government Gag,'' which appeared in the Washington 
Post of February 13, 1997. I ask unanimous consent that that also be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                             Government Gag

       To promote the fair and effective functioning of the 
     democratic process, Congress, with respect to elections for 
     federal office, and States, for all other elections, 
     including initiatives and referenda, may adopt reasonable 
     regulations of funds expended, including contributions, to 
     influence the outcome of elections, provided that such 
     regulations do not impair the right of the public to a full 
     and free discussion of all issues and do not prevent any 
     candidate for elected office from amassing the resources 
     necessary for effective advocacy.
       Such governments may reasonably define which expenditures 
     are deemed to be for the purpose of influencing elections, so 
     long as such definition does not interfere with the right of 
     the people fully to debate issues.
       No regulation adopted under this authority may regulate the 
     content of any expression of opinion or communication.--
     Proposed amendment to the Constitution
       Like the imperturbable Sir Francis Drake, who did not allow 
     the Spanish Armada's arrival off England to interrupt a game 
     of bowling, supposed friends of the First Amendment are 
     showing notable sang-froid in the face of ominous 
     developments. Freedom of speech is today under more serious 
     attack than at any time in at least the last 199 years--since 
     enactment of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Actually, today's 
     threat, launched in the name of political hygiene, is graver 
     than that posed by those acts, for three reasons.
       First, the 1798 acts, by which Federalists attempted to 
     suppress criticism of the government they then controlled, 
     were bound to perish with fluctuations in the balance of 
     partisan forces. Today's attack on free speech advances under 
     a bland bipartisan banner of cleanliness.
       Second, the 1798 acts restricted certain categories of 
     political speech and activities, defined, albeit quite 
     broadly, by content and objectives. Today's enemies of the 
     First Amendment aim to abridge the right of free political 
     speech generally. It is not any particular content but the 
     quantity of political speech they find objectionable.
       Third, the 1798 acts had expiration dates and were allowed 
     to expire. However, if today's speech-restrictors put in 
     place their structure of restriction (see above), its anti-
     constitutional premise and program probably will be 
     permanent.
       Its premise is that Americans engage in too much 
     communication of political advocacy, and that government--
     that is, incumbents in elective offices--should be trusted to 
     decide and enforce the correct amount. This attempt to put 
     the exercise of the most elemental civil right under 
     government regulation is the most fundamental principle of 
     the nation's Founders.
       The principle is that limited government must be limited 
     especially severely concerning regulation of the rights most 
     essential to an open society. Thus the First Amendment says 
     ``Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of 
     speech,'' not ``Congress may abridge the freedom of speech 
     with such laws as Congress considers reasonable.''
       The text of the proposed amendment comes from Rep. Richard 
     Gephardt, House minority leader, who has the courage of his 
     alarming convictions when he says: ``What we have is two 
     important values in conflict: freedom of speech and our 
     desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You 
     can't have both.''
       However, he also says: ``I know this is a serious step to 
     amend the First Amendment. * * * But * * * this is not an 
     effort to diminish free speech.'' Nonsense. Otherwise 
     Gephardt would not acknowledge that the First Amendment is 
     an impediment.
       The reformers' problem is the Supreme Court, which has 
     affirmed the obvious: Restrictions on the means of making 
     speech heard, including spending for the dissemination of 
     political advocacy, are restrictions on speech. It would be 
     absurd to say, for example: ``Congress shall make no law 
     abridging the right to place one's views before the public in 
     advertisements or on billboards but Congress can abridge--
     reasonably, of course--the right to spend for such things.''
       Insincerity oozes from the text of the proposed amendment. 
     When Congress, emancipated from the First Amendment's 
     restrictions, weaves its web of restraints on political 
     communication, it will do so to promote its understanding of 
     what is the ``fair'' and ``effective'' functioning of 
     democracy, and ``effective'' advocacy. Yet all this 
     regulation will be consistent with ``the right of the people 
     fully to debate issues,'' and with ``full and free discussion 
     of all issues''--as the political class chooses to define 
     ``full'' and ``free'' and the ``issues.''
       In 1588 England was saved not just by Drake but by luck--
     the ``Protestant wind'' that dispersed the Armada. Perhaps 
     today the strangely silent friends of freedom--why are not 
     editorial pages erupting against the proposed vandalism 
     against the Bill of Rights?--are counting on some similar 
     intervention to forestall today's ``reformers,'' who aim not 
     just to water the wine of freedom but to regulate the 
     consumption of free speech.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a couple of years ago, George Will, in 
his Newsweek column, wrote an article in opposition to the 
constitutional amendment. The headline is, ``So, We Talk Too Much?''

       The Supreme Court's two-word opinion of the Senate's reform 
     bill may be, ``Good grief.''

  I ask unanimous consent that that also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Newsweek, June 28, 1993]

                         So, We Talk Too Much?

                            (By George Will)

       Washington's political class and its journalistic echoes 
     are celebrating Senate passage, on a mostly party-line vote, 
     of a ``reform'' that constitutes the boldest attack on 
     freedom of speech since enactment of the Alien and Sedition 
     Acts of 1798. The campaign finance bill would ration 
     political speech. Fortunately, it is so flagrantly 
     unconstitutional that the Supreme Court will fling it back 
     across First Street, N.E., with a two-word opinion: ``Good 
     grief!''
       The reformers begin, as their ilk usually does, with a 
     thumping but unargued certitude: campaigns involve ``too 
     much'' money. (In 1992 congressional races involved a sum 
     equal to 40 percent of what Americans spent on yogurt. Given 
     the government's increasing intrusiveness and capacity to do 
     harm, it is arguable that we spend too little on the 
     dissemination of political discourse.) But reformers eager to 
     limit spending have a problem: mandatory spending limits are 
     unconstitutional. The Supreme Court acknowledges that the 
     First Amendment protects ``the indispensable conditions for 
     meaningful communication,'' which includes spending for the 
     dissemination of speech. The reformers' impossible task is to 
     gin up ``incentives'' powerful enough to coerce candidates 
     into accepting limits that can be labeled ``voluntary.''
       The Senate bill's original incentive was public financing, 
     coupled with various punishments for privately financed 
     candidates who choose not to sell their First Amendment 
     rights for taxpayers' dollars and who exceed the government's 
     stipulated ration of permissible spending/speech. Most 
     taxpayers detest public financing. (``Food stamps for 
     politicians,'' says Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky 
     Republican who will lead the constitutional challenge if 
     anything like this bill becomes law.) So the bill was 
     changed--and made even more grossly unconstitutional. Now it 
     limits public funding to candidates whose opponents spend/
     speak in excess of government limits. The funds for the 
     subsidy are to come from taxing, at the top corporate rate, 
     all contributions to the candidate who has chosen to exercise 
     his free speech rights with private funding. So 35 percent of 
     people's contributions to a privately funded candidate would 
     be expropriated and given to his opponent. This is part of 
     the punishment system designed to produce ``voluntary'' 
     acceptance of spending limits.
       But the Court says the government cannot require people 
     ``to pay a tax for the exercise of that which the First 
     Amendment has made a high constitutional privilege.'' The 
     Court says that the ``power to tax the exercise of a right is 
     the power to control or suppress the exercise of its 
     enjoyment'' and is ``as potent as the power of 
     censorship.''
       Sen. Fritz Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, is a 
     passionate advocate of spending limits but at least has the 
     gumption to attack the First Amendment frontally. The Senate 
     bill amounts, he says candidly, to ``coercing people to 
     accept spending limits while pretending it is voluntary.'' 
     Because ``everyone knows what we are doing is 
     unconstitutional,'' he proposes to make coercion 
     constitutional. He would withdraw First

[[Page S2183]]

     Amendment protection from the most important speech--
     political discourse. And the Senate has adopted (52-43) his 
     resolution urging Congress to send to the states this 
     constitutional amendment: Congress and the states `'shall 
     have power to set reasonable limits on campaign expenditures 
     by, in support of, or in opposition to any candidate in any 
     primary or other election'' for federal, state or local 
     office.
       Hollings claims--you have to admire his brass--that carving 
     this huge hole in the First Amendment would be ``a big boost 
     to free speech.'' But by ``free'' he means ``fair,'' and by 
     ``fair'' he means equal amounts of speech--the permissible 
     amounts to be decided by incumbents in Congress and state 
     legislatures. Note also the power to limit spending not only 
     ``by'' but even ``in support of, or in opposition to'' 
     candidates. The 52 senators who voted for this included many 
     who three years ago stoutly (and rightly) opposed carving out 
     even a small exception to First Amendment protections in 
     order to ban flag-burning. But now these incumbents want to 
     empower incumbents to hack away at the Bill of Rights in 
     order to shrink the permissible amount of political 
     discourse.
       Government micromanagement: The Senate bill would ban or 
     limit spending by political action committees. It would 
     require privately funded candidates to say in their broadcast 
     advertisements that ``the candidate has not agreed to 
     voluntary campaign limits.'' (This speech regulation is 
     grossly unconstitutional because it favors a particular point 
     of view, and because the Court has held that the First 
     Amendment protects the freedom to choose ``both what to say 
     and what not to say.'') All this government micromanagement 
     of political speech is supposed to usher in the reign of 
     ``fairness (as incumbents define it, of course).
       Incumbents can live happily with spending limits. 
     Incumbents will write the limits, perhaps not altogether 
     altruistically. And spending is the way challengers can 
     combat incumbents' advantages such as name recognition, 
     access to media and franked mail. Besides, the most important 
     and plentiful money spent for political purposes is dispensed 
     entirely by incumbents. It is called the federal budget--$1.5 
     trillion this year and rising. Federal spending (along with 
     myriad regulations and subsidizing activities such as 
     protectionist measures) often is vote-buying.
       It is instructive that when the Senate voted to empower 
     government to ration political speech, and even endorse 
     amending the First Amendment, there was no outcry from 
     journalists. Most of them are liberals and so are disposed to 
     like government regulation of (other people's) lives. 
     Besides, journalists know that government rationing of 
     political speech by candidates will enlarge the importance of 
     journalists' unlimited speech.
       The Senate bill's premise is that there is ``too much'' 
     political speech and some is by undesirable elements (PACs), 
     so government control is needed to make the nation's 
     political speech healthier. Our governments cannot balance 
     their budgets or even suppress the gunfire in America's 
     (potholed) streets. It would be seemly if politicians would 
     get on with such basic tasks, rather than with the mischief 
     of making mincemeat of the First Amendment.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Finally, Mr. President, in terms of insertions into 
the Record, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated March 12, by 
Common Cause, opposing the constitutional amendment which is before us, 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Common Cause,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 1997.
       Dear Senator: The Senate is expected to vote later this 
     week on a proposed constitutional amendment to provide 
     Congress with the ability to impose mandatory limits on 
     campaign spending, thus overriding a portion of the Supreme 
     Court's 1976 decision in Buckley versus Valeo.
       Common Cause opposes the constitutional amendment because 
     it will serve as a diversionary tactic that could prevent 
     Congress from passing campaign finance reform this year. We 
     believe that a constitutional amendment is not necessary in 
     order to achieve meaningful and comprehensive reform.
       Under existing Supreme Court doctrine, Congress has 
     significant scope to enact tough and effective campaign 
     finance reform consistent with the Court's interpretation of 
     the First Amendment in Buckley.
       The McCain-Feingold bill, S.25, provides for significant 
     reform within the framework of the Buckley decision. The 
     legislation would: ban soft money; provide reduced postage 
     rates and free or reduced cost television time as incentives 
     for congressional candidates to agree to restrain their 
     spending; close loopholes related to independent expenditures 
     and campaign ads that masquerade as ``issue advocacy''; 
     reduce the influence of special-interest political action 
     committee (PAC) money; strengthen disclosure and enforcement.
       A recent letter to Senators McCain and Feingold from 
     constitutional scholar Burt Neuborne, the Legal Director of 
     the Brennan Center for Justice and a past National Legal 
     Director of the ACLU, sets forth the case that the McCain-
     Feingold bill is constitutional. Professor Neuborne finds 
     that the key provisions of the bill are within the Court's 
     existing interpretation of the First Amendment, and he thus 
     demonstrates that a constitutional amendment is not necessary 
     to enact reform.
       Professor Neuborne concludes that the voluntary spending 
     limits the McCain-Feingold bill are consistent with the 
     Supreme Court's ruling in Buckley. He further concludes that 
     ``Congress possesses clear power to close the soft money 
     loophole by restricting the source and size of contributions 
     to political parties. . . .'' He also concludes that efforts 
     to close loopholes relating to independent expenditures and 
     so-called ``issue ads'' are also within Congress' existing 
     authority.
       It is, therefore, not necessary to amend the Constitution 
     in order to enact meaningful campaign finance reform. 
     Congress has the power, consistent with the First Amendment, 
     to enact comprehensive reform by statute.
       A constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform 
     should not be used as a way to delay reform legislation. 
     Typically, amending the Constitution takes years. After both 
     Houses of Congress adopt an amendment by a two-thirds vote, 
     it has to be approved by three-quarters of the state 
     legislatures. Even then, the Congress would still have to 
     take up enacting legislation. This is a lengthy and arduous 
     process.
       Congress needs to act now to address the growing scandal in 
     the campaign finance system. Congress can act now--and 
     constitutionally--to adopt major reforms. Congress need not 
     and should not start a reform process that will take years to 
     complete by pursuing campaign finance reform through a 
     constitutional amendment. Instead, the Senate should focus 
     its efforts on enacting S.25, comprehensive bipartisan 
     legislation that represents real reform. It is balanced, 
     fair, and should be enacted this year to ensure meaningful 
     reform of the way congressional elections are financed.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ann McBride,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the question before us, the resolution 
by the junior Senator from South Carolina to amend the Constitution, 
grounds the campaign finance debate right where it needs to be and 
where it is, in the first amendment. That is where this debate should 
be centered. Lest anyone outside of the Senate construe this as an 
endorsement, I hasten to clarify that I regard this proposal as totally 
abhorrent. However, this is a debate we needed to have. This is an 
important discussion which clarifies that the campaign finance issue is 
really about political speech and about participation in our democracy. 
That is what this is about. That is the whole discussion.
  In an effort to pave the way for restrictive legislation, such as the 
McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, the amendment before us would 
amend the Constitution to grant Congress and the States the power to 
``set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be 
accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, or in 
support of, or in opposition to, a candidate.''
  When Senator Roberts was here a few minutes ago, we talked about just 
what that means. Clearly, this amendment would give incumbent Members 
of Congress the ability to make it impossible to lose, short of some 
commission of a felony or some outrageous act on the part of an 
incumbent that brought total disfavor upon his or her head in their 
constituency. It would give to the Congress the power to totally mug, 
muzzle, shut up critics out in our constituencies who may have 
organized together. In fact, about the only group it leaves untouched 
are our friends in the gallery, the press, who would have enhanced 
power as a result of an effort to shut up everybody else. If you are 
going to go down this route, some would even advocate telling the press 
how much they can criticize us.
  While we are messing with the first amendment, if we wanted to make 
it totally impossible for us to be defeated, why not, in addition to 
shutting up our challengers in the next election and muzzling all of 
the groups outside that may or may not like what we do, let's just go 
on and trash some of the rest of the first amendment. We can get rid of 
those nasty editorials that all of us despise, put some restrictions on 
those pesky little reporters who tend to point out our shortcomings, as 
they see them.
  In short, there is no end to how much of this speech we could contain 
if we really wanted to do it. I mean, it is a short step, it seems to 
me, from amending the first amendment to give the Government the power 
to shut up its critics in a campaign to giving the Congress the power 
to shut up its critics in the gallery, and pretty soon, of

[[Page S2184]]

course, the first amendment doesn't have any resemblance whatsoever to 
what it has today.
  This amendment that we are debating applies to Federal, State, and 
local elections. Any future Congress would have a free hand to 
regulate, restrict, or even prohibit any activity which is perceived by 
the Government--perceived by the Government--to constitute an 
expenditure by, in support of, or in opposition to a candidate.
  Mr. President, the words are few; their ramifications are simply 
stunning. Quite simply, this amendment empowers future Congresses to 
severely restrict--I would argue eliminate--the universe of political 
spending/speech which is deemed by Congress or some Government 
bureaucracy to effect an election. Candidate spending, independent 
expenditures, even issue advocacy by private citizens and groups, all 
of it could be muzzled under this amendment.

  Senate Joint Resolution 18, which is the amendment before us, is a 
blank check for a Congress 10, 50, 100 years from now, or maybe 
tomorrow, the day after this is approved, to gag American citizens, 
candidates, groups, and parties. They could do it with a Constitution 
altered by this resolution. And some call this reform.
  Mr. President, maybe some people believe that the 105th Congress or 
the 106th Congress would not do much damage with the power granted by 
this resolution, but I ask our friends on the left: Are you confident 
that some Republican-controlled Congress in the future with a 60-plus 
majority, with a Republican in the White House, will not seize the 
occasion to limit political activities by liberal-leaning groups, labor 
unions, the media, and others? Would you not like the Court to be able 
to stop such an effort on the grounds that it violated the first 
amendment?
  My conservative friends, I ask you: Are you not relieved the Supreme 
Court was able to strike down the draconian restrictions on independent 
expenditures in campaigns in the 1978 campaign finance law?
  I say to my conservative friends: Are you confident that liberal 
Democrats would never be in a position to enact into law a regulatory 
scheme on campaign finance that restricts your ability to communicate 
while leaving the media and labor unions unfettered and even more 
powerful than they already are? All of that, Mr. President, would be 
possible under this amendment.
  No campaign finance bill will pass this or any Congress that was not 
drafted and amended by people fully cognizant of the partisan 
implications. That is why it is so important to have the impartial 
reasoning of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the backstop. It 
saves the country from legislative excess, ignorance, and mischief.
  Having said that, it doesn't mean I agree with all the Supreme 
Court's decisions or I will not scrutinize Supreme Court nominees, but 
I do recognize that the Court, be it of liberal or conservative 
leaning--it is interesting to note in the Buckley case there were many 
liberals on the Court at that time. The Court was much more liberal 
than it is now when the Buckley case was rendered, a very sound 
decision, which the Court has only expanded in the direction of more 
permissible speech during the years, including the Colorado case last 
summer.

  The Court is an essential check on legislative and executive 
branches. This amendment seeks to take the Court out of the picture 
where campaign finance is concerned so that those who desire campaign 
spending limits and restrictions on independent expenditures and issue 
advocacy will not be inconvenienced, will not be inconvenienced by 
Court action such as the Buckley decision.
  The Supreme Court got in the way. The Supreme Court got in the way 
and said you cannot do that, that it is impermissible for the 
Government to dole out political speech to candidates, individuals, or 
groups.
  Revolting as the Clinton reelection team's fundraising practices 
were, or anybody else's, they do not justify restricting the rights of 
law-abiding American citizens in the future to participate in politics 
and spend as much as they want on their own campaigns for office. 
American democracy should not be diminished because a 1996 reelection 
effort violated current laws and flouted commonsense decency out of a 
ruthless, ruthless desperation to get reelected or some self-
righteousness that their success was essential to the country, that the 
ends justified even illegal and unethical means.
  Freedom should not be negotiable because one political party or other 
benefits disproportionately at a given point in time from some form of 
political speech or participation. Nor should freedom, Mr. President, 
be dialed back--dialed back--because some level of campaign spending 
violates somebody's notion of what is proper. The future should not be 
made to suffer so that some may appear to atone for misdeeds in the 
present or impose on the country their own view of what is an 
appropriate level of campaign spending.
  Mr. President, God bless their souls, the Founding Fathers had the 
wisdom and the courage to construct the Constitution of the United 
States. Though I have much admiration for my colleagues in this Senate, 
I do not think we have the collective wisdom to improve upon the first 
amendment ratified by the States in 1791.
  The amendment says:

       Congress shall make no law [no law] respecting an 
     establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
     thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
     or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
     petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  The critical part is ``abridging the freedom of speech.'' That is 
what the Buckley case is about. And that is what this amendment seeks 
to revise.
  Mr. President, reflecting upon the formulation of the Constitution, 
De Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that:

       The course of time always gives birth to different 
     interests, and sanctions different principles, among the same 
     people; and when a general constitution is to be established, 
     these interests and principles are so many natural obstacles 
     to the rigorous application of any political system with all 
     its consequences. The early stages of national existence are 
     the only periods at which it is possible to make legislation 
     strictly logical; and when we perceive a nation in the 
     enjoyment of this advantage, we should not hastily conclude 
     that it is wise, but only remember that it is young.

  I would contend that our Nation 200 years ago was both young and its 
leaders wise. I have also considered the environment in which the 
Founding Fathers toiled, free of the harsh glare of our modern media, 
unfettered by the influence of present-day polling, and blissfully 
unacquainted with grassroots lobbying machines.
  Absent those factors, I suspect much in the legislation in this body, 
most especially campaign finance reform, would have a different 
outcome. Then again, we did not have to face down the Red Coats, and I 
am confident that the confluence of greatness which gave us the 
Constitution would have done so by candlelight or klieg lights.
  The first amendment has served our Nation well for over 200 years. If 
this Senate will resist the temptation to scale it back, it can serve 
our descendants for 200 years more. The first amendment's speech 
protections are a legacy we are extremely fortunate to have inherited. 
It is the one we most certainly ought to bequeath, in turn, to 
generations to come.
  The first amendment is America's premier political reform. It is at 
the heart of the campaign finance debate. This is not just my view. It 
is the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court and the American Civil 
Liberties Union--America's specialists on the first amendment. As the 
Court stated in the 1976 Buckley case:

       The first amendment denies government the power to 
     determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
     wasteful, excessive or unwise.

  That gets right to the heart of it. The first amendment prohibits the 
Government from determining ``that spending to promote one's political 
views is wasteful, excessive or unwise.'' In other words, when it comes 
to our political speech, we can be wasteful, we can be excessive and we 
can be unwise, and it is none of the Government's business.

       In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not 
     the government but the people--individually as citizens and 
     candidates and collectively as associations and political 
     committees--who must retain control over the quantity and 
     range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.

  So the proponents of this amendment look at that decision and say we 
need

[[Page S2185]]

to cut a niche out of the first amendment and hand over to the 
Government the power to determine what is reasonable speech. In short, 
they could determine that no speech was reasonable under this 
amendment.
  The Court has been clear and consistent on campaign finance, stating 
further in Buckley:

       A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can 
     spend on political communication during a campaign 
     necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting 
     the number of issues discussed, the depth of their 
     exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is 
     because virtually every means of communicating ideas in 
     today's mass society requires the expenditure of money.

  It just does. The Court observed that even ``distribution of the 
humblest handbill'' costs money. Further, the Court stated that the 
electorate's increasing dependence on television and radio for news and 
information makes ``these expensive modes of communication 
indispensable [the Court said ``indispensable"] instruments of 
effective political speech.''
  ``Indispensable.'' Under this amendment there would be nothing to 
keep the Congress from saying you do not get to use television at all--
at all.
  Quite simply, the Government may no more ration the political speech 
of an American citizen via campaign spending regulations than it can 
tell the Washington Post how many newspapers it may distribute or how 
many hours a day CNN may broadcast. Nor can the Government dictate the 
content of campaign ads, just as it cannot control the content of 
television news programs.
  Mr. President, there is no reason sufficient to justify, in the eyes 
of the Court, campaign spending limits. Not to alleviate the appearance 
of corruption: The Court held there is ``nothing invidious, improper or 
unhealthy'' in campaigns spending money to communicate--nothing. Not to 
stem the growth in campaign spending. Again, the Court was clear:

       . . . the mere growth in the cost of federal election 
     campaigns in and of itself provides no basis [no basis] for 
     governmental restrictions on the quantity of campaign 
     spending. . .

  And not to level the political playing field, a notion flatly 
rejected by the Court in Buckley.

       . . . the concept that the government . . .

  This is in response to the level playing field argument, Mr. 
President. In the Buckley case the Court said:

       . . . the concept that government may restrict the speech 
     of some elements of our society in order to enhance the 
     relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First 
     Amendment.

  ``Wholly foreign.''
  So, Mr. President, the Government cannot, by congressional edict or 
regulatory fiat, impede or impair the ability of candidates, groups, 
individuals or parties to communicate with the electorate. Nor can 
Congress, as the American Civil Liberties Union has observed, coerce 
what it cannot command. In other words, spending limits that are 
voluntary in name only, such as in the McCain-Feingold bill, would have 
in the Court a half-life of an ice cube on a sun-baked Constitution 
Avenue on the 4th of July. That is about how long that would last.

  There is nothing in Buckley, or any subsequent Supreme Court 
decision, upon this to pin hope that McCain-Feingold or any similarly 
coercive bills would be upheld. Buckley was not an aberration. In fact, 
the Court is increasingly of a deregulatory mind on campaign finance, 
as evidenced by last June's Colorado decision allowing the political 
parties to make independent expenditures.
  Now, some seek to nullify the Court, and thereby pave the way for 
bills like McCain-Feingold, by amending the first amendment, and that 
is the issue before us--amending the first amendment for the first time 
in two centuries and thus make the unconstitutional, constitutional. 
They would rewrite the first amendment, a frontal assault on American 
freedom that the ACLU has characterized as ``a recipe for repression.''
  That is what is before the Senate today. What is before us today has 
no constituency. Common Cause is against it. The New York Times is 
against it. The Washington Post is against it. The ACLU is against it. 
Importantly, an overwhelming number of Senators will be against it.
  I personally recoil at the prospect of a Constitution so altered, 
while I relish the debate itself. This is an honest debate because it 
shows what you have to do to carve a big hunk out of the first 
amendment, if you will try to achieve the result that some are trying 
to achieve. This is an honest debate. It draws a clear line between 
those like myself who look on last year's record election spending as 
illustrative of a robust national debate over the future of the Nation, 
and those who believe you cannot have both freedom of speech and a 
healthy democracy.
  Looking upon the first amendment as an impediment to reform, rather 
than reform, itself steers even well-intentioned reformers on a path of 
Government regulation, restriction, and even prohibition of fundamental 
political freedoms. A myopic determination to restrict campaign 
spending can result, as it has today, in an effort to essentially 
repeal the first amendment's protection of political speech. That is 
what is before the Senate today.
  The Court stated in the 1937 case Palko versus Connecticut that 
freedom of speech ``is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of 
nearly every other form of freedom.''
  Whatever one believes about the current state of campaign finance or 
the validity of the Buckley decision, surely it is not cause to carve 
out of the first amendment fundamental protection for core political 
speech by American citizens. The first amendment was borne of 
extraordinary people in an extraordinary time. Let us not diminish that 
freedom, 200 years later, out of frustration with Court decisions.
  The campaign finance reform debate is necessarily difficult. It is 
difficult because the ramifications of any significant change in this 
area are serious. A ban on soft money, for instance, will have serious 
repercussions, because--like it or not--the political parties do some 
good things. For one, they are the only entity in the system that will 
support challengers without regard to ideology.
  The Democratic Party committees support challengers--pro-choice or 
pro-life, or pro-gun control or con-gun control, you name the issue and 
they have supported candidates of their side. In the case of the 
Democratic committee, because they are Democrats; in the case of the 
Republicans, because they are Republicans.
  Our criteria is, first and foremost, a candidate's party affiliation. 
Then we consider their ability and the availability of money to help 
their candidates. The political party's helping challengers is often 
all that stands between an incumbent having real competition and not 
just a coronation on election day.
  Much is said about independent expenditures and issue advocacy. The 
truth is, politicians hate independent expenditures because by 
definition they are out of our control. We do not get to control them. 
A group that thinks your reelection is the most important goal may make 
independent expenditures that are intended to help you but, in fact, 
inject into the election an issue you wish was not going to be 
discussed. In other words, a group can love you to death with 
independent expenditures. That is why politicians would like to have 
complete control of elections. That is what they would be given under 
this amendment--complete control.
  Mr. President, the candidates do not own the elections. They are the 
people's elections, not the candidates. They are the people's elections 
to influence through independent expenditures, issues advocacy, and 
through the support of candidates and political parties of their 
choosing. These reform bills would take elections away from private 
citizens, groups, and parties and hand them over, exclusively, to the 
candidates and to the media.
  Issue advocacy is a recent addition to the reform lexicon. Some 
reformers profess to be horrified by all the issue advocacy that 
occurred last year because--news flash--they affected the election. 
They decry issue advocacy as another loophole that has been blasted 
through allowing groups to circumvent campaign finance restrictions.
  A funny thing about citizens, groups, and parties who wish to make 
themselves heard in a democracy: They always seem to find a way around 
Government speech roadblocks.
  If Congress ever does impose Government regulations on issue advocacy

[[Page S2186]]

and the courts do not strike them down, the first amendment will be a 
hollow shell. Soft money limits, independent expenditure limits, issue 
advocacy regulations, spending limits, PAC limits--these are all 
euphemisms for speech limits.
  Under this amendment before the Senate--by carving out a huge chunk 
of the first amendment--Congress could succeed in imposing all of these 
speech limits. America would then spend less on elections. Elections 
would be quieter, politics--at least, on the surface--would be more 
civil because dissent would be tightly regulated by this Congress and 
incumbents would be less bothered by fundraising. And we will have 
gutted American democracy.
  Mr. President, I am confident this amendment is not going to be 
approved. I hope it will be rejected overwhelmingly. It is one of the 
most frightening proposals we have had before this body in the 13 years 
I have been here. The first amendment should be the touchstone of 
reform, and the Buckley case, its guide.
  Within those parameters, we could enact bipartisan reform to 
strengthen, rather than diminish, our democracy. I hope at some point 
that is what we will be doing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Collins). The Senator from South 
Carolina.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Maury 
Lane be permitted privileges of the floor during the consideration of 
Senate Joint Resolution 18.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, there were certain statements made 
that I am sure should be corrected immediately. I ask unanimous consent 
the statement in support of overturning Buckley versus Valeo, some 50 
law professors from the various schools, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Statement in Support of Overturning Buckley Versus Valeo

       In its 1976 decision. Buckley v. Valeo, the United States 
     Supreme Court held that limiting political expenditures by 
     law is an unconstitutional denial of free speech in violation 
     of the First Amendment.
       We believe that the Buckley decision is wrong and should be 
     overturned. The decision did not declare a valuable principle 
     that we should hesitate to challenge. On the contrary, it 
     misunderstood not only what free speech really is but what it 
     really means for free people to govern themselves.
       We the undersigned call for the reconsideration and 
     reversal of the Buckley decision.

     Bruce Ackerman, Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale 
         Law School
     Ellen Aprill, Professor, Loyola Law School
     Peter Arenella, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School
     Robert Aronson, Professor of Law, University of Washington 
         Law School
     Robert Benson, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     Steve Bachmann, General Counsel, ACORN
     Gary L. Blasi, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School
     John Bonifaz, Executive Director, National Voting Rights 
         Institute
     Richard M. Buxbaum, Dean of International and Areas Studies, 
         Boalt Hall Law School
     John Calmore, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor of Law, University of Southern 
         California Law School
     Joshua Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts 
         Institution of Technology
     James W. Doig, Professor, Woodrow Wilson School, Dept. of 
         Politics, Princeton University
     Ronald Dworkin, Professor of Law, New York University School 
         of Law
     Roger Findley, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     Catherine Fisk, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     Edward B. Foley, Associate Professor, Ohio State University 
         College of Law
     Milton S. Gwirtzman, member, Senior Advisory Board, Institute 
         of Politics, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 
         Harvard University
     Richard L. Hasen, Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent 
         College of Law
     Roland Homet, Principal, Public Purpose Presentation
     Lisa Ikemoto, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     Gregory C. Keating, Professor of Law, University of Southern 
         California Law School
     Stephen Loffredo, Associate Professor of Law, CUNY Law School
     Harry Lonsdale, Founder, Campaign for Democracy
     Karl Manheim, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     Frank Michelman, Professor, Harvard Law School
     Ralph Nader, Center for the Study of Responsive Law
     Burt Neuborne, Professor of Law, New York University School 
         of Law
     John Nockleby, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     H. Jefferson Powell, Professor of Law, Duke University Law 
         School
     William Quigley, Associate Professor, Loyola University 
         School of Law
     Jamin Raskin, Associate Dean, American University Washington 
         College of Law
     John Rawls, University Professor, emeritus, Harvard 
         University
     Clifford Rechtschaffen, Professor of Law, Golden Gate 
         University School of Law
     Joel Rogers, Professor of Law, Political Science and 
         Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
     E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Executive Director, Brennan Center for 
         Justice at New York University School of Law
     Thomas M. Scanlon, Jr., Professor of Philosophy, Harvard 
         University
     Whitney North Seymour Jr., former U.S. Attorney, Southern 
         District of New York
     W. David Slawson, Professor of Law, University of Southern 
         California Law School
     Rayman L. Solomon, Associate Dean, Northwestern University 
         School of Law
     Peter Tiersma, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     Georgene Vairo, Professor of Law, Loyola Law School
     Jim Wheaton, Founder, First Amendment Project
     Louis Wolcher, Professor of Law, University of Washington 
         School of Law

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 24 
State attorneys general also asking for reversal of Buckley versus 
Valeo be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Twenty-four State Attorneys General Issue Call for the Reversal of 
                          Buckley versus Valeo

       Des Moines, Iowa--The attorneys general for twenty-four 
     states released a joint statement Tuesday calling for the 
     reversal of a 1976 Supreme Court decision which struck down 
     mandatory campaign spending limits on free speech grounds. 
     The attorneys general statement comes amidst a growing 
     national debate about the validity of that court ruling; 
     Buckley v. Valeo.
       Former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley has denounced the decision 
     and has helped lead the recent push in the U.S. Congress for 
     a constitutional amendment to allow for mandatory spending 
     limits in federal elections. The City of Cincinnati is 
     litigating the first direct court challenge to the ruling, 
     defending an ordinance passed in 1995 by the City Council 
     which sets limits in city council races. And, in late October 
     1996, a group of prominent constitutional scholars from 
     around the nation signed a statement calling for the reversal 
     of Buckley.
       The attorneys general statement reads as follows:
       ``Over two decades ago, the United States Supreme Court, in 
     Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), declared mandatory 
     campaign expenditure limits unconstitutional on First 
     Amendment grounds. We, the undersigned state attorneys 
     general, believe the time has come for that holding to be 
     revisited and reversed.
       ``U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote 
     `[I]n cases involving the Federal Constitution, where 
     correction through legislative action is practically 
     impossible, this court has often overruled its earlier 
     decisions. The court bows to the lessons of experience and 
     the force of better reasoning * * *' Burnet v. Coronado Oil & 
     Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-408 (1932) (Brandeis, J., 
     dissenting).
       ``As state attorneys general--many of us elected--we 
     believe the experience of campaigns teaches the lesson that 
     unlimited campaign spending threatens the integrity of the 
     election process. As the chief legal officers of our 
     respective states, we believe that the force of better 
     reasoning compels the conclusion that it is the absence of 
     limits on campaign expenditures--not the restrictions--which 
     strike `at the core of our electoral process and of the First 
     Amendment freedoms.' Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 39 (1976) 
     (quoting Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 32 (1968).''
       The United States has witnessed a more than a 700% increase 
     in the cost of federal elections since the Buckley ruling. 
     The presidential and congressional campaigns combined spent 
     more than $2 billion this past election cycle, making the 
     1996 elections the costliest ever in U.S. history.
       Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, Nevada Attorney General 
     Frankie Sue Del Papa, Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, 
     and the National Voting Rights Institute of Boston initiated 
     Tuesday's statement. The Institute is a non-profit 
     organization engaged in constitutional challenges across the 
     country to the current campaign finance system. The Institute 
     serves as special counsel for the City of Cincinnati in its 
     challenge to Buckley, now in federal district court in 
     Cincinnati and due for its first court hearing on January 31.
       ``Buckley stands today as a barrier to American 
     democracy,'' says Attorney General Del Papa. ``As state 
     attorneys general,

[[Page S2187]]

     we are committed to helping remove that barrier.'' Del Papa 
     says the twenty-four state attorneys general will seek to 
     play an active role in efforts to reverse the Buckley 
     decision, including the submission of friend-of-the-court 
     briefs in emerging court cases which address the ruling.
       ``Maybe it wasn't clear in 1976, but it is clear today that 
     financing of campaigns has gotten totally out of control,'' 
     says Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. ``The state has a 
     compelling interest in bringing campaign finances back under 
     control and protecting the integrity of the electoral 
     process.''
       Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods adds, ``I believe that 
     it is a major stretch to say that the First Amendment 
     requires that no restrictions be placed on individual 
     campaign spending. The practical results, where millionaires 
     dominate the process to the detriment of nearly everyone who 
     cannot compete financially, have perverted the electoral 
     process in America.''
       The full listing of signatories is as follows:

     Attorney General Grant Woods of Arizona (R)
     Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (D)
     Attorney General Robert Butterworth of Florida (D)
     Attorney General Alan G. Lance of Idaho (R)
     Attorney General Tom Miller of Iowa (D)
     Attorney General Carla J. Stovall of Kansas (R)
     Attorney General Albert B. Chandler III of Kentucky (D)
     Attorney General Andrew Ketterer of Maine (D)
     Attorney General Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts (D)
     Attorney General Frank Kelley of Michigan (D)
     Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota (D)
     Attorney General Mike Moore of Mississippi (D)
     Attorney General Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana (D)
     Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada (D)
     Attorney General Jeff Howard of New Hampshire (R)
     Attorney General Tom Udall of New Mexico (D)
     Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota (D)
     Attorney General Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma (D)
     Attorney General Charles W. Burson of Tennessee (D)
     Attorney General Jan Graham of Utah (D)
     Attorney General Wallace Malley of Vermont (R)
     Attorney General Darrel V. McGraw of West Virginia (D)
     Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire of Washington (D)
     Attorney General James Doyle of Wisconsin (D)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the rollcall of May 1993, of the majority of the 
U.S. Senate expressing the sense of the Senate that the Congress should 
be empowered constitutionally, the Constitution should be amended to 
authorize the Congress to regulate or control expenditures in Federal 
elections.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Rollcall Vote No. 129, May 27, 1993


                               YEAS (52)

       Democrats (46 or 85%): Akaka, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, 
     Bradley, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Byrd, Campbell, Conrad, 
     Daschle, DeConcini, Dodd, Dorgan, Exon, Feingold, Feinstein, 
     Ford, Glenn, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, 
     Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Lieberman, Mathews, 
     Metzenbaum, Mitchell, Moseley-Braun, Murray, Nunn, Pryor, 
     Reid, Riegle, Robb, Sarbanes, Sasser, Shelby, Simon, 
     Wellstone, Wofford.
       Republicans (6 or 15%): D'Amato, Hatfield, Kassebaum, 
     Pressler, Roth, Specter.


                               NAYS (43)

       Democrats (8 or 15%): Boxer, Kerrey, Kohl, Leahy, Mikulski, 
     Moynihan, Pell, Rockefeller.
       Republicans (35 or 85%): Bennett, Bond, Brown, Burns, 
     Chafee, Coats, Cochran, Cohen, Coverdell, Craig, Danforth, 
     Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, Faircloth, Gorton, Gramm, 
     Grassley, Gregg, Helms, Jeffords, Kempthorne, Lott, Lugar, 
     Mack, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, 
     Simpson, Smith, Stevens, Wallop, Warner.


                             NOT VOTING (5)

       Democrats (3): Baucus, Heflin, Krueger.
       Republicans (2): Hatch, Thurmond.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  When you sit up limply and say there is no constituency for this, the 
constituency is building. There is no question about that.
  It is bipartisan. It is very clever in trying to say that the 
Hollings resolution is the Hollings-Specter, when it is bipartisan. 
They will talk with conviction that McCain-Feingold is bipartisan, but 
not Hollings-Specter. The fact of the matter is, Madam President, that 
we had a news conference--we have had various ones over the 10-year 
period--and hardly anyone attended. On yesterday, the room was 
overflowing, in the context that they realize now that after all the 
endeavors made to try to reconcile this situation, the only route left 
for us now to correct this cancer that imperils our democracy is 
authority for the Congress to act.
  Now, they, in sanctimony, stand and talk about Buckley versus Valeo, 
and in the same breath, ``200 years,'' ``the first amendment,'' 
``loopholes,'' ``let's don't have a loophole or gut out the first 
amendment''-- my opponent is very erudite, a very learned Senator, and 
he has been working on this particular subject for quite some time, and 
he has to know that Buckley versus Valeo does exactly that.
  Buckley versus Valeo limited the speech, the first amendment rights, 
of contributors. Say I make a contribution to the Senator from Utah for 
only $1,000 in the primary and $1,000 in the general election; my 
freedom of speech has gutted a hole in the first amendment by Buckley 
versus Valeo, because my freedom of speech to contribute and 
participate has already been limited by Congress, of all people, and 
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. I gave example after example of the 
safety measures with respect to not being able to shout ``fire'' in a 
theater. I went to the national security. I went to the obscenity 
provisions. I wish I had the time and disposition here this afternoon 
to put in Laurence Tribe's restatement of the freedom of speech, and 
you would have a powerful grasp of what is in order and what is not in 
order. You can bet your boots that this has been building.
  In 1993, we had a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and a majority of 
the U.S. Senate said that they should have a constitutional amendment, 
such as is here now introduced. The Senator comes and limply says, ``I 
have Common Cause, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the 
ACLU, and the Senator from South Carolina has no constituency.'' We 
have the constituency. We know about the newspapers. They don't want to 
recognize the fact that we are talking about ``paid'' speech in this 
constitutional amendment--expenditures--not ``free" speech. ``Limit the 
amount of contributions that may be accepted by and the amount of 
expenditures that may be made by''--expenditures for speech, paid 
speech, not free speech.
  A State shall have the power to set reasonable limits on the amount 
of expenditures made. So they don't have to go to the straw man. I got 
interested in the straw man. They said Congress could come around and 
limit you to $5,000 in a campaign and get rid of all of these groups. I 
hadn't thought of that. That would probably be a pretty good idea, 
because we know all the groups are really not interested, except in 
beating those candidates, getting over them.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle very cleverly got out 
in Saturday's Washington Post--I will have to get a copy of that 
article about all of these different groups. You wonder where their 
names come from. I remember one out in California, with some spurious 
name, and they found out that Philip Morris, the tobacco folks, were 
behind it. Upon that being discovered, they said they had to take 
credit for that particular group. But you have them all bouncing up and 
down. The gimmick today is to get a group for ``free Government,'' or 
for ``free speech,'' or ``for clean politics,'' or anything that sounds 
pretty. You will find out that it is politically motivated by either 
national party.
  I can tell you, our national groups are there and they are really 
ruining the political process. But the Senator from South Carolina just 
says ``expenditures.'' Once you limit the expenditures, you can get 
those groups, you can get the bundling, you can get the soft money, you 
can get the direct money, you can get whatever you are going to get. If 
you have the wrong kind of support, then your opponent is going to be 
quick to point it out and expose it because you have disclosure. That's 
what we had in the 1974 act, and that's what we must continue.

  But this has to do with expenditures and paid speech. Of all people 
to really talk--let me comment, Madam President, about the limits of 
speech. We know that there is good reason to limit speech. The U.S. 
Senate, the U.S.

[[Page S2188]]

House of Representatives, the U.S. Congress knows better than any that 
you must limit speech in order to get a good product. Over on the House 
side, you are given, under the rule, 1 minute or 3 minutes, and over 
here, we have bragged about the unlimited speech. But the fact of the 
matter is that we can cut off the filibuster, and we further limit it. 
Rather than the two-thirds--you need the accepted large majority of a 
60-vote majority to limit the speech, cut it off.
  I was at a committee hearing and we had a 5-minute rule. We accept 
that. So all the Senators limit speech. You are not allowed to stand up 
and say: Wait a minute, the first amendment, we can't gut a hole in 
this first amendment for the first time in 200 years.
  That is hogwash. Buckley versus Valeo limits speech--the very 
authority that the opposition uses here to maintain and oppose the 
joint resolution to amend the Constitution, so that we can reinstill 
the freedom of speech that is robbed by way of financial power from an 
individual trying to express himself. That is the nature of the 
campaign financing now.
  As I explained earlier, you could take an individual with $100,000 
and me with $1 million. I can tell you that any candidate who is going 
to start anywhere to get recognition, he is going to spend half of his 
money on polls. Then he is going to come in in October with $50,000 for 
TV. I will have a million, and I will squash him; I can tell you that 
right now. I could come in there and take over the airwaves and 
billboards and newspapers, and radio at various times, for the various 
groups, and his family will wonder why he is not interested in his 
campaign. He is not interested for the simple reason that he is not 
financially capable of responding. That is what Buckley versus Valeo 
provides.
  That is why Chief Justice Burger, in the dissenting opinion, said 
this differing of contributions, where it can be limited from 
expenditures, which cannot be limited, ``simply won't wash.'' That is 
Chief Justice Burger's expression. You can go right on down the various 
comments I have given. But them there is the same argument, the same 
straw man, what the Congress might do. They assume the actions of 
Congress. That is why we put ``reasonable limits.''
  They talk about, I think, the ACLU. I could not get the copies of the 
other ones just inserted into the Record, but I have the ACLU letter. 
It says, reasonable limits is vague and overbroad.
  That is why we said ``reasonable'' because of the straw men that have 
been erected back in all of these elections. They could limit here, 
they could do this, or they could do that. We assume that the Congress 
is going to be reasonable and that the Congress and the courts are not 
going to stand for any egregious conduct on the part of the Congress 
that would do as they threaten this particular constitutional amendment 
would. These straw men that they put up and knock down: Who is going to 
enforce? We are going to have to put a SWAT team down there, and 
everything else of that kind. And that, oh, horrors, this applies not 
only to the Federal but the States and the local elections.
  Madam President, I can tell you that the State elections are included 
because they requested the Senator from South Carolina that they be 
included. There is no question in my mind that this would be ratified 
in the 1998 elections in November of next year; no question. I will bet 
anybody on it. You come and put this before the American people. They 
have been denied the right by the Senator from Kentucky and others who 
come around and try to erect straw men talking about 200 years of 
freedom of speech, when the very authority, the Supreme Court, already 
has in Buckley versus Valeo. But they said, ``please include State 
elections.'' I have already inserted the statement of the States' 
attorney generals in the Record. There is a driving force that this 
Congress has prohibited now for the last 10 years because we put it in. 
We have had a majority vote. The majority of the Senators themselves 
expressed the sense of the Senate. They now say that the majority of 
the Senate is not any constituency. I don't know of a better 
constituency, if I can get the 67. That is what we need; not just the 
majority. If I can get the 67, we would really be in a good state.
  The Washington Post says we should have limits on advertising, but a 
constitutional amendment is a bad idea. ``It would be an exception to 
the free speech clause.'' Oh, no. It is an exception to the paid speech 
clause. ``And once that clause is free for one purpose, who is to say 
how many others may follow?'' That is a misgiving. That is a concern. 
That is a concern in this Senator's mind. It was after 10 years was 
wasted--from 1976 to 1987. We tried all of these things and got nowhere 
that you could see, by the way the Court was talking, and particularly 
now with the Colorado decision. There is no question in my mind that 
the Court is not going to reverse Buckley versus Valeo. They have 
pretty well thrown all caution out of the window, and said, ``So long 
as it is not coordinated, these separate groups can come in and come to 
the national parties,'' and, by Jove, they spend the money, and, 
obviously, it is going to be to the benefit of this particular 
candidate.
  That is what we call soft money. It has adulterated the process so 
that I have business friends at fundraisers when that occurred that 
said, ``My heavens, Senator. I gave the $1,000, and I am willing to 
give the second $1,000. But I am getting calls on the phone now to 
raise $100,000. What in the world? They are calling and asking for 
$50,000 and $100,000, and so forth, for soft money to give to the 
party.'' They say that you will benefit from it. They might under oath 
say something differently. But everybody knows what the national 
parties are doing, and that is why we have this investigation going on.
  It says here again in that particular Washington Post editorial that 
``The Congress may enact laws regulating the amounts of contributions 
and expenditures intended to affect elections in Federal offices. But 
that is much too vague.'' It says ``vague.'' I do not think it is vague 
at all. I think it has worked out in accordance with the wording of the 
Buckley versus Valeo decision. It is not vague at all--not as the ACLU 
would state it, and not my good friend George Will. We have his 
particular comments. That is the gentleman who believes that we ought 
to have term limits for Senators but not for editorial writers. I think 
we ought to have term limits for these editorial writers. It is sort of 
getting boring. You can look at the name, and you pass over it because 
you know what is going to be written. They are hired hands for a 
particular viewpoint, and on and on again.

  I am quoting from the editorial by George Will:
  ``Hollings claims--and you have to admire his brass--that carving 
this huge hole in the first amendment''--that is where they get the 
``carving,'' the pejorative expressions without any real substantive 
argument--``would be a big boost to free speech.''
  Mr. Will says there isn't any question that ``by `free' I mean 
`fair.' '' No; I mean ``free.'' I do not mean ``paid speech.'' I mean 
what I say: ``Free speech.'' By limiting contributions you have come in 
and stated that they are going to have a corruptive influence and that 
is why contributions need to be limited. If that is the case, most 
assuredly the amount of spending, not just the contributions, in 
campaigns is most corrupt.
  When Mr. Will refers to ``amounts of speech,'' he means the 
permissible amounts to be decided by incumbents in Congress and State 
legislatures. Well, when he says ``incumbents in Congress'', he is 
speaking in the pejorative again because he doesn't like incumbents. He 
just likes incumbent news editorialists but not incumbent Congressmen 
or incumbent Senators.
  Will continues, ``Note also the power to limit spending not only by 
but even in support of or in opposition to candidates.''
  That is exactly right.
  ``The 32 Senators who voted for this include many who 3 years ago 
stoutly opposed carving out a small exception to the first amendment 
protections in order to ban flag burning.''
  I am going to come back to that. He jogs my memory.
  ``But now these incumbents want'' --that is the third time he has 
used ``incumbent'' in this passage--``to hack away at the Bill of 
Rights'' --this is not to hack away at the Bill of Rights; we are 
trying to restore the Bill of Rights freedom of speech for the 
impoverished individual in this country in order to strengthen the 
permissible amount.

[[Page S2189]]

  ``Government micromanagement,'' Will says. Well, that is exactly what 
Buckley versus Valeo sustains. It says you can only give $1,000. A PAC, 
no matter how large the organization, can only give $5,000. We had 
individuals at the time we passed this in 1974 giving $500,000, giving 
$1 million, and giving $2 million in cash. Now we know with the 
Colorado decision and the investigation that will ensue, that we all 
voted for yesterday, that we are back to the millions, the $500,000, 
the $100,000 contributions. It destroys the confidence of the people in 
their representative government. They think ``representative.'' It is, 
by gosh, bought-and-paid-for government. Whoever has the money is going 
to control.
  Going back to the Will writings,

       Government micromanagement: The Senate bill would ban or 
     limit spending by political action committees. It will 
     require privately funded candidates to say in their broadcast 
     advertisements that the candidates have not agreed to 
     voluntary campaign limits.

  Well, that is not in any Hollings joint resolution whatsoever.
  ``All this Government micromanagement of political speech is supposed 
to usher in the reign of `fairness' as incumbents define it, of 
course.'' Here is a strawman. Vote against incumbents. If you read 
this, get rid of the incumbents. He is back to term limits again. Let 
me read the next paragraph.
  ``Incumbents,'' it starts off--this is the sixth time in 10 lines 
that he has used the word ``incumbents.'' He knows how to get a 
drumbeat going. ``Incumbents can live happily with spending limits. 
Incumbents will write the limits, perhaps not altogether 
altruistically, and spending is the way challengers can combat 
incumbents advantages such as name recognition, access to media and 
franked mail. Besides, the most important and plentiful money spent for 
political purposes is dispensed entirely by incumbents. It is called 
the Federal budget--$1.5 trillion and rising * * * Federal spending 
often is vote buying.''
  Now, he even blames us for passing a budget, and he calls that 
political. Why can't we get a vote on the budget? We have been here 
since January. It is the middle of March. We cannot even get the 
Republicans to put up a budget. I remember back on December 18, 1994, 
on ``Meet The Press,'' they had Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Kasich and Mr. 
Domenici, the two budget chairmen and the Speaker, and they said we are 
going to have three budgets. We do not care about the President. We are 
going to pass them and he is going to sign them or else, that the 
President is irrelevant.
  That was the argument in the first part of 1995. They came on on 
``Meet The Press'' and they had three budgets. Now I cannot get one of 
them. But George Will says it is a political document and an advantage 
to the incumbents. The incumbents do not think so. Nobody wants to 
support any budget because nobody wants to pay for it. It is not 
complicated at all. But so much for the Mr. ACLU and Mr. George Will 
and Mr. Washington Post and Mr. New York Times.
  I want these gentlemen talking about free speech to go to the New 
York Times and say I want a half-page. See how free it is. Go to the 
Washington Post and say I want a quarter-page, I want to put this ad in 
here. There is nothing free about it.
  From time to time they will take an editorial, but they will have to 
review it and like it or else they will not take it. I can tell you 
that, because I have been trying to point out one that has been refused 
for many years as to the matter of now having to spend $1 billion a day 
just on interest costs on the national debt. It amounts, in essence, 
because you add it to the debt, to increasing taxes $1 billion a day. 
We are on that particular treadmill of a $1 billion-a-day increase in 
taxes.
  The American people have no idea of it. They have no idea that the 
deficits for the past 15 years on an average have been $277 billion. It 
has been $277 billion in Government that we are giving them but we are 
not willing to pay for. But the American public, depending on the free 
press, does not know that because the free press does not report that.
  And back now to their so-called freedom of speech and first 
amendments, you are not going to get any freedom of speech there at 
all. It will be ratified by the States. It is not the first time, in 
all candor, for the strawman that they have been proposing here. But 
let me read this that was stated in ``Politics and Money'' by Elizabeth 
Drew. I quote:

       Until the problem of money is dealt with, it is unrealistic 
     to expect the political process to improve in any other 
     respect. It is not relevant whether every candidate who 
     spends more than his opponent wins, though in races that are 
     otherwise close this tends to be the case. What matters is 
     what the chasing of money does to the candidates and to the 
     victor's subsequent behavior. The candidate's desperation for 
     money and the desire to effect public policy provide a mutual 
     opportunity. The issue is not how much is spent on elections 
     but the way the money is obtained. The point is what raising 
     money, not simply spending it, does to the political process. 
     It is not just that the legislative product is bent or 
     stymied. It is not just that well armed interests have a head 
     start over the rest of the citizenry, for that often is 
     not even a contest. It is not even relevant what interest 
     happens to be winning. What is relevant is what the whole 
     thing is doing to the democratic process. What is at stake 
     is the idea of representative Government, the soul of this 
     country.

  That is 15 years ago now, Madam President, by the distinguished 
writer Elizabeth Drew in ``Politics and Money.''
  I think that is what we have to get our media to have, is that fit of 
conscience developed that we saw developed on the floor of the Senate 
on yesterday afternoon. In that fit of conscience, we got together in a 
unanimous vote, a unanimous vote--one Senator abstained under the 
rules, but the other 99 Senators, Republican and Democrat, Conservative 
and Liberal, all joined in to not only investigate the illegal but the 
improper.
  Now, there was a little band over there that fought that. They fought 
Chairman Thompson's idea that he was going after not only the illegal 
but the improper. Under the Klieglight of the free press, not the paid 
or the expenditures but the free press and the free speech, not the 
paid speech, under the free press and the free speech, they realized 
that it was going to be tremendously embarrassing, appear as a coverup.
  That is the kind of fit of conscience that must be developed if we 
are really going to come to grips with this cancer on the body politic. 
As Justice Jackson says, ``The Constitution is not a suicide compact.'' 
We do not have to look at the Constitution in a casual way, but we do 
not have to look upon it as having any relation to this particular 
predicament. The Founding Fathers had no idea of television. They had 
no idea of the expense. They had no idea of the time. They had no idea 
of the effort. They had no idea of the corruption. There is no better 
word for the process than what is demanded now, as you can see, is 
going up, up and away. As Justice Byron ``Whizzer'' White said, ``We 
are going on a treadmill and you can see its direction.'' All election 
spending back in 1976--I have it all here estimated--was only $540 
million. Now, by 1996, in 20 years, it has gone up 641 percent, to $4 
billion.

  Necessarily, the newspapers who are looking for these paid ads are 
going to say, ``free press, free press.'' No: Paid speech. ``Free 
speech, free speech,'' they will caterwaul. The truth of the matter is, 
we are talking about expenditures, and paid speech. There it is. It is 
going up, up, and away. I do not know how we are ever going to get a 
grip on that unless we give Congress the authority.
  Once again, I emphasize not what, ipso facto, will happen under these 
straw men that the Senator from Kentucky puts up. I have no idea of 
those things he talked about, of limiting the campaign to $5,000, and 
only the incumbents could run, and do away with all the committees and 
everything else of that kind. He just arranged a hall of horrors with 
respect to an amendment. It simply does just exactly what that 24th 
amendment did when they found the freedom of speech, namely the most 
solemn act of political speech, voting, was adulterated by money, 
namely a poll tax. The Congress came immediately back in the 24th 
amendment to the Constitution and said thou shalt not exact a poll tax 
or any other kind of tax, as a financial burden on that vote.
  Here, now, we have a financial burden on the entire political 
process. The decision is not being made in the political marketplace, 
the marketplace of

[[Page S2190]]

ideas and vision and programs. The decision is being made in the 
financial marketplace. And then we go around and ask each other, why 
don't the people have more confidence in the Congress and the 
Government up here in Washington?
  I see my colleague is momentarily wanting to speak. Madam President, 
I thank the Senators for listening and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to visit 
on this subject. My mind goes back to a little history lesson, which 
many probably know but I would like to rehearse, just as a background 
for this.
  The Constitution was written primarily by one man, James Madison. 
After it went through the convention in Philadelphia, James Madison 
went back home to Virginia to campaign for its ratification.
  Ratification of the Constitution really depended on two States. Yes, 
it required that it be ratified by three-fourths of the States, but if 
New York and Virginia had not ratified, it would not have mattered if 
every other State did because those were the two dominant States in the 
confederacy and without their ratification and joining the new 
federation, created by the Constitution, the country would not have 
survived.
  So, Madison's role in getting ratification by Virginia was as 
important to the survival of the Constitution as his role in writing 
it. He had a significant opponent in the State of Virginia, arguably 
the most popular and powerful political figure in that State, five 
times, I believe, Governor of that State, a man named Patrick Henry. 
Patrick Henry took the stump in opposition to the Constitution, put his 
full prestige and oratorical powers behind the forces that were in 
opposition, and his reason was, among others, that the Constitution did 
not include a list--or, in 18th century language, a bill--of rights.
  It is not necessary, said Madison in the debates, because the rights 
of the individuals of this new country, created by this Constitution, 
are all implied in the Constitution itself. They do not need to be 
listed. If they are listed, they will be limited only to those rights 
on the list. So the best thing we can do, said Madison, is ratify the 
Constitution as it stands, rather than talk about a list or Bill of 
Rights.
  Patrick Henry wasn't buying it. And he was powerful enough in the 
State of Virginia, that he could have blocked ratification of the 
Constitution by virtue of his political power. Well, Madison being the 
practical politician he was, as well as the theoretician, said to the 
voters of Virginia: I'll make a deal with you. If you will ratify this 
Constitution, I will run for Congress and in my first term as a Member 
of the House of Representatives, I will propose a Bill of Rights. And 
Madison prevailed in that debate, Virginia ratified the Constitution, 
it became the basic document upon which this country was built, and 
Madison was true to his political promises. He came to the House of 
Representatives and Representative James Madison of Virginia proposed 
12 amendments to the Constitution, every one of them outlining rights 
of individuals. Ten of those were adopted and have come to be known as 
the Bill of Rights.

  As a historical footnote, the 11th one that was lost to history for 
over 200 years got discovered a few years ago and ratified. So that the 
so-called Madison amendment now, which was No. 11 of his 12 listed 
amendments to the Constitution, as the Bill of Rights, is now also part 
of the Constitution. The 12th one is gone and deserves to be gone, it 
is so tied to that period of time it has no relevance to us today and 
nobody wants to revive it.
  The first of those amendments offered by Representative Madison was, 
of course, the amendment outlining freedom of speech, freedom of 
religion, freedom to petition the Government for redress of your 
grievances. That is his generation's term for lobbying, Madam 
President--lobbying is a protected, constitutionally recognized 
activity that is a key part of our democracy. I like to remind people 
of that, as they stand up and talk about the evils of lobbying. Heaven 
help us if the day ever comes when citizens are denied the right to 
petition the Government for redress of their grievances or are told 
that they cannot hire an advocate more articulate than they are, to do 
it for them. That would diminish our constitutional rights.
  That is all in that first of those amendments offered by Madison. 
Patrick Henry lost the battle in terms of the ratification, but this 
country owes Patrick Henry a tremendous debt of gratitude for his 
forcing James Madison into that political deal and putting down on 
paper those rights that we have listed for us in the Bill of Rights.
  What does that have to do with this debate? What does that have to do 
with this discussion about campaign finance reform? I stand here, not 
as a lawyer, but I hope as one who can read the English language and 
one who has made something of a study of the Constitution throughout 
his life. I put myself in the context of that debate between Madison 
and Henry, and I say: Mr. Henry, would you be satisfied with the 
reassurance of the following words:

       Congress shall have the power to set reasonable limits on 
     the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the 
     amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or 
     in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, 
     or for election to, Federal office.

  I think Mr. Henry would say, ``I will accept James Madison's 
assurances that all of our rights are, by implication, in the 
Constitution, before I will accept the notion that Congress has the 
right to set reasonable limits on what people do in support of or in 
opposition to a candidate.''
  Now, it is presumptuous of me to try to put words in Patrick Henry's 
mouth. I don't think any of us in this body is a good enough orator to 
make that attempt. But I, for one, feel that the spirit of Patrick 
Henry says we have to be a whole lot more specific than this, if we are 
going to amend the fundamental document that stands as the basis of 
this Nation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Given the general anxiety that candidates for public 
office experience when independent expenditures, constitutionally 
protected speech, is directed for or against us, could my friend from 
Utah not envision a situation in which the Congress would conclude that 
there should be none, no expenditures in support of, or in opposition 
to, a candidate? Might not the Congress, in its wisdom, conclude that 
it was reasonable to have no such expressions by outsiders in the 
course of the campaign under this amendment?
  Mr. BENNETT. As I read the language of this amendment, the 
determination of what is reasonable and what is not reasonable is left 
to the Congress. And under those circumstances, I can see a Congress of 
incumbents deciding that it was eminently reasonable not to allow 
anyone to oppose them.
  Indeed, if I may quote, to the Senator from Kentucky the rationale 
currently being given by the White House for the excesses to which they 
went in extracting expenditures which now have had to be returned in 
the millions of dollars. Their rationale was that they were facing the 
possibility that the Republicans would win the election, and that that 
possibility was so overwhelmingly devastating to the future of the 
country that they had no choice but to go to the absolute limits of 
propriety and, on occasion, beyond in order to prevent that from 
happening.
  If someone believes that is reasonable, certainly I agree with the 
implications of the question from the Senator from Kentucky that 
Members of Congress might agree that it is reasonable to put such low 
limits on the amount that could be spent in opposition to an incumbent 
that, in fact, the net result would be zero in support.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask my good friend from Utah, might not the 
Congress, full of incumbents, by arguing that the expenditure of money 
is such a tainting thing in our democracy, conclude that maybe there 
should be a $10,000 or a $20,000 limit on expenditures by candidates in 
the next election, thereby virtually guaranteeing the reelection of 
every one of these incumbents?
  Mr. BENNETT. I agree completely that the Congress might do that. Now, 
to be honest, I would have to say to my

[[Page S2191]]

friend from Kentucky, the outcry that would arise from the press, the 
groups who watch what we do, would be very, very severe if Congress 
were to do that, and they would scream that that was not reasonable and 
would demand that the limit be raised.
  But you would create, in that circumstance, a political thicket, to 
use a phrase that the Supreme Court, I understand, has used on 
occasion, wherein the threads of intelligent debate would be lost 
completely. You would spend all of your time in that election arguing 
whether a $5,000 limit or a $10,000 limit or a $100,000 limit, or 
wherever it might be, was the right limit, and you would never spend 
your time talking about the important issues facing your country.
  Frankly, we are in a microcosm of that right now. We are arguing 
about the things that get in the way, I think, of more substantive 
issues.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, I wonder if the press would 
argue for more spending. They seem to believe--most of them--that 
spending is a tainting thing in our democracy. To the extent the 
campaigns are, basically, out of business, in terms of their own 
expenditures, to convey their own message to their own constituencies, 
would that not enhance the power of the press enormously?
  Mr. BENNETT. I think it would enhance the power of the press 
enormously, but I say this to my friend from Kentucky. If we had those 
kinds of limits, I think the people on the editorial page would begin 
to hear from the people on the business page, or, that is, on the 
management side of the paper, saying Congress has just prevented us 
from selling ads to anybody on any public issue--and there is very 
significant revenue connected with this--and we think you editorial 
writers ought to ease up to the point where we can begin to get some of 
the advertising dollars back that we used to have.
  In that circumstance, I agree with my friend from South Carolina, 
that as a practical matter in a campaign, this speech is not monetarily 
free. I draw a distinction between ``monetarily free'' and 
``philosophically free.'' I believe when I buy an ad in a newspaper, as 
the purchaser of that space, I am, therefore, philosophically free to 
say whatever I want. Indeed, I have heard radio ads where, in advance 
of the ad, the radio commentator has come on and said, ``The ad you are 
about to hear contains language which this radio station is forbidden 
to broadcast under normal circumstances, but it is a political ad, and, 
therefore, the station cannot censor it in any way,'' and people are 
warned that the ad they are about to hear comes under the freedom of 
political candidates to say whatever they want.
  The ad then used words that, in fact, the station would never 
otherwise allow. I can say, the candidate who purchased the ad got 
about 2 percent of the vote, but he was out for the shock value, and he 
got it in the State of California. Then after the ad was run, the 
station announcer came back, once again, to disclaim any connection 
with this but to say we had no choice, since this was a political 
speech, to allow it to go forward untrammeled and unchanged.

  If you want free speech, the Senator from South Carolina is right, in 
today's world, you have to buy space on the media in order to have it, 
but if we put limits on the amount of money that can be spent, the net 
effect of that is to destroy my right to have free speech and to turn 
the debate over to the commentators who have access to the airwaves and 
the newsprint without any limitation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. One final question for my friend from Utah, following 
up on the observations he astutely made about the transfer of power to 
the media when you mandate less speech by the candidates and by groups 
in support of candidates. Might it not then be the next step for 
Congress to conclude that since now the press has all the power, that 
maybe we ought to amend the first amendment a little further and give 
the Congress the power to maybe say how many hours a day a station may 
broadcast, because we might conclude that they were engaging in an 
excessive amount of discussion of our issues, or we might conclude that 
the circulation of a newspaper might be limited to a certain number, 
because there was an excessive amount of news out there, an excessive 
amount of discourse about daily events?
  That is also part of the first amendment, is it not, and that is also 
part of the discourse that goes on in this free society. That would be 
potentially the next step, might it not?
  Mr. BENNETT. Certainly it would be a logical extension of the 
reasoning behind this. I agree with my friend from Kentucky that would 
be the case.
  My friend from Kentucky raises another issue with respect to the 
language of this amendment, when it refers to expenditures that may be 
made in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate.
  Let us suppose this circumstance, Madam President. Let us suppose 
that a corporation--we will call it the ABC Corporation so as to not 
taint any existing company--purchases half an hour of television time 
for a news broadcast; in other words, it becomes the sponsor of ``The 
McConnell-Bennett Hour,'' assuming for just a moment that both my 
friend from Kentucky and I have concluded our service in the Senate 
honorably and are looking to extend our careers in the public 
arena. And McConnell-Bennett, sponsored by the ABC Corp., has a half-
hour news show.

  In that, McConnell proceeds to say nice things about the Senator from 
Texas, who has joined us on the floor. And the Senator from Texas has 
an opponent who immediately calls the network and says, by putting 
``The McConnell-Bennett Hour'' on, the ABC Corp. has made an 
expenditure in support of the Senator from Texas. If the ABC Corp. 
would just pull their support and sponsorship of that program, 
McConnell would not have the opportunity to say all those nice things 
about Gramm. And Gramm's opponent says the expenditures made by the ABC 
Corp. in sponsoring that program are in violation of the Constitution.
  If this sounds somewhat silly, Madam President, it is because it is.
  I yield to my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator, and think the Senator from Texas 
would be interested in this as well.
  The ACLU, in a letter to me dated March 6, says that this language 
before us may well give the Congress the power to interfere with 
editorializing in newspapers. Let me just read this observation for my 
colleagues and for those who are interested.

       Senate Joint Resolution 18 [referring to the resolution 
     before us] would also give Congress and every state 
     legislature the power, heretofore denied by the First 
     Amendment, to regulate the most protected function of the 
     press--editorializing. Print outlets such as newspapers and 
     magazines, broadcasters, Internet publishers and cable 
     operators would be vulnerable to severe regulation of 
     editorial content by the government. A candidate-centered 
     editorial, as well as op-ed articles or commentary printed at 
     the publisher's expense are most certainly expenditures in 
     support of or in opposition to particular political 
     candidates. The amendment, as its words make apparent, would 
     authorize Congress to set reasonable limits on the 
     expenditures by the media during campaigns, when not strictly 
     reporting the news. Such a result would be intolerable in a 
     society that cherishes the free press.

  So what we have here, America's experts on the first amendment--
sometimes we agree with them; sometimes we do not--but clearly 
America's experts on the first amendment, the ACLU, say that this 
amendment before us gives the Congress, us, the power to control 
editorial comment in this country.
  Mr. BENNETT. If I may, Madam President. I have just thought of an 
example that I think is a real-life example and not one of the 
theoretical examples we have been talking about.
  I hope I am not offending anyone to say that the new magazine called 
the Weekly Standard, in my opinion, is not making any money. I know 
enough about the business world to look at the number of ads in the 
Weekly Standard and know what it costs to produce the Weekly Standard 
to say that the Weekly Standard is at the moment a loser financially.
  I also know enough about the business world to know that Rupert 
Murdoch, who is funding the Weekly Standard, hopes that that will 
change. I know that he is not doing this strictly out of the goodness 
of his heart. And he has sound past history behind him.
  Sports Illustrated, published by Time magazine, did not make any 
money for

[[Page S2192]]

years and years and years while it built a constituency for its 
product. It is now, I understand, the most profitable publication Time 
magazine has. Undoubtedly, Rupert Murdoch is hoping for a similar track 
record for the Weekly Standard. But as of now, the Weekly Standard is 
not making any money.
  Anyone who reads the editorials of the Weekly Standard knows that it 
is in support of candidates for nomination for office. And Rupert 
Murdoch is bankrolling it. He is bankrolling it with corporate funds. 
These are not his personal dollars. He is bankrolling that magazine 
with corporate funds.
  Suppose we pass this amendment and put limits on candidates to the 
point where they felt they could not get their message out, and a 
candidate then went, under cover of night, to Rupert Murdoch's office 
and said, ``Rupert, I am in terrible trouble. Will you please 
editorialize in the Weekly Standard on my behalf and reprint 400,000 
copies and send them as promotional issues to every voter in my home 
State?''--a corporate contribution made in the name of seeking 
circulation improvement. It is not an unreasonable scenario.
  And the point that it illustrates is the point that the Senator from 
Kentucky has made since the day I walked in this Chamber and heard him 
address this issue. And that is this: Somehow, some way, somewhere the 
inventive American mind will find a way to spend money on political 
campaigns no matter what we do. Somehow, somewhere--I love his analogy: 
Like putting jello on a rock, the thing will find someplace else to go.
  It seems to me, if we want free, honest, open, fair, direct 
elections, we should focus on the issue of disclosure rather than 
limits, because the limits have proven time and again throughout our 
history never to work.
  We talk about how terrible this present situation is. Madam 
President, I lived through the Watergate era. Indeed, I lived through 
the Watergate era much closer to the Watergate scandal than I wanted to 
be.

  When I ran for the Senate in 1992, the entire campaign against me 
mounted by my Democratic opponent was that I was somehow tainted by my 
association with all of the figures in Watergate. And there are still 
occasions when I am in these parades on the Fourth of July in the rural 
towns of Utah where people who are not my political friends holler out, 
``Hey, Watergate'' at me hoping the taint will still stick. Fred 
Thompson and I are probably the two Members of this body who know more 
about Watergate from a personal inside experience than anybody.
  Virtually the entire system that we have right now was constructed in 
response to Watergate. And we were promised at the time it was 
constructed in a way that it would solve all of our problems. We were 
promised that with the creation of political action committees, special 
interest money would disappear. We were promised that with limitations 
on individuals, we would get democracy like we have never seen it 
before in campaigns. We were promised that everything would go away if 
we would just simply adopt these reforms in the name of clean 
elections.
  Twenty years later, what do we hear? From the same people who made 
those promises, we are told if we adopt this constitutional amendment 
all will be wonderful, everything will now suddenly take on a rosy hue 
and there will be no corruption in American politics again.
  Madam President, I did not believe them then. And I do not believe 
them now. And I think the track record of the last 20 years indicates 
that I was right not to believe them then. I hope we do not have a 
track record for any of us to find out from actual experience that we 
should believe them now.
  Let me conclude with a personal experience. Everybody always says, 
no, you should not tell your personal stories. But this is a story I 
know the best.
  I looked at all of the proposals for campaign reform that were around 
when I ran. And I realized very quickly they were designed for one 
purpose--to protect incumbents. Of course, you want to have a spending 
limit if you are an incumbent. The challenger cannot take you on if 
there is a spending limit. I ran against an incumbent Congressman.
  What did that mean? That meant when he put out a press release, the 
taxpayers paid for it because he had a press Secretary that was on his 
congressional staff. When I put out a press release, I had to pay 
somebody out of campaign funds in order to write it and disseminate it.
  When he went to see someone in the home State after traveling to 
Washington, the taxpayers paid for it because he had a travel 
allowance. When I came to Washington to try to see somebody to raise 
some money for myself, I had to pay for it myself out of my campaign 
funds because I did not have any travel allowance. And so on down the 
list.
  Plus the fact, he had all those years of being invited to Rotary 
clubs and Kiwanis clubs and Lions clubs to be the speaker. I have been 
involved with trying to line up speakers for clubs. You are always 
delighted when you can get someone like a Congressman to come talk to 
you. I had not been to any of those clubs. None of them was interested 
in talking to me.
  So you know what I had to do, Madam President, in order to get 
anybody to listen to me in that campaign? I had to buy them lunch. When 
I filed my FEC report, I had $86,000 for food. Because the only way I 
could get anybody to listen to me: I bought them lunch, I bought them 
breakfast, I bought them dinner. They would come with no intention of 
voting for me, but they wanted the free meal. I just hoped if I could 
get in the room long enough and talk to them, maybe I could pry a few 
of them away.

  I started out in that first campaign for the Republican nomination, 
and there were four of us running for the Republican nomination. One 
candidate was at 56 percent, in first place. I was at 3 percent, in 
fourth place, and there was a 4-point margin of error, so I could 
possibly have been minus 1.
  Would the incumbents have loved a spending limit faced with the 
opportunity that Bob Bennett might challenge him? Absolutely, 
absolutely. And a spending limit would be marvelous because then I 
could not spend all that money for lunch because I simply could not 
have done it.
  Now, I have said facetiously to some of my Republican friends around 
here, look, we were opposed to this when we were in the minority. Now 
that we are in the majority, why are we not for it, because it will 
return our incumbents and hold the other side down, because their 
challengers cannot beat us. I am afraid I am not that cynical. I still 
remember what it is like to be a challenger and the recognition that if 
we are going to have free and open elections, we have to give the 
challengers the opportunities to take on the incumbents, and the 
opportunities to take on the incumbents on the part of the challenger 
means that the challengers have to have the opportunity to raise the 
money to pay for the press secretary that the taxpayer pays for for the 
incumbents, to pay for the travel budget that the taxpayer pays for for 
the incumbents, to pay for the lunches so they can get in before the 
audience, that the incumbents get for free. If we put this limit on and 
say we are going to hold everybody to the same limit, we have just 
automatically said we are going to take care of the incumbents.
  The only thing that makes any sense to me in terms of campaign 
finance reform is to increase the level of disclosure, not put any 
limits, recognizing the reality of what the Senator from Kentucky says, 
that the money will find a way to be spent. The more limits you put on 
it, the more you make sure it is the rascals who survive and the naive 
who get caught. The only way you will get the naive, the fellow who has 
not figured out all of the ins and outs, who has not worked his way 
through all of the labyrinth and opportunity to serve in public office 
is to remove the ins and outs and wipe away the labyrinth.
  I am sure we will have more to say on this as it goes on. I see my 
friend from Texas has something to say, as he always does. I will 
listen with interest, as I always do.
  I will leave it at this, Mr. President, but I will return at some 
future point. I end this as I began.
  Patrick Henry was right when he said, you nail it down, you put it on 
paper, and you make it very clear.

[[Page S2193]]

 James Madison was right when he caved in to Patrick Henry on that 
argument, and did it in writing, the Bill of Rights, instead of 
accepting the assurances that everything would be OK.
  I cannot accept the assurance that Congress will automatically come 
up with what is the right definition of reasonable. I cannot accept the 
assurance that expenditures made in support of or opposition to a 
candidate will be reasonably handled by the Congress. I cannot support 
putting that kind of language into the Constitution of the United 
States and thereby creating a circumstance of uncertainty over which 
lawyers will argue for the next 200 years.
  I was part of the majority that defeated this amendment the last time 
it came up. I will be part of what I hope will be the majority that 
defeats it this time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Chair recognizes the very 
honorable and distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Thank you, Mr. President. I begin my discussion of the 
resolution before the Senate by reading two things. The first thing I 
will read is the first amendment to the Constitution. I will then read 
a statement made by the principal proponent of this amendment as it has 
evolved through the legislative process, the distinguished minority 
leader of the House of Representatives, Richard Gephardt. And then I 
will discuss the fact that for the first time in the debate on campaign 
finance reform, for the first time ever, we are debating the real 
issue.

  To this point, as is often so true, even in this greatest of 
deliberative bodies on the planet, we have not really debated the 
underlying issue, because often either one side or both sides of an 
argument has an incentive to cloud the real issue so that people do not 
understand.
  The one thing that I am very thankful for, and that I want to 
congratulate our colleague from South Carolina for in proposing this 
amendment, is that for the first time in the debate on campaign finance 
reform, we are finally debating the real issue that is being contested 
here--I rejoice in having this opportunity to debate.
  I will debate the issue a little, then I want to talk about the 
underlying issue, and then I will say something about our distinguished 
colleague from Kentucky.
  The first amendment to the Constitution, which has been memorized by 
most schoolchildren in our country, is one of the most recognizable 
part of the Constitution, and says the following thing:

       Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an 
     establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
     thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; 
     or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
     the Government for a redress of grievances.

  That is the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
and that is the massive thorn in the side, the impediment, and the 
giant mountain that serves as a barrier to those who want to reform 
American campaigns to limit the ability of people to raise and spend 
money. It is this impediment that they face which makes it impossible, 
without trampling this amendment into constitutional dust, to achieve 
what they want.
  Today, we are debating this issue in a proposal to amend the 
Constitution and to amend, in particular, the free speech clause of the 
first amendment.
  Now, I want to next read a quote from the distinguished minority 
leader of the House, Richard Gephardt. This is a quote where Mr. 
Gephardt is talking about his amendment. He says:

       What we have is two important values in direct conflict: 
     freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a 
     healthy democracy. You can't have both.

  Now, let me read that again: ``What we have is two important values 
in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy 
campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can't have both.''
  Now, Mr. President, I wish the Founding Fathers could have heard that 
statement and could have realized that the distinguished leader of the 
Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, in setting out what 
he views as desired healthy campaigns and desired healthy democracy, 
believes that free speech must die for these healthy campaigns to 
occur. This logic would have rightly been rejected by every single 
Founding Father. I know it because when they wrote the Constitution and 
when the first Congress adopted the Bill of Rights, they picked one 
amendment to be first, and that amendment is very clear: ``Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech * * *''
  Now, why this amendment is so important, why this debate is so 
critical to the debate on campaign finance reform is that, for the 
first time, we are now discussing the real issue: Do you believe in 
freedom of speech or not? I do. Therefore, I am opposed to this 
amendment, and I am opposed to what is posing as campaign finance 
reform. Or do you believe that Government ought to be given the power 
to circumscribe free speech to achieve the Government's decision of 
what, in essence, good elections are? That is what the issue is. For 
the first time in this long, convoluted debate, we are really now down 
to that key issue.
  I hope and I believe that we are going to reject this amendment and 
that we are going to say, once and for all, that we believe in free 
speech. In fact, how can you have genuine elections without free 
speech? Ultimately, the speech that our Founding Fathers were most 
concerned about was political speech. Yet, we have an amendment before 
us that would amend the Constitution and that would limit free speech 
in the name of--to go back to Leader Gephardt's language--``promoting 
healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy.''
  Mr. President, what Mr. Gephardt wants to do, and what proponents of 
this amendment want to do, is to limit free speech because they want to 
change the balance of power in the political process. Those who believe 
that the first amendment is a sacred part of the Constitution have to 
reject this amendment out of hand--and I do. And I believe the majority 
will as well.
  But let me go one step deeper into the process to try to at least 
give my view as to what this whole debate is about. If you went out in 
the public, which is reading all of these stories written by all these 
groups who are promoting various ideas about campaign finance reform, I 
think what the American people would be saying is that they are 
concerned that too many groups exert too much control over Government 
and they would like to fix it. Well, it is interesting, because the 
Framers of this document, the Constitution, were concerned about 
exactly the same thing. But maybe because their world was simpler than 
ours, maybe because their vision was clearer than ours, they understood 
that the solution to bad speech or ineffective speech or speech you 
disagree with is not limiting speech, but opening speech up and 
guaranteeing free speech.
  Now, here is the problem. People are worried about interest groups 
influencing the Government. But, let me go back one more basic step. 
What is it about Government that people want to influence? Well, what 
it is about Government that people want to influence is that Government 
does things that are very valuable. Government sets the price of 
things. Government runs programs where we set interest rates, where we 
set rents, where we set the price of commodities, where we impose 
regulations that benefit some people and hurt others. Government is a 
major player in the economy as a setter of prices and regulations that 
accumulate and destroy fortunes. So people want to influence 
Government.
  The second reason people want to influence Government is that 
Government spends a lot of money and people want part of it.
  A third reason people want to influence Government is they care about 
it. They care about the future of their children. They love their 
country, and they have philosophies that they believe in. They have a 
vital interest in their children and grandchildren and they take 
seriously either their obligations as a citizen, defined in the 
Constitution, or the biblical admonition, ``Render unto Caesar what is 
Caesar's.''

  Now, nobody wants to limit the third kind of influence, I don't 
think. If somebody loves America and they want to be involved, or if 
somebody believes our colleague from North Carolina is the next Thomas 
Jefferson and they want to support him because they believe in him, 
nobody in this debate

[[Page S2194]]

claims they want to interfere with that right.
  It has always amazed me that never once in the campaign debate has 
anybody proposed eliminating the power that people are trying to affect 
by engaging in campaigns. If we are worried that milk producers are 
going to give money to candidates to raise the price of milk, why not 
stop having the Government set the price of milk? Then, if milk 
producers are involved in the debate, you do not have to worry about 
why they are involved. They are involved because they care and they 
have opinions and they have an interest in the country.
  If we are worried that people are wanting to sleep in the Lincoln 
bedroom or go to a coffee with the President because they want a 
contract from HUD, and we think that is the wrong use of political 
power, why not get HUD out of the contract business? Why do we not 
mandate competitive bidding? Why not eliminate all of this discretion? 
If we are worried that people want a contract or a benefit or 
something, why do we not go after that power and eliminate it? That is 
what the Founders would have said we should do, yet nowhere is that 
being proposed.
  What is being proposed, then, is not eliminating all the reasons 
people want to influence the Government for their own benefit, but what 
is proposed is changing who is allowed to intervene in that debate. The 
basic argument, which on its face is a self-contradiction, always seems 
to be that we want to limit the ability of citizens to contribute to 
the candidate of their choice so that this candidate can express his 
views.
  I have heard nobody object to the AFL-CIO endorsing a candidate, 
which is worth millions of votes nationally, is worth hundreds of 
thousands of volunteers, and has the monetary equivalent of millions of 
dollars. Nobody says there is anything wrong with that. Nobody says 
that there is something wrong with the teacher's union, the National 
Education Association, endorsing the President and putting thousands of 
teachers into phone banks and doing all kinds of letters to their 
members to promote the President.
  But there is an effort to single out one particular type of 
involvement, and that involvement is where a person puts up their time, 
talent, and especially their money to support a candidate. There is 
somehow supposed to be something wrong with somebody writing a check to 
support their local candidate or their State candidate or their 
national candidate. But notice that if we ban contributions completely 
so that nobody could spend any money and so that the only people who 
would have the ability to communicate would be big, powerful 
organizations like the AFL-CIO, organizations that are able to 
manipulate the media--like environmental groups or Ralph Nader--people 
who are rich enough to own newspapers, and people who were simply 
influential enough to command attention for their ideas. I have a 
constituent, Ross Perot, who is worth over a billion dollars. When you 
are worth over a billion dollars, people listen to what you have to 
say.
  But the point is that this effort to limit the ability of free people 
to contribute does not eliminate what people do not like about the 
system; it simply makes other groups more powerful.
  I would like to establish a principle which I think it is made very 
clear by this proposed amendment. What we are seeing here is an effort 
not to eliminate political power, but to redistribute it. Limiting the 
ability of people to raise money or contribute money or spend money 
would clearly eliminate part of the competition in the battle for ideas 
in America. But it would leave all the other competitive groups in 
place and would clearly tilt the balance of power.
  What is really being said here is that something pretty fundamental 
has happened in America. It is really the confluence of two forces, and 
if I were on the other side of this political debate, it would scare me 
to death. No. 1, people don't write small checks, by and large, to 
Democrats. I have had the great honor of heading up the National 
Republican Senatorial Committee, where we had a power that our 
Democratic colleagues never had. We could send out a letter to millions 
of people and we could get hundreds of thousands of people to write us 
checks for $25, $50, or $75. Never was there a day while I was chairman 
of the National Republican Senatorial Committee when the Democrats 
average donor did not give somewhere between 3 and 10 times as much, in 
terms of the amount of money, as our average donor. The plain truth is, 
if your agenda is more government, more taxes, and less freedom, you 
have a hard time sending out a fundraising letter and getting people to 
give. You have to let them sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. You have to 
hold meetings with them. You have to make them believe they might be 
getting something for it. So, obviously, if you are on the losing end 
of this battle of free speech, you want to limit free speech.
  The other force that is coming to bear in this confluence is that 
Reconstruction is over. Reconstruction in the South ended in 1994 when 
we elected a Republican majority of House Members, Senators, and 
Governors from the Old South. It is hard to believe that the Civil War 
and Reconstruction took that long to work its way through the system. 
But it did, and it is forever changed.
  So what we are really seeing here--and, unfortunately, it is aided 
and abetted by those who want the change to occur because it makes them 
more powerful--is an effort to change the political landscape of 
America to give more power to editorial writers, to unions, to 
teachers, to groups that can manipulate the media, and to take power 
away from working men and women who are willing to voluntarily 
contribute their time, their talent, and their money.
  Unfortunately, the people who give report cards on this debate and 
write nasty editorials about our dear colleague from Kentucky are 
editorial writers who are probably the biggest beneficiaries of this 
proposed amendment. After all, if we are limited in our ability to 
either spend our own money or to raise money from other people and then 
spend it, then editorial writers become very, very important. On the 
other hand, if you have the ability to raise money and to tell your 
story, they become far less important. As I have said to those friends 
that I have had in meetings with editorial boards, ``Endorse my 
opponent on the editorial page, and write a good story about me on the 
front page.'' Editorial endorsements are not nearly so important when 
people can engage in free exercise of free speech.
  The issue here is freedom. You either believe in it or you don't. And 
I do. I have never bought, and I will never buy, the logic that 
somehow, if you have 88,000 people in your State who have contributed 
to your Senate campaign, which I do, that somehow we ought to have a 
law that says we can allow up to 50,000 people to contribute, but when 
we reach the point of that 50,000th person that has contributed, the 
50,001st person will not be allowed to participate. I totally and 
absolutely reject that. The whole purpose of this amendment is to limit 
the free speech of that last person because Congress is going to decide 
who will have power, who will exercise it, and how that power will be 
exercised.
  The founders of this nation, in this debate, would rejected this 
proposal. They would have said that if you are worried about Congress 
setting the price of a product, and you are worried that people will 
give money to politicians to try to get a higher price to benefit 
themselves and line their pockets, then take the power to set prices 
away from Congress. If you are worried about construction contracting, 
eliminate the discretion in giving contracts and limit the number of 
contracts that Government is engaged in. But do not limit the ability 
of people to speak and to express their opinion.
  I think it is interesting to note--and it is not a debate that I want 
to get involved in, but I think it is interesting to note--that in the 
amendment before us, when the amendment says that it gives Congress the 
power ``to limit the amount of expenditures,'' it is pretty clear that 
this is very, very broad language. That language could be interpreted, 
it seems to me, to mean something far more than the authors of this 
amendment intended.

  The authors of this amendment intend to limit one particular kind of 
free speech; that is, free speech by a candidate and by that 
candidate's supporters. They clearly do not intend to

[[Page S2195]]

eliminate free speech by editorial writers, by unions, or by whomever 
else. But the point is that this amendment is probably so broad that 
ultimately it could mean the limitation of that free speech as well.
  We have to make a choice as to what we are for. I submit that it is 
very tempting, in looking at these bills, to say, ``What benefits me?'' 
And it is very easy for me to devise a campaign finance reform system 
that benefits me. In fact, I think it is easy for any of us to do that. 
It might well benefit me to limit contributions because then someone 
running against me would have no real opportunity to get the kind of 
exposure I am getting by speaking on television right now with millions 
of people watching C-SPAN. But I think we have to take a longer view of 
what these changes are going to mean to people, 20 years from now, who 
are going to be standing right here where we are standing today.
  Limiting free speech is not in America's interest. This is a very bad 
amendment. The intentions of it are basically founded on the principle 
that free speech and healthy democracy are in conflict. Free speech and 
healthy democracy can never be in conflict because when free speech 
dies, democracy dies. If dead democracy is healthy democracy, then you 
would view that as a good thing. But I do not view it as a good thing.
  The final point on the amendment: We have voted on this as an 
amendment to the balanced budget amendment. I believe that we have 
touched on it with other issues. But today this is a freestanding 
proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I hope 
some of the people who voted for it, as a way of making it harder for 
us to pass the balanced budget amendment, will today vote against it on 
the merits. I know no simpler way of defining what it is about than to 
quote its author when he said, as I have already read two previous 
times, ``What we have is two important values in direct conflict, 
freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy 
democracy. You can't have both.'' If that is the choice--and it is the 
choice --do we not choose free speech? Do we not believe in the end, to 
quote a biblical admonition, ``Ye shall know the truth, and the truth 
shall set you free"?
  Before I yield the floor, I want to say something about our colleague 
from Kentucky, Senator McConnell.
  These issues are very difficult issues. It is not very popular to get 
into a discussion about these issues, and there is one Member of the 
Senate who, more than anybody else, has been willing to stand up on 
these issues, and his leadership and his courage have become 
fundamental to protecting our constitutional rights.
  I just want to say to my colleague from Kentucky that there are 
millions of Americans who will never know your name, who will never 
know what you have done, and certainly there are hundreds of editorial 
writers who will castigate you for it. But I want to tell you in the 
opinion of one of your colleagues, you have earned our great and 
permanent appreciation for the courage you have shown on these kinds of 
issues in standing up for our fundamental constitutional rights. And 
you have certainly earned our admiration and affection for doing it. 
Millions of people who will never know your name, will never know about 
this debate, are beneficiaries of the great leadership you have 
provided.
  I wanted to say that on the floor of the Senate because I believe it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Texas for his brilliant 
discourse on the potential damaging effects of this amendment. I thank 
him deeply for his comments about my work on this first amendment 
issue. He has been a steadfast ally throughout this debate, and I 
appreciate very much his being there when we all needed the Senator to 
be there when we needed to protect the first amendment.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming is here patiently waiting to 
address the body, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  I am pleased to be here today and have an opportunity to address 
Senate Joint Resolution 18, the proposed constitutional amendment to 
limit campaign contributions and expenditures. I am a freshman Senator. 
I came through an election last fall and have a number of things I 
would like to see addressed on campaign reform, but I have to say that 
I do not think a constitutional amendment is the right forum for 
beginning that debate.
  This attempt to exclude core political speech from the first 
amendment's protection is a terrible assault on one of the very 
cornerstones of American representative democracy, the freedom of 
private citizens to participate in the public forum of political 
discourse through freedom of speech.
  This constitutional amendment is dangerous both in its design and its 
broad and sweeping scope. This expansive amendment would grant Congress 
the future power to prohibit independent citizens from distributing 
leaflets, writing editorials, producing independent commercials, and/or 
handing out voter guides if Congress finds these measures to be ``in 
support of or in opposition to a candidate for Federal office.'' This 
is precisely the kind of Government intrusion our Founders feared when 
they drafted and adopted the first amendment to the Constitution. The 
first amendment was designed to protect citizens against the dangers of 
a tyrannical Federal Government. It was adopted because our Founders 
rightly realized that there are some freedoms that are so intrinsic to 
the nature of a representative democracy that they must be protected 
from the momentary wishes of a majority in the Federal Congress.
  When asked what use the Bill of Rights served in our popular 
Government, James Madison explained, ``The political truths declared in 
that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental 
maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the 
national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion.'' 
In other words, it was to protect against such impulses as those now 
suggested by many of the would-be reformers that the founders drafted 
the first amendment's protection of speech in broad and unequivocal 
terms. ``Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.''

  A brief analysis of the effects of this amendment should terrify even 
the most ardent reformers. A few examples should show the chilling 
effect this amendment could have on political freedom of speech. This 
amendment gives Congress the power to set limits on the amount of 
expenditures that may be made in support of or in opposition to a 
candidate for Federal office.
  I will start with the worst example first. Suppose that one party 
again gains control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. In 
order to maintain its monopoly on Government, this Congress could pass 
a law limiting the expenditures of congressional challengers to $5,000. 
What sort of possibility would this give any challenger. Such a 
proposal would all but guarantee a perpetual Congress of incumbents. As 
outlandish as such a proposal sounds on its face, it would be legal 
under this amendment.
  Again, even the freedom of the press could fall under the vast scope 
of this amendment. Let us consider a proposal which would prohibit any 
editorial against a candidate or a group of candidates. Such a law 
could well be passed under this amendment if Congress decides that such 
editorials are expenditures by the newspaper ``in opposition to'' a 
candidate for Federal office. Congress could have the power to limit or 
even prohibit press reports for or against a particular candidate since 
expenditures must be made to print and distribute a newspaper or 
broadcast a television or radio news report.
  Finally, let us consider the case where a private citizen wishes to 
write an editorial or hand out leaflets in favor of a particular 
candidate or his or her positions. Again, this amendment would give 
Congress the power to prohibit such activities. Expenditures must be 
made to write and publish editorials or hand out handbills. Congress 
could pass a law outlawing such expenditures in support of candidates 
if it so desired. This amendment would have a drastic and dangerous 
impact on the free discussion of ideas in this country.

[[Page S2196]]

  Newspapers also might not come under the law but we might come under 
an expenditure law, so they could write things about the candidate to 
which they may now not be able to respond in light of not having 
sufficient funds within the limited amounts.
  Proponents of this constitutional amendment have accepted as their 
first premise in the campaign reform debate that the first amendment to 
our Constitution is incompatible with a healthy electoral process. One 
of the original House sponsors of this gutting of the first amendment 
proclaimed unabashedly: ``What we have is two important values in 
direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns 
in a healthy Democracy. You can't have both.''
  This remarkable confession by one of the leading reformers is as 
startling for its boldness as it is for its inaccuracy. We should 
beware of any campaign reform which can only be achieved by destroying 
the first amendment. This false conflict between free speech and 
democracy was rejected by our Founding Fathers, and it should be 
rejected by the Members of this Senate. Our Founding Fathers rightly 
understood that it is precisely the unhindered protection of freedom 
and open political speech that makes democracy possible.
  I find it fascinating that in the 2 months I have been honored to 
serve in this deliberative body we have debated now two proposed 
constitutional amendments. These two amendments could not be more 
opposed in their purpose or their effect. The balanced budget 
constitutional amendment, of which I was a proud cosponsor, would have 
placed constitutional limits on Congress' power to squander away our 
children's economic future. Senate Joint Resolution 18 would give 
Congress expansive and unprecedented new powers of prohibiting core 
political speech. The balanced budget amendment would have limited the 
Congress' power by restricting its ability to spend money it does not 
have. Senate Joint Resolution 18 would constitutionally expand 
Congress' power to regulate the speech of candidates, businesses, 
private citizens, and perhaps the press and media.
  I support the balanced budget constitutional amendment because I 
believe that by forcing Congress to live within its means, we give our 
States, our communities and, most important, our families more freedom 
to make the decisions which most affect their lives and their futures. 
I have to oppose this constitutional amendment because it would grant 
Federal and State governments the power to stifle one of the most basic 
political freedoms: the freedom of individual citizens to express 
themselves freely and without restraint in the public forum.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in affirming the time-honored wisdom 
of the first amendment of the Constitution by rejecting Senate Joint 
Resolution 18.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished junior 
Senator from Wyoming for his very articulate, knowledgeable speech in 
support of the first amendment. He has made an important contribution 
to this debate, and I am very much appreciative, as are my colleagues 
who feel this is a step in the wrong direction. I very much appreciate 
his contribution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
constitutional amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from 
South Carolina. Allow me to say how much I respect my friend Senator 
Hollings and the years of service he has given to this great body and 
to America. During this time he has seen more than his share of 
scandals and has surely grown tired of and frustrated with what seems 
to be almost daily revelations of political wrongdoing. My argument is 
not with the Senator's motives or his quest for a better campaign 
finance system. I think we all agree with that. My argument is with 
this particular solution.
  In many ways it could not be more fitting for this body to begin the 
important debate over campaign finance reform than with this proposed 
constitutional amendment. As my colleague Senator Enzi said, by 
proposing a constitutional amendment, my distinguished colleague from 
South Carolina concedes what many who support restricting political 
speech fail to recognize: that denying an American citizen his or her 
constitutional right to contribute to a candidate of choice requires a 
fundamental rewriting of our country's most sacred document, our 
Constitution.
  I hope that my colleagues who support this measure will take pause 
and recognize the significance of what they intend to do. In 
particular, I hope that my colleagues who support this measure will 
realize, as Senator Enzi noted, the irony of the fact that less than 2 
weeks ago this body killed a constitutional amendment that would have 
ensured our citizens and future generations a balanced Federal budget. 
Now, some of my colleagues wish to pass a constitutional amendment that 
would restrict one of our most basic constitutional rights--freedom of 
speech.
  The people know that we do not need to amend our Constitution, we 
need to amend our ways. We need to amend ourselves.
  Mr. President, I, like all of my colleagues, am concerned about 
corruption in our political system. And I believe this Congress will 
find ways to improve upon our campaign finance system. But, like 
corruption in any organization or system, it is the people who are 
corrupt, not the system. Why do we blame the system and excuse the 
violators?
  Where is the outrage with those who subvert the system and 
deliberately break the rules and laws already in place?
  The fact is, we already have campaign finance laws. We have a Federal 
Election Commission to enforce those laws. We do not need to 
continually add more layers of laws, regulations, and bureaucracy and 
pass those off to the American people as solutions to the problem. We 
need to deal severely with those who break the law and violate the 
trust and confidence the people have placed in them. We need to make 
certain those who seek public office and their campaign teams follow 
the current law and we need full and complete disclosure of all 
campaign receipts and expenditures for and against candidates, by 
candidates' campaigns, and by all political bodies.
  I do not believe we need to pass a constitutional amendment 
restricting the rights of our citizens. We need to focus on individual 
violations of current law. We need to focus on individual conduct and 
behavior, individual responsibility and accountability. I have often 
said to my colleagues, if each of us in public office conducted our 
campaigns--every aspect of our campaigns--in a manner that our 
constituents could be proud of, then we would not be engaged in this 
debate about campaign finance reform.
  I listened with interest to the political posturing and spins of the 
White House over the weekend and was amused but, more honestly, 
dismayed by what seemed to be an attitude of the end justifying the 
means. As the Wall Street Journal rightly noted in an editorial 
yesterday:

       Public life . . . is about mainly one thing--the law--the 
     rules that all consent to abide by and enforce so that life 
     can be civil.

  The role of a public servant, Mr. President, is to protect the laws 
and make sure they are being followed for the good of society. Our role 
is not to bend, mold, stretch or interpret the law to our own benefit 
or arrogantly disregard it in order to achieve a goal of our own making 
that we may find more noble than others. That is not what we are about.
  If it seems that we have heard this all before it's because we have. 
Senator Hollings knows that. That is why Senator Hollings has taken the 
floor, trying to resolve this issue. For decades, we have debated 
important social issues such as crime and welfare, and that violations 
of our laws were really not the responsibility of individuals--it was 
the system that we needed to fix. Individual accountability really was 
not very important. Life was unfair. ``If we truly want to find a 
solution to all of our problems,'' many argued ``then we should glide 
over individual responsibility and focus on how we can change the 
system.'' More laws, more rules, more regulation.
  Where is the outrage with men and women who have gained the public 
trust but violated it by not being held to the highest ethical and 
moral standards? What we are too often lacking is

[[Page S2197]]

leadership and doing the right thing. We have the laws, we have the 
regulations, we have the enforcement mechanism. But we do not always 
have leaders who do the right thing.
  Mr. President, have we so lowered our standards and expectations in 
politics and society that the only way we can think to curtail 
individual wrongdoing is by amending the constitution? I refuse to 
accept that. I think we are better than that. This country, this 
society, our people are better than that.
  Where is the outrage over individuals who break the law and refuse to 
take responsibility for their actions? Where are the voices demanding 
personal responsibility and accountability? I believe that for too long 
we have been creating a society less dependent on the voluntary rule of 
good behavior by the citizen than on the oppressive mandate of 
Government.
  We must not be swayed by the emotion of the moment, or the pundits 
and politicians who would rather lead us down a dangerous path of 
restricting everyone's rights than have the courage to just do the 
right thing. The proposed constitutional amendment before us today 
would be an enormous step in the wrong direction for a society that has 
already become too dependent on regulation and procedure, and too 
little influenced by the behavior of its individual citizens.
  The goal of meaningful campaign finance reform should be to involve 
more people in the political process--not to curtail their 
constitutional rights.
  More than two centuries ago, the Framers of our Constitution set out 
to build a nation dedicated to government by consent of the governed. 
That Constitution draws its power from only one source: ``We the 
people.''
  For two centuries, we the people have shaped this Nation and made it 
great.
  For two centuries, we the people have chosen our leaders from among 
ourselves and have held them to the highest standards.
  For two centuries, we the people have taken responsibility for the 
Federal Government of the United States of America.
  I sought the privilege to serve in the U.S. Senate with some of my 
distinguished colleagues like Senator Hollings, because I want to take 
power and authority away from the Government and return it to the 
people. I cannot support any proposal that seeks to limit the ability 
of the people to speak--and takes the power to shape our public debate 
away from the public and gives it to the Government. That is what this 
debate is about.
  In Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that the debate 
about campaign finances is about the fundamental role of the people in 
our democratic society. The Court wrote:

       In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not 
     the government, but the people--individually as citizens and 
     candidates and collectively as associations and political 
     committees--who must retain control over the quantity and 
     range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.

  Mr. President, the system has not failed us. Our problems stem from a 
failure of leadership. I am outraged, not by the system, but by the 
deplorable conduct of those few men and women who abuse it. That is 
what outrages the American people.
  Before we reform the Constitution, we should first look at how we 
might reform ourselves.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska for his very important contribution to this debate. He is, 
indeed, correct: What we have before us is an effort to amend the first 
amendment for the first time in the history of this country to give to 
the Government the power to control the speech of individuals, groups, 
candidates and parties. In short, a complete takeover of political 
discourse in this country by the Government.
  I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his important contribution to 
this debate. This amendment needs to be defeated, and defeated soundly, 
in the name of protecting the first amendment. I am sure the Senator 
from Nebraska is as pleased as I am that even the reform group, Common 
Cause, is against this. Even the Washington Post is against this. Even 
the New York Times is against this. I mean, even the reformers think 
this is a bad idea. So this should be rejected and rejected firmly.
  The good thing about this debate is it finally focuses the campaign 
finance debate where it needs to be focused. This is all about 
political speech. I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his important 
contribution.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chair for his 
friendship, even though we don't agree on a particular point, and 
particularly my friend from Nebraska. There is no question that if he 
and I could handle this particular problem--like he says, we would have 
to amend our ways and he and I can amend our ways immediately--we 
wouldn't have the problem that confronts us.
  The Senator from Nebraska did have a comment that was encouraging to 
me. He said let's not be swayed by the emotion of the moment. I think 
that is the only way we are going to get something done, is get an 
emotion of the moment, a fit of conscience, like you saw on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate yesterday afternoon. We had the emotion of the 
moment when we realized that it was a total fraud and farce to just 
investigate illegal activities. The Justice Department is there and 
fully aware and fully performing the investigation of illegal 
activities. Ours in the legislative branch is to investigate the 
improper activities and see what laws we can do to rectify that 
situation, particularly soft money.
  Some who have been on the floor today are the leading opponents of 
soft money, and that brings me right to the opening statement of the 
distinguished occupant of the Chair. He said the constitutional 
amendment is not the way to begin the debate on campaign finance 
reform. I agree. That is not the way to begin the debate on campaign 
finance reform. But the distinguished Senator should understand that we 
began this debate in 1966. The Congress adopted public financing for 
Presidential elections.
  Then, in 1967, we repealed the public financing for Presidential 
elections.
  In 1971, we had the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and 
by 1974, we passed, which is the major act of today, the amendments to 
the Federal Election Campaign Act.
  In 1976, again we had the amendment of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act.
  In 1985, we had the Boren-Goldwater amendment that changed the 
contribution limits and eliminated the PAC bundling. But, Mr. 
President, that was tabled back at that particular time.
  In 1986, we had the Boren-Goldwater amendment adopted.
  In 1988, we had nine votes on the motion to instruct the Sergeant at 
Arms to request attendance while trying to get a vote on S. 2. In fact, 
I think it was at that time we even had to arrest Senators. We are not 
just beginning the debate on campaign finance reform. We had to arrest 
Senators and everybody else to try to get a vote. But in 1988, we had a 
Hollings constitutional amendment to limit campaign expenditures. We 
had to finally file cloture, and that failed by a vote of 53 to 37.

  In 1989, we had S. 139, comprehensive reform, which passed the Senate 
but never made it out of the conference.
  In 1991, we had S. 3. We did pass comprehensive reform of campaign 
financing, and President Bush vetoed it.
  In 1993, we had the Hollings sense of the Senate that Congress should 
adopt a constitutional amendment limiting campaign expenditures.
  In 1993, we had a majority of the Senate vote for it--not the 
Washington Post, not the New York Times, not the Common Cause crowd or 
the ACLU group, but the U.S. Senators, the representatives of the 
people who have been in the game and know it best. The majority said 
that we ought to have a constitutional amendment limiting campaign 
expenditures.
  In 1993, we had S. 3, comprehensive reform, pass the Senate, but it 
never made it out of the conference.
  I say to our distinguished Presiding Officer, in 1995, again, we had 
the Hollings constitutional amendment to

[[Page S2198]]

limit campaign expenditures offered to the balanced budget amendment, 
but that was tabled by a majority of the Senate on a vote of 52 to 45, 
and they had a real chance to do it.
  Then, in 1995, we passed the sense-of-the-Senate amendment to address 
campaign finance reform during the 104th Congress, sort of urging us 
along. We finally are going to get to it. And, in 1996, cloture on the 
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform failed by a vote of 54 to 46.
  Mr. President, you are right, a constitutional amendment is not the 
way to start, but after 30 years of everything that we could get out of 
Common Cause and the Washington Post and all of those disparate groups 
like the ACLU, it is time, I hope, that, as the Senator said, that we 
get swayed by the emotion of the moment, that we get a sort of fit of 
conscience so that we can really act here and realize that if we don't, 
we really are in the hands of the Philistines with this Supreme Court.
  Read this one. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee versus 
the Federal Election Commission:

       Before the Colorado Republican Party selected its 1986 
     senatorial candidate, its Federal Campaign Committee 
     (Colorado Party), the petitioner here, bought radio 
     advertisements attacking the Democratic Party's likely 
     candidate.

  That is not the candidate that is likely. They are ahead of the 
curve.

       The Federal Election Commission brought suit charging that 
     the Colorado party had violated the party expenditure 
     provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which 
     imposes dollar limits upon political party expenditures in 
     connection with the general election campaign of a 
     congressional candidate.
       The Colorado party defended, in part, by claiming that the 
     expenditure limitations violated the first amendment as 
     applied to its advertisements, and filed a counterclaim 
     seeking to raise a facial challenge to the Provision as a 
     whole.
       The district court interpreted the ``in connection with'' 
     language narrowly and held that the Provision did not cover 
     the expenditure at issue. It therefore entered summary 
     judgment for the Colorado party, dismissing the counterclaim 
     as moot.
       In ordering judgement for the FEC, the Court of Appeals 
     adopted a somewhat broader interpretation of the Provision 
     which it said both covered this expenditure and satisfied the 
     Constitution.

  So the judgment was vacated and the case was remanded. But Judge 
Breyer, joined by Justices O'Connor and Souter, concluded that the 
first amendment prohibits the application of the party expenditure 
provision, not the kind of expenditure at issue here, an expenditure 
that the political party has made independently without coordination of 
any candidate.
  That has thrown open the door. That is the soft money. That is the 
headlines. That is the debate. That is the grinding the Government to a 
halt. They talk about closing down the Government in Washington. Well, 
we very actively closed it down with that Colorado decision, because 
you can see the headlines. ``The Poor Party Had to Rent the Lincoln 
Bedroom to Get Money.'' Anything they could do to get money, for 
Heaven's sake.
  If you can believe the distinguished Senator from Texas coming on the 
floor, and if you are convinced that the Republicans are the small 
givers and the Democrats are the big givers, that the Republican Party 
is the party of the poor and the Democratic Party is the party of the 
rich, you will believe that the world is flat. This is just flat 
nonsense.
  I mean, come on. They come in here with all this erudition and quote 
something about a gentleman over on the House side stating that there 
are two important values: The freedom of speech and our desire for a 
healthy campaign and a healthy democracy. And you cannot have both. And 
the free speech must die in order to have a healthy democracy. Nobody 
believes that, including the gentleman on the House side. I can tell 
you that here and now.
  The Senator from Texas says, ``Do you believe in free speech or not? 
That is the question.'' We all believe in free speech. And we go about 
this with trepidation. Only after 30 years and all the initiatives and 
arresting the Members and cloture votes after cloture votes, and, yes, 
coming back to the people in a sense of that is what we need do, that 
is what we need do. And then when we start to do it, we come on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate and talk about Patrick Henry and freedom of 
speech and everything else.
  This has to do with whether or not you believe in limits on campaign 
spending. Every one of you believes in limits of the free speech of 
political contributions. That is the Buckley versus Valeo decision. 
None of these speakers coming up here opposing this particular 
initiative have come forward and said, ``Oh, wait a minute. Let's take 
the limits off on contributions.'' They would not have the unmitigated 
gall to say that because they know that the evil here is too much 
money.
  If you are going to take the limits off on the contributions and 
everything else, we are gone as a republic, you are not going to decide 
anything in the marketplace of ideas. It is all going to be in the 
financial marketplace. The very idea that we had, the intent of the 
national Congress, in 1974 was that you cannot buy the office. Under 
the Buckley versus Valeo decision, now coupled with this Colorado soft 
money nonsense, you must buy the office.
  What did the Senator from Kentucky say, as to withdrawing from 
running again, on the day before yesterday? That he resented the idea 
of having to get up all that kind of money. What did the Senator from 
Ohio say? The same thing. We who have been in it and everything else--I 
resent it, you resent it.

  It is time now that we act. And do not give us this Patrick Henry. 
The Senator from Utah was quoting Patrick Henry. And the Senator from 
Texas followed him, and he said about free speech, ``You bet your 
boots, Patrick Henry had free speech in the campaign.'' There was not 
any radio to buy. There was not any TV to buy. There was not any 
political consultant to buy. There was not any money to get out the 
vote to buy.
  You can go on down the list of all the things. That is when the 
Constitution had free speech. But as J. Skelly Wright stated--and I 
want to get that right--J. Skelly Wright, the eminent jurist, he said 
here, Judge Wright in the Yale Law Journal--and I quote:
  ``Nothing in the first amendment commits us to the dogma that speech 
is money.''
  We are not talking about what is free. We are talking about what is 
expensive, what is paid for. They know it. You know it. I know it. You 
have all the free speech you want.
  When they talk about the newspapers, you can take the present law. 
They raise these straw men again and again and again. The Senator from 
Utah, he got up and said that the Congress could come back and put such 
low limits on candidates that only the incumbents would prevail, that 
we incumbents would come in here and Congress might decide not to let 
anyone oppose them by putting just a limit of $100. Now where have you 
heard such a thing?
  None of this is in the Senator from South Carolina's constitutional 
amendment. The Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania--it is bipartisan. I could go on down the list of none of 
that nonsense of the straw men that could happen. I am going to give 
one example and then yield to my distinguished colleague.
  I know what can happen under the present law because I had it happen 
to me. The Senator from Texas ran that campaign against me in 1992. And 
we will get to some issues there in a minute. Since he acknowledged he 
had that experience, I want to tell you about his experience and what 
he charged falsely.
  But getting right to the point, right before we were going to vote, 
the week before the election day--they are very clever. They had, 
first, the Wall Street Journal come out with three articles. The Wall 
Street Journal has never mentioned me before or since. They could care 
less about Hollings from South Carolina. But they had three spitball 
articles in there about the right to work and how I was against 
business.
  They even had coordinated it with the London Economist with ``Quits 
for Fritz.'' Robert Novak, he came on Saturday night in ``Capitol 
Gang.'' And he said it is also, ``Quits for Fritz,'' ``The white-headed 
Senator from South Carolina will bite the dust.'' Well, I am here.

[[Page S2199]]

  But if you want to use their logic, I would sue Dow Jones. I would 
sue the Wall Street Journal, that they own, for coming in and making a 
contribution to my opponent under the present law. Now everybody knows 
that is out of the question. The press is going to have freedom of the 
press, and we all defend it.
  But under the silly roundabout analysis they give in erecting these 
straw men on the floor--and I think even the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming said that while they did not think newspapers were covered, 
newspapers could write, but you would not have the money to rebut 
it. You see the dilemma of the Senator from South Carolina. That is 
exactly the way it was. I did not have the money to rebut it. I had to 
let it go the last weekend, going right into that election. There was 
not any way to buy time to rebut it. There was not any way to answer it 
at all.

  We have that under the present law. But if you limit, as we intended 
back in 1974, spending as well as expenditures, then all this bundling, 
soft money and everything else, comes under control because you have to 
disclose, you have a limited amount. We will still exercise free 
speech, get out and hustle, like I used to do in the early days of my 
political career.
  I ran for the legislature on $100. I went all over the county and I 
shook hands and saw everybody. I lucked out. I was elected. I was 
almost elected by free speech. So I enjoy free speech. When it is so 
expensive that all you can to is collect money to get on TV to collect 
money to get on TV to collect money to get on TV, all as expressed by 
Justice Byron White in the dissenting opinion of Buckley versus Valeo, 
``put the Congress back on a treadmill.'' That is his expression, and 
so aptly expressed. You can see exactly what we have.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague. I 
appreciate his leadership on this floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the initiative offered 
today by the Senator from South Carolina. I do not very often come to 
the floor supporting constitutional amendments. I think we ought to 
change the Constitution very rarely.
  I think the Supreme Court has made an error here in the Buckley 
versus Valeo decision. It was a decision by one vote in the Supreme 
Court, and the decision stands logic on its head. The Supreme Court 
said it is perfectly constitutional to limit campaign contributions but 
it is not constitutional to limit campaign spending. Limiting campaign 
spending, they say, is an abridgement of free speech. I have no idea 
how the Supreme Court can conceive a logic like that that says it is 
fine to limit campaign contributions, but you cannot limit spending. We 
ought to be able to have reasonable spending limits in campaigns.
  The Senator from South Carolina brings an initiative to the floor 
that is the first initiative, in my judgment, in this Congress that 
says let's reform our campaign finance system in this country. If you 
need evidence that that needs doing, pick up any paper and go to any 
page in the last 6 weeks. If you still need evidence, it means you 
cannot read. All around us there is evidence that we must reform this 
campaign finance system.
  Will Rogers once said something that is probably appropriate to quote 
in this Chamber, a Chamber that used to have spittoons between every 
desk, he said, ``When there is no place left to spit, you either have 
to swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times.'' We either 
have people willing to vote for this and change with the times, 
understanding this is necessary and it is necessary now, or I hope they 
will sit around here and swallow their tobacco juice, because if you 
still believe campaign finance reform is not necessary, if you still 
believe, as some do, that there is not enough spending in campaigns and 
we ought to spend more, and there are people here who believe that, 
then you are sadly off track with what the American people know about 
American politics.
  I want to refer to a chart. The chart shows spending since 1992. 
Wages have gone up 13 percent since 1992. Spending on education has 
increased 17 percent since 1992. So in 4 years, 1992 to 1996, wages in 
America went up 13 percent, spending on education went up 17 percent, 
and spending on politics in our country went up 73 percent, 73 percent.
  There are people still in this Congress who say and have said 
repeatedly there is not enough spending in American politics. I have no 
idea what part of the world you would look in order to find their head. 
How on Earth can you decide with the kind of political inflation we 
have seen, where the spending on politics in America outstrips by 
multiples the spending on other things, how on Earth can you conclude 
there is not enough spending in politics? The fact is there is too much 
spending in politics.

  Now, we could change that by ourselves. We do not need changes to the 
Constitution. In 1992, the election that Senator Hollings was speaking 
of, I was running for the Senate in 1992. I said to my opponent, let us 
provide in North Dakota the most unusual campaign in America. I was 
already an incumbent, a Member of the House of Representatives, so I 
said I am better known than you are, but let me make you a deal. I said 
I will propose this. Let us decide between the two of us not to do any 
advertising--no television, no newspapers, no radio, no advertising at 
all, neither of us. We pledge to do that, and instead pool our money, 
and from September 1, Labor Day, to the election day in November, let 
us, once a week, buy prime time television statewide in North Dakota, 
pool our money, pay half the costs, each of us. We come to this, 1 
hour, each week, prime time, with no notes, no handlers, just us, and 
no moderator, and we spend an hour a week on prime time television, the 
two of us, telling North Dakotans why we are running for public office, 
what we believe in, what our passion is, what we believe is necessary 
for the future of this country. At the end of those 8 weeks you will be 
as well-known as I am, because I am an incumbent, I am already well-
known, you will be as well-known as I am. Prime time, an hour a week, 8 
weeks, we could simulcast throughout the State, and at the end of the 8 
weeks, North Dakota would have the most unique campaign in the country. 
No slash and burn 30-second ads, none. There would only have been 8 
hours of debate between two people who desired to hold public office 
and who told the people why they aspire to be able to be given this 
public trust, why they wanted to hold public office, what their dreams 
were for the future of this country, what their vision was in public 
policy changes for America's future.
  It would have been the most unique campaign in the country. I regret 
my opponent said no. I do not know why he said no. He said no. It was a 
mistake on his part. I am here, so I can say it was a mistake on his 
part. I think it would have been a better campaign for him and for me 
had he accepted it, and certainly a better campaign for North Dakotans. 
But he chose to run the kind of campaign that I had to respond to with 
30-second ads here and 30-second ads there, and those are not very 
informative.
  Despite the fact that we have these techniques in the 30-second ads, 
I might say to my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, I introduced 
a bill dealing with that in the Congress, the 30-second ads. Do you 
know that in political spending, a substantial amount of the money in 
all campaigns goes to television. The law requires that the television 
stations provide the lowest rate that they provide for their commercial 
advertisers, the lowest rate for political advertising. So I suggested 
that we require that the law say that the lowest rate for political 
advertising will only apply to commercials that are at least 1 minute 
in length, and only commercials in which the candidate appears on the 
commercial--75 percent of the commercial. Get rid of the slash and burn 
30-second ads, no more of the anonymous voices with slash and burn 
negatives. I think that is the right incentive, but that is a different 
subject for a different date.
  My point is, there is no one I think who can credibly argue that we 
are not spending enough in politics. Clearly, political spending is 
mushrooming in this country. What shall we or could we do about it? The 
Senator from South Carolina offers a solution. His solution is one that 
says let us provide that with the right approach we could reasonably 
limit campaign expenditures. The Supreme Court has said that

[[Page S2200]]

is unconstitutional. The Senator from South Carolina says, well, change 
the Constitution. We should never approach that easily or quickly, but 
I am with him. Frankly, I guess I would like to see us go to the 
Supreme Court a second time, and say will you not correct the error you 
made the first time? I think there might be a chance of getting that 
done because it was a decision by one vote.

  In any event, I think that one of the solutions for campaign finance 
reform is to limit campaign spending. Is that an inhibition of free 
speech? Is it an inhibition of free speech to tell somebody who has 
$100 million, ``You can't spend $30 million buying a seat someplace''? 
Is that what the Framers of the Constitution decided democracy was 
about--to make some money, ante up to the trough, and plunk down $30 
million and buy a seat? I don't think so. I don't think that's what the 
method of selecting people who serve in representative government was 
envisioned to be by the Framers of our Constitution.
  This is the first effort to say to my colleagues: Do you believe in 
campaign finance reform, or don't you? Campaign finance reform. Boy, if 
we need more discussion about that, then this must be an empty well; 
this must be a pit without a bottom.
  I want to describe what we have had on campaign finance reform in a 
decade. We have had 6,700 pages of hearings, 3,300 floor speeches, 
2,700 pages of Congressional Research Service reports, 113 Senate 
votes, 522 witnesses, 49 days of testimony, 29 different sets of 
hearings by 8 different congressional committees, 17 filibusters, 8 
cloture votes on one bill alone, and one Senator arrested and dragged 
to the floor of the Senate. I wasn't here at that point, but I assume 
Senator Hollings was and could describe in remarkable detail whoever 
was dragged to the floor. And there were 15 reports issued by 6 
different congressional committees.
  Now, given that history, can we find some Senators who say we are not 
ready and it is not time for campaign finance reform? The honest 
answer, by some, is: Let's not have any reform. Some would say: Let's 
decide there ought to be more money spent. Let's make campaigning a 
commercial product. Let's have campaigns compete with Rolaids, dog 
food, gasoline, and automobiles, in terms of consumer preference. 
Whoever has the most money can advertise the most.
  But the Senator from South Carolina has raised, for most of this 
afternoon, the right questions. We can spend forever now, talking about 
what happened in the past. We will and we should. There isn't anything 
about campaign finance abuses that ought not be investigated if there 
are reasonable and credible claims of abuses. The FBI is investigating 
some questions. The Justice Department is investigating some questions. 
Yesterday, we decided--and I voted for it, as did the Senator from 
South Carolina--that a committee ought to investigate some of these 
questions.
  There are some serious questions about foreign countries intending to 
influence American elections that ought to be investigated, and they 
will be. The American people deserve to know that is the case. But the 
American people deserve more than just a look back. The American people 
deserve a Congress that is going to look ahead and say, how do we 
respond to this question of galloping inflation in campaign finance 
spending? The galloping inflation of a campaign system that seems 
almost out of control--spending more and more and more money in State 
after State, in district after district. There are a hundred reasons to 
prevent something, and it is easy to do.
  The Senator from South Carolina had the job this afternoon of coming 
and supporting an affirmative proposition, the first proposition on the 
floor of the Senate to respond to campaign finance reform. I think it 
was Mark Twain who was asked once to be a participant in a debate. He 
said, ``Of course, I will be happy to debate, provided I get to take 
the negative side.'' He was told, ``But you have not asked what the 
subject was.'' And he said, ``The subject doesn't matter. You don't 
need any preparation to be on the negative side.''
  That is pretty much true with any debate. The easiest proposition in 
the world is to be on the negative side. Senator Hollings brings to the 
floor a proposition that is very simple. This proposition is that what 
is wrong with campaigns in American politics today is too much money is 
spent. There is too much money around. This is not a democracy that was 
on the auction block, for sale.

  The framers of our Constitution did not envision that representative 
government was part of a bidding process. We have tried, in a number of 
different ways, to propose that we have reasonable limits that 
competitors in this political system would agree to, and we have 
discovered that the Supreme Court says those limits are 
unconstitutional. As much as I disagree with the Supreme Court, their 
decision stands. The Senator from South Carolina now says, let us alter 
that by making the change he proposes. Does it infringe on free speech? 
I don't think so. Would it hurt our political system? No, it would help 
our political system. Would it restore the confidence of the American 
people in this system? I think so. Would it do the right thing in 
trying to propose some sensible spending limits that are enforceable? 
Sure.
  Now, we can turn this down, and there may be the votes to do that. 
But the question everyone ought to ask for those who turn this down is, 
what next? If you decide this is not the way, then what is the way? Or 
do you like things just as they are? Do you find recreational reading 
about campaigns, about the political system in our country, up to its 
neck in money, do you find that interesting and fun to read about? Or 
do you really believe that there are ways for us to make some sense out 
of campaign finance reform in a way that would improve this system?
  We had campaign finance reform over 20 years ago, in the 1970's, and 
it worked for awhile. I think there are people on all sides of the 
political spectrum who have stretched that and distorted it and 
discolored it in dozens of ways and found loopholes and hired the best 
minds to figure out how you jump the fence and get under the fence and 
through the fence, and the 1970's reforms don't work anymore. So the 
question will be, should we reform this system now? Or should we just 
let this roll along and decide it is just fine?
  The American people know the answer to that. The American people 
understand that things are not just fine. The American people support 
campaign finance reform. This is the first bill and the first 
opportunity Members of the Senate will have to say: I want to stand up 
for campaign finance reform.
  I ask those who say ``no'' to this, then what? Do you believe the 
current system works? If you do, you can fit in a mighty small phone 
booth with all the rest of the American people who believe as you do. 
If you believe this system is broken and needs to be repaired, if you 
believe this ought to be fixed, that we ought to stand up for our 
political system and for its future health, then I think this is a 
reasonable approach to decide that spending limits make sense. I intend 
to vote for it. I was pleased to cosponsor the initiative offered by 
the Senator from South Carolina.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand that we are about to close 
debate for this afternoon. Let me thank the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota, because he put the issue involved in a very calm and 
succinct fashion. What we have done here was done with tremendous 
caution. We haven't come and said, ``Here is the solution.'' We have 
come and said, ``Here is the authority to solve it.'' Now, they bring 
in these red herrings and everything about the freedom of speech. We 
are not disturbing the freedom of speech at all. We would not disturb 
the freedom of speech, except for Buckley versus Valeo, which did put a 
hole in that first amendment, as they use that expression.
  They say we are limiting the freedom of speech for the political 
contributor. He can only give so much. If that is what it is, if money 
is the expression, then that group is limited. But the real evil in 
causing our dilemma here over the past 30 years, particularly with this 
Colorado decision now that puts a premium on buying the office by the 
national parties, if we don't act now to at least have the authority, 
we don't say in this amendment that the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky is

[[Page S2201]]

right. We don't say that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky is 
wrong. He may later on, with the authority, prevail. They might 
increase spending. Like I say, we are not spending more on yogurt and 
Crackerjacks, and whatever else they had around here. I have forgotten 
the things they brought up. I would not have dared to stand up as a 
candidate and say I spent $86,000 for food. I could not hope to get 
elected in South Carolina buying $86,000 worth of lunches. That, 
perhaps, points to the dilemma.
  The public that I represent and have worked with over the years 
really is asking and begging. That is why they included the States.
  Mr. President, we know that, as in warfare, he who controls the air 
controls the battlefield. In politics, he who controls the airwaves 
controls the campaign. That is where all the money is. That is what we 
are trying to limit. But I do not say that by voting for this that you 
limit. I only say that by voting for this you give constitutional 
authority because you see the extremes of the Supreme Court--it is the 
``Extreme Court of the United States''--when they come with the Buckley 
versus Valeo distortion. It is the ``Extreme Court of the United 
States'' that comes with Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee 
against the Federal Election Commission.
  So, right to the point, we are saying that we can amend this 
Constitution, that the last five of six amendments dealt with 
elections, that certainly the weight of money as qualifying a vote was 
constitutionally outlawed in the 24th amendment. We ought to outlaw 
extreme and expensive expenditures in this. That would be the 28th 
amendment, I think. They approved these particular amendments in 18.1 
months, which was the average. We know we can get this approved next 
year in 1998, and we will be on the road to really getting campaign 
finance reform.
  This is the acid test. Do you believe in limiting, or do you not 
believe in limiting? We are talking about expenditure of paid speech--
not free speech. It does not affect free speech whatever. You don't 
affect it under the Constitution. We wouldn't dare try to affect it 
under the Constitution. And, of course, after the 30 years and all of 
the debates in three Congresses having given us a majority here in the 
U.S. Senate saying we believe in a constitutional amendment and let's 
see if we can at least get that majority, they are really coming now 
and are so opposed to McCain-Feingold and are so opposed to any 
campaign finance reform as to vote this down. Then we will know exactly 
where they stand.
  I thank my distinguished colleague from Kentucky. I appreciate the 
debate this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________