[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 33 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2311-S2315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in his recent announcement that our friend
from Kentucky, Wendell Ford, will retire at the end of the term, he
said something very instructive and most of us may recall it. It was
only a few days ago. Those who love and know the Senator knows he never
fails to be instructive in his uniquely witty way. The Senator from
Kentucky said one major
[[Page S2312]]
reason he was not running again was because he did not want to spend
the next 2 years raising $100,000 a week. Those were his words,
$100,000 a week to raise the necessary dollars to run for reelection in
Kentucky.
With that statement, Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky
captured, I think, with crystal clarity, the essence of this debate
over campaign finance reform. I think most of us would agree there is
just too much money in our political system, and it takes far too much
money for the average American to be a part of the political system. So
I rise this afternoon to speak about campaign finance reform and what I
believe we must do to fix our campaign finance system.
As my colleagues know, I just completed a 2-year term as the general
chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I did not ask for that
job, but, nonetheless, I am very proud to have been asked to serve in
that capacity, an honor bestowed on two other Members in recent years.
The former majority leader, Bob Dole, served as general chairman of the
Republican National Committee, and Paul Laxalt served as general
chairman of the Republican National Committee.
My tenure as general chairman brings a unique perspective to campaign
finance reform. I wish to speak briefly about the Hollings campaign
finance reform constitutional amendment and the McCain-Feingold finance
reform bill that is pending before this body.
I will also, as I said earlier, speak about the role of the Federal
Election Commission in our campaign finance system and will introduce a
bill shortly that I think will strengthen the FEC and enable it to do
the job with which it has been charged by the U.S. Congress.
Mr. President, we have been speaking over the last few days about
amending the Constitution, and, like most of my colleagues, I am
extraordinarily wary of constitutional amendments. I believe, as I
think most do, that our Constitution is a sacred organic document that
has guided our lawmakers and this Nation and protected our rights
successfully, by and large, for the past 200 years.
The citizens of this Nation have found it necessary to amend the
Constitution only 27 times in over 200 years, 17 times since the Bill
of Rights was written, and they have been wise, I think, in that
restraint. But more than 20 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in what
I believe to be a flawed decision by that Court, the Buckley versus
Valeo decision, that very simply, money equals political speech.
I have never quite seen the logic in that decision. I believe that
the poor woman next door who can only make a very small or no
contribution at all has just as much right to be heard as someone who
can make a sizable contribution, and, yet, obviously the voices have
different weight. So I do not believe we ought to necessarily assume
because people can or cannot make a contribution that their voices are
going to be heard with the same volume and intensity.
I am not alone in this assessment that the Buckley decision is
flawed. Fifty prominent constitutional scholars led by Ronald Dworkin,
and 24 attorneys general, believe the Buckley decision was simply
wrong.
So, while money floods endlessly in our election system, the voice of
the average American too often is drowned out. My fear is democracy
will be the victim. I repeat, I am extremely wary of amending the
Constitution, much less the first amendment, but I have come to the
conclusion that there is simply too much money in the system and that
our campaign finance troubles are so great that I think an amendment is
warranted in this case. Therefore, I am lending my name as a cosponsor
and will be supporting the constitutional amendment when it comes for a
vote before this body.
But I think we must also be realistic. The fact is that this
amendment is going to fail. There are not enough votes to carry it. I
know that, and I think the Senator from South Carolina does as well.
The process of passing this amendment would be a long and arduous one,
if it is ever passed, and I understand that as well.
We simply cannot, however, let our democracy languish, in my view, in
the current campaign finance system any longer, much less until we are
able to pass a constitutional amendment, which makes clear everyone has
a right to be heard regardless of how much money they have, how deep
their pockets are. That is why I am a strong supporter of the McCain-
Feingold legislation that has been the subject of much discussion over
the past several months.
One of the McCain-Feingold's great advantages is that it is written
with the Supreme Court's Buckley versus Valeo decision, in mind. Trying
to avoid the assertions that have been made by many, and I believe with
good reason, they are concerned whether or not this bill would actually
pass constitutional muster. But I think Senator McCain and Senator
Feingold have gone out of their way to try and craft this bill in such
a way as to answer those concerns that have been raised by legitimate
scholars of the Constitution and legitimate scholars of the Buckley
versus Valeo decision.
The bill acknowledges, as I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, the
constitutional constraints laid out in Buckley, and it tries to fashion
a workable solution to most of our campaign finance problems, including
the soft money issue, within those constraints.
Since the opening gavel of the 105th Congress, the Senate and the
House, and much of Washington--of course the media--have spent
countless hours discussing the fundraising practices that have been
raised during the 1996 elections. Finally, a couple of days ago, the
Senate finalized the budget and scope of the investigation into most of
these alleged improprieties.
It will be an investigation that will examine aspects of both
Presidential and congressional elections, performed with a reasonable
amount of money, in my view, and within a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. President, you may recall, and others may recall, that I
abstained during those votes. I did so not because I did not support
the investigation. On the contrary, I do support the investigation. I
think it is necessary. Rather, as I explained before the Rules
Committee last week, I did abstain in order to avoid any question about
the motives that I might have in casting votes on various matters that
could have come up.
As it turned out, we had only a couple of votes, and they were
carried unanimously in this Chamber. I could not have anticipated that,
given the division during the consideration of the resolution in the
Rules Committee and prior to the consideration of it when it came to
the floor of the Senate. I did not want my motives to be impugned or
second-guessed and decided, having served as the general chairman of
the Democratic National Committee, I would abstain on the votes
affecting that investigation and that committee's work.
I am glad, as I said earlier, that an agreement has been reached
unanimously, and I hope it will get us to the bottom of all of the
alleged misdeeds that have been raised by everyone in this process,
Republicans, Democrats, and others.
That said, I think it is clear that while Americans want us to find
out what happened in 1996, it is just as clear that they are also
asking us to fix a system that led to the alleged problems that
occurred in 1996. Indeed, Americans have been urging us for quite some
time to fix our campaign finance system, and I do not think we need to
wait much longer or go through lengthy hearings to analyze the various
proposals and ideas that have been suggested.
We need not wait for an investigation. We do not have to wait for the
conclusion of a debate on a constitutional amendment. The McCain-
Feingold legislation, I think, is the way we can do that, and I believe
we should do it now. Indeed, the questions raised during the last
election about campaign finance spending serve, I think, to highlight
the critical importance of the need for immediate legislative action.
Over the past 10 years, Mr. President, this Congress has spent a
great deal of time looking at our campaign finance laws. Let me share
with you a litany of how much we have accumulated in terms of testimony
and ideas that have come forward.
The Congress has produced in 10 years 6,742 pages of congressional
hearings on campaign finance reform.
[[Page S2313]]
There have been 3,361 speeches that have been given on the floor of
this body on campaign finance reform. There has been over 1,000 pages
of committee reports on campaign finance reform. There have been 113
votes in the U.S. Senate on campaign finance reform. We have heard from
522 witnesses before the U.S. Senate on campaign finance reform. And we
have had one bipartisan commission established to examine campaign
finance reform and make suggestions. And yet, at the conclusion of all
of that, Mr. President, we are no better off today than we were 10
years ago on this issue.
So while I am certain there will be additional hearings this year, I
would urge those who may be interested in examining various ideas--I am
quite confident the bulk of the speech and documents and hearings and
testimony already accumulated, the amount of evidence, I think, would
provide us with the basis for crafting legislation and answering the
questions that have been raised.
Survey after survey of Americans in this country indicates that
people believe our campaign system is in desperate need of reform. What
is worse, the same surveys indicate that the American people's lack of
faith in the campaign system is translating itself--this may be the
most serious problem aside from the issue of campaign contributions and
donations--the most serious problem may not be that, as bad as that is,
but the lack of faith, the declining level of faith that the American
people have in our democratic institutions. For that is at the very
heart of what is at stake here.
Some of our colleagues who oppose reform have said we need more, not
less, money in politics. Well, Mr. President, we have gotten more.
There is no question about it--a fourfold increase in campaign finance
donations in just the past 8 years, from $220 million raised by both
parties in 1988, to $881 million raised in 1996, a 73-percent increase
over 4 years ago--a 73-percent increase in political costs since 1992.
While wages rose 13 percent and education costs rose 17 percent during
that same period of time, the cost and expenditures of campaigns rose
73 percent.
And what has all that money done? How has it paid off? One might
assume, well, if we spent more money and more people are involved
today, more people are participating, maybe it is worth it. That
assumption is clearly wrong.
Last November, Mr. President, only 49 percent of the eligible
population in the United States of America bothered to vote in a
Presidential election. That is the lowest turnout since the 1920's,
more than 70 years ago. So while the dollar volume has increased, the
amount of ads have risen, and proliferation about people's points of
view have certainly grown tremendously, we are watching an inverse
reaction and fewer and fewer people seem to be participating in the
process.
While there is a great deal of attention, obviously, in the media and
here on Capitol Hill on the Democratic Party's efforts to raise
campaign funds, I think it is important that we try to put this issue
in perspective.
First of all, let me say at the outset, Mr. President, I think that
my party, the Democratic Party, made a huge error in 1993 when
President Clinton was inaugurated into office. The Democrats were in
the majority in the U.S. Senate. We were in the majority in the House
of Representatives. We should have passed, in my view, campaign finance
reform, and we did not. I think those who wish to take us to task on
that issue are right in doing so. We made a mistake. And we missed an
opportunity.
Having said that, Mr. President, the mistake should not be
compounded, in my view, by letting the succeeding Congresses go on
without trying to come to terms with this issue. And if nothing else
comes out of the great attention to what happened in 1996, then maybe,
just maybe, that as a result of the attention being paid to what
happened, we might finally get an opportunity here to come together and
pass some meaningful campaign finance reform.
But, Mr. President, I cannot resist in pointing out as well that when
it comes to the question of dollars raised in these efforts, of course,
in the last cycle our friends on the Republican side raised $549
million compared to the $332 million raised by the Democratic Party.
Second, of course, Democrats have long supported reform. Many
Republicans do as well. In fact, the lead cosponsor of the bill that I
mentioned earlier, the McCain-Feingold, is a Republican. For those who
may not be familiar with our colleague from Arizona, John McCain is a
Republican, and Russ Feingold is a Democrat from Wisconsin. And yet
despite that, in the previous Congress we had 46 out of 47 Democrats
support John McCain's bill along with Russ Feingold. But it failed to
muster the necessary votes to break a filibuster.
We had a majority of people here that were willing to at least bring
the McCain-Feingold bill to the floor, but you need, of course, a
supermajority to break a filibuster. We never could produce the
supermajority even to bring the bill up so the people could offer their
ideas and suggestions on how they might modify or amend the McCain-
Feingold proposal.
Mr. President, I have been involved in these issues for some time,
going back to 1979 when some of the first proposals were offered on
limiting political action committees. I count about 6 proposals that
have come up in the past 10 years or so, mostly in the mid-1980's,
which I supported and was anxious to see come to a vote.
I am a cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill and was when it was
first introduced in 1995.
Let me quickly say about the McCain-Feingold bill, Mr. President,
this is hardly what I would call a perfect piece of legislation. I have
never seen one of those anyway, and this certainly does not fall into
that category either. And there are areas, clearly, where I think some
changes may be necessary.
But, in my view, Mr. President, it represents the best place to
begin. If our standard is going to be that we will not bring up
legislation unless it is perfect, then we would never bring up any
legislation. And so, McCain-Feingold, I think, ought to be the proper
vehicle. It is the one that has garnered the most attention and
support, and, as I said earlier, it does try to track very carefully
the concerns that were raised by the Buckley versus Valeo decision.
It is clear, I think, if we were truly and effectively to clean up
our campaigns, we must provide the appropriate agency, however, with
the tools to do so.
Mr. President, we must give, in my view, the Federal Election
Commission the power to promptly and effectively enforce the laws. It
has been suggested that we do not need new laws; we just need to make
the present ones work. There is some legitimacy in that. It is not
entirely wrong.
We need also, I argue, to be able to enforce the laws that today
prohibit certain activities. But I think one thing that was said over
and over again last fall and this winter is, the very agency we created
and charged with being the cop on the beat when it comes to campaign
finance reform is basically a toothless tiger. We created an agency and
then deprived it of the tools and the resources necessary to do the
very policing that ought to be done to help try and avoid some of the
problems that some have suggested have occurred, in this past campaign.
Over the past few years, the sheer number of cases, Mr. President,
that the FEC has dealt with is growing, and the growing complexity of
campaign laws and a series of counterproductive court cases are making
it increasingly difficult for the Federal Election Commission to
fulfill, in my view, its watchdog role in a timely and effective
manner.
I sat through the testimony of the FEC before the Rules Committee a
few weeks ago, Mr. President. I was shocked to learn, for instance, the
tremendous backlog in the caseload at the Federal Election Commission
and the sharp increase in the activity that the Federal Election
Commission has been asked to oversee.
At the end of December, the FEC had a total caseload of 361 cases.
Because of reductions in staff, only 112 of those cases are active,
compared to 160 active cases in 1995.
And the case filed in October, I might point out, by the Democratic
National Committee, in which the Democratic National Committee asked
the FEC to investigate its campaign fundraising in
[[Page S2314]]
the 1996 elections--I might point out, even before the election had
occurred--I discovered has not even begun yet. Here we are in the
middle of March, and a request was made in October to look at
allegations involving the Democratic National Committee has not even
begun. That was prior to the election, and they have not even begun to
look at the issues because they lack enough staff to do so.
Here is the body and the organization, the agency, as I said earlier,
that is the cop on the beat, and they have not even begun to look at
the questions that were raised last fall.
Add to that heavy 1996 workload of regular cases, Mr. President: In
1996, the FEC was asked to examine 33 percent more complaints than it
did in 1994.
Congressional spending in 1996 general elections was $626.4 million--
just the congressional elections here--$626.4 million. That was an
increase of about 7 percent since 1994 levels, 2 years earlier. It was
the FEC that had to oversee this spending.
And an unprecedented $2.5 billion in financial activity was reported
to the Commission in 1996.
In my view, Mr. President, a restructuring and strengthening of the
Federal Election Commission is long overdue. That is why today, Mr.
President, I will be introducing Federal Election Commission
improvement legislation.
I have not written an aggressive or radical proposal to overhaul the
FEC. Rather, this bill stands as a modest effort to give the FEC the
resources and the authority it needs to properly enforce our campaign
finance laws.
Because, Mr. President, I so strongly support the FEC improvement
provisions in the McCain-Feingold bill, the proposed legislation I will
offer shortly simply repeats them. I also add a few other provisions of
my own.
I have heard numerous colleagues say over and over again, campaign
finance reform is not the issue in 1997.
It is the illegalities of 1996 that many say must be the issue. Yet,
at the same time as they make that assertion, we hear that they are
against funding and providing the authority to the very agency that
should be the first one to uncover and punish any wrongdoing.
If we are serious about enforcing the law, Mr. President, then the
bill I introduce today deserves serious and, I hope, favorable
consideration by my colleagues. The Federal Election Commission has
been called a toothless tiger, and it is; an ineffectual agency, and it
is; a monument to congressional paralysis, and it is. It is time to
change it.
My bill authorizes full funding for the FEC, including a $1.7 million
supplemental fiscal year 1997 appropriation to enable the Commission to
handle this increased workload that I have enumerated.
And to satisfy our friends who have said that we must try and get as
much reporting and disclosure as soon as possible, this legislation
also requires electronic filing. Increased disclosure is the magic
elixir, some have suggested, so by mandating electronic filing at the
Federal Election Commission for all Federal candidates' reports, we
would ensure that disclosure reports are available in a timely fashion.
Too often the reports become available weeks and months after the
election is all over with. Electronic filing would allow you to know
instantaneously exactly where the campaign contributions are coming
from prior to an election, on a timely basis during a campaign. Today
the technology exists to do it. This legislation would require,
mandate, electronic filing by all candidates for Federal office.
Furthermore, the legislation would allow the FEC to establish
standard fines for minor reporting violations and conduct random
campaign audits. That had been stopped and prohibited. Nothing, I
think, would have a more salutary effect on campaigns than to know that
you could be the subject of a random audit at any time. This, I think,
would help strengthen the FEC's ability to report to the Congress on
the kinds of practices that ought to give us concern, and possibly the
subject of further reform.
I think we must acknowledge, Mr. President, that the Federal
Elections Commission was charged with the responsibility of enforcing
our election laws, and that part of the reason our election system is
so out of control is that Congress, in my view, has refused over the
years to provide the FEC with the ability and the tools to carry out
the duties that we have charged them with performing.
As we rush to establish Federal investigations into election law
violations, let us not forget we do have an Agency balanced with
Democrats and Republicans that is charged with the very responsibility
we have just taken upon ourselves.
In my view, Mr. President, the FEC must be given the ability to do
its job, and that is the goal of the legislation I will be proposing.
I conclude, Mr. President, by adding that genuine campaign finance
reform will not occur it we do not elevate the issue above
partisanship. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue. As I
mentioned earlier before the Presiding Officer arrived in the Chamber,
I think the Democrats made a huge error in 1993 and 1994 when we had an
opportunity to do something about campaign finance reform. The
Presiding Officer was a Member of the House of Representatives in those
years, and so we are properly criticized, in my view, for not acting.
Having said that, I do not think we need to necessarily perpetuate
that by not stepping forward in these coming weeks and try to take
steps to strengthen the FEC, pass McCain-Feingold with whatever
amendments people want to offer, and try to provide some framework. I
think there are issues which we will find great unanimity of support,
given the chance for expression here on the floor of the U.S. Senate,
obviously while going forward with the investigation, and to allow the
Justice Department and others to do the work, of course, which they are
charged with doing. All of these efforts, if done properly and well, I
think, can at the end of the day, provide us with a different system
than we presently have.
So the future Wendell Fords of this body who, when they consider
whether or not they ought to seek reelection, as he announced in his
statement, would not look at the prospect in March, as many as 18, 20
months before election day, of raising, as he felt he would have to do,
$100,000 a week for 80 weeks in order to be a viable candidate for a
State the size of Kentucky--not to mention, of course what it costs in
other States like my colleague from Pennsylvania, or California, New
York, Florida, Illinois, or Ohio. In large States with huge
populations, these numbers become astronomical. If it is going to take
that on the part of individual candidates, then, I think, obviously the
results speak for themselves.
I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. I am going to
send to the desk and ask that this bill be reported to the appropriate
committee to strengthen the Federal Election Committee so it can do its
job. I thank the Presiding Officer and my colleague from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be referred to the appropriate
committee.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had come to the Senate Chamber to speak
on the resolution on the independent counsel but on my way I noted the
morning press have comments to make in advance of that. However, before
my distinguished colleague from Connecticut leaves, I agree with him on
some of what he has said. I will not go into the parts where I disagree
with him. It would take too long.
When he talks about the Federal Election Commission, strengthening
the Federal Election Commission, funding adequately the Federal
Election Commission, I think that is something that ought to be done.
The Federal Election Commission needs to be able to pursue alleged
election violations. They have very broad powers and we have heard very
little from them. It may be that their investigations are yet
incomplete. But it also may be that if they had sufficient
investigative resources they might have done more already.
We do not need to await the results of the Governmental Affairs
Committee, on which I serve. We are just getting started with the
funding authorization. Nor do we need to await the results of the
public integrity section, the FBI or their investigations, nor do
[[Page S2315]]
we need to wait to see what will happen with the independent counsel,
as I will address in a few moments.
We have a Federal Election Commission, and were they strong enough
they could have acted already on these very, very important matters.
Mr. DODD. I made the point last October when the allegations arose
about the Democratic National Committee, Don Fowler, who is the chair
of the DNC, and myself, asked the FEC to immediately conduct an
investigation into these allegations.
The FEC came before the Rules Committee a couple of weeks ago to
present its budget, as they do on an annual basis. I asked them how the
investigation was going. This was now March. I was stunned to have them
report they have not even begun to look at this.
So here is a request made 6 months ago on, obviously, a very serious
matter, and they have not even begun to work on it. The reason, they
say, is the caseload is backed up so much on them and there has been a
reduction in their staff allocations. Now, obviously, more probing
about that may be necessary.
Mr. SPECTER. Did the Senator make a suggestion that they might look
upon the current matters on a priority basis? I had not known of the
request which was made, obviously. It is surprising to me that in light
of the pressing public policy on current matters that they would not
address them but would be addressing other matters.
Mr. DODD. That is a good point.
Mr. SPECTER. It is a matter of prioritizing. We have a hemorrhaging
system. There is blood on the floor and there is blood coming out of
the patient. I would think as a matter of priority they would at least
address that and try to give some first aid. I do not know what they
have found, and I do not know the specifics upon what injunctive relief
they might seek, but they have attorneys that might look at the current
system and act now.
They are a constituted agency and they have conducted criminal
investigations. They could work this in the civil field. It comes as a
surprise to me when a Senator of your standing, Senator Dodd, makes
that suggestion to them, and months go by without any response to it.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague, Mr. President, for his observations.
I do not think I asked that question because I think I was so stunned
by the response, I assumed things were moving along. I do not know how
they determine--of course, it is a bipartisan Commission--how they
determine what basis they look at matters, but I do not disagree.
My colleague has been generous in his comments.
____________________