[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.

                          ____________________