[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2377-S2379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have not had the opportunity to come to 
the floor to talk about the pending matter. I want to devote a little 
time this morning to the constitutional amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator

[[Page S2378]]

Hollings. I am a cosponsor of that legislation, and I proudly come to 
the floor in my advocacy of the passage of his amendment.
  I give him great credit. He has come to the floor for years 
addressing, in myriad ways, the issue of campaign finance, the problems 
that we have associated with campaign finance, the difficulties, 
constitutionally and statutorily, in addressing all of the problems 
that he has so eloquently outlined now for a long period of time. Year 
after year, in Congress after Congress, fight after fight, Senator 
Hollings has been extraordinary in his effort to address this issue in 
a consequential and comprehensive way.
  I want to talk a little bit about the circumstances that I see facing 
all of us politically right now and my reasons for supporting the 
constitutional amendment. There are at least four primary reasons why I 
believe that the constitutional amendment needs to be addressed. I am 
of the view that statutorily we are incapable of adequately addressing 
every one of the nuances, every one of the problems that have arisen as 
a result of our efforts to address meaningful campaign finance reform 
in the past. I do not have with me the record that we have compiled, 
but we have spent hours and days and weeks in testimony and in hearings 
over the course of many Congresses grappling with this issue.
  As I recall, there have been 49 hearings on campaign finance reform. 
There have been thousands and thousands of pages of reports. There have 
been over a score of filibusters on the floor keeping this issue from a 
vote. So the record in the Congress over the last 10 years has really 
been abysmal. The problems continue to mount and the circumstances 
continue to worsen and the situation involving Members is compounded.
  In 1976, the total cost of all Federal elections was $310 million. 
That is total. That is what every House Member, every House candidate, 
every Senator, every Senate candidate, and every Presidential candidate 
spent--$310 million. In 1996, that amount had exploded--and I use that 
word intentionally--exploded to $2.7 billion. That is $2,100 a day for 
a Senate candidate. Every day, whether we generate the money all at 
once or whether we generate it day by day, we need to raise $2,100 a 
day.
  Just yesterday I was over at my political office. I have a political 
office. I have a South Dakota office. I have a leadership office. I 
have three service offices. But now, without a doubt, one of the most 
important parts of any Senate infrastructure is the political office.
  I was over in my political office yesterday dialing for dollars. I do 
not know how much I raised, but I made up yesterday for the fact that I 
had not raised $2,100 every day in the previous weeks.
  Now the average cost of a Senate campaign is $4.5 million per 
Senator. I am in cycle now. I will be running in 1998. My budget, Mr. 
President, is $5 million. I have already indicated that. That is no 
secret. I will be raising and spending $5 million to be reelected.
  I have heard colleagues on the Senate floor say, ``Well, you know, 
the nation spends less than $2.7 billion on dog and cat food, so why 
should we be worried? We spend a lot more on dog and cat food than we 
spend in political races.''
  I do not think that is a proper comparison unless we have only 535 
dogs and cats in this country. If you had 535 dogs and cats, that 
comparison would work. I tell you, if we were spending $2.7 billion on 
535 designated dogs and cats, my sense is we would be outraged. There 
would be all kinds of complaints that dog and cat food is way too high. 
``I can't afford to keep a cat or a dog.''
  How is it we can afford a political process so denigrated today by 
practices that we all abhor that we are willing to spend $4.5 million 
per Senator? So, Mr. President, the cost is something that I think is 
very clearly an issue that we have to address, because it is only going 
to get worse.
  We used the increases in campaign costs since 1976 to estimate what 
the cost of an election will be in the year 2025. Most of us, 
hopefully, will still be around. I will not be here, but I will be, 
hopefully, living. Our sons and daughters will be here seeking public 
office.
  Our estimate is that a Senate race will cost $145 million in the year 
2025. Now that is not any magical distortion of the amount. That is 
simply taking the inflation rate that we have experienced and costing 
it out to the year 2025--$145 million. We will be raising over $200,000 
a day to meet that kind of cost in the year 2025.
  So do we have a problem? I could rest my case on that alone. But 
there are other problems that I want to talk about this morning.
  I have a friend I have known for 20 years, who ran for Congress. He 
is idealistic, has a wonderful family; and is extraordinarily helpful. 
My friend decided he wanted to run for Congress. He was at that point 
in life when he thought he could offer something. He cared deeply about 
the issues, and is very, very patriotic, an extraordinary young man in 
all respects.
  But in order to meet his budget, my friend found himself holed up in 
a small cubicle with a desk and a phone calling for money about two-
thirds to three-fourths of every day. Was he out there greeting the 
people sharing his ideas? No. Was he out there shaking hands, learning 
from the people? No. A campaign, anybody who has been through one will 
recognize, is really an educational experience.
  Of course you impart your thoughts. But what I love about campaigns 
is how much you learn in return--the conversations with people in their 
homes, the opportunity to answer questions and hear concerns at 
Rotaries and chambers of commerce, the opportunity to shake hands at a 
plant gate and get comments about what families are thinking about. 
That education is lost when any candidate spends two-thirds to three-
fourths of his time doing nothing but dialing for dollars.
  Wendell Ford, our distinguished colleague who sits right at this 
desk, said fundraising was a major factor in his determination not to 
run for reelection. We are going to lose an able public servant. When 
he was first elected to the Senate in 1974, his campaign cost $450,000. 
But he estimated he would have to raise $4.5 million for the race in 
1998. He said, ``I don't want to raise $4.5 million in Kentucky. I 
don't want to have to go through that. I don't think it is right. I 
don't want to have to sit in some cubicle called a `political office' 
and dial for dollars day after day. I don't want to do that.'' So he is 
hanging it up.

  How many more Wendell Fords, how many more talented public servants 
will hang it up or will not even start? So, Mr. President, this is a 
very serious problem from the point of view of candidates themselves--
Republican or Democrat.
  I recruit candidates, and one of the hardest things for me is to 
convince possible candidates to run knowing they have to raise $4.5 to 
$5.5 million. You go tell some businessman to give up his business, 
give up his family, give up his dignity, go tell them that ``you ought 
to do that so you can take a seat here in the U.S. Senate.'' Tell them 
that. Convince them it is in the public interest. Here in the Senate, 
we have a wonderful opportunity to serve, but to get here you pay a 
heavy price, too heavy in the minds of more and more people. Too many 
good people are saying no to public life, no to public service because 
they do not want to do it. Frankly, I do not blame them.
  In the third category are the implications of the money in the 
system. The implications of all of this money troubles me. Every day 
the front page has yet another story about White House difficulties. 
Obviously, it is now the subject of an investigation in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and the Justice Department.
  We are looking at all of that. We on the Democratic side have felt 
that many of the abuses the Republicans may be guilty of have not 
received adequate attention.
  The media seem honed in on everything that happened in the White 
House. As a colleague has reminded me on several occasions, ``Why hunt 
rabbits when you can hunt bear?'' Well, there are some elephants that 
ought to be hunted, I think, given the circumstances.
  There were reports in the Washington Post on January 23, 1997; the 
Wall Street Journal on January 9; Business Week on December 30, 1996; 
Roll Call on January 20, 1997; Inside Congress on December 20, 1996, 
that Republican leaders--including Republican National Committee 
Chairman Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom

[[Page S2379]]

DeLay, and John Boehner--summoned business leaders to a dinner to 
chastise them for donating money to Democrats and suggest that if they 
continue to do so, they would no longer have access to Republican 
leaders.
  This is a quote--`` `Companies that want to have it both ways,' said 
one top GOP strategist, `no longer will be involved in Republican 
decisionmaking or invited to our cocktail parties.' They also demanded 
that the company fire all of its Democratic lobbyists and replace them 
with Republicans. A GOP leadership insider said, `If companies send 
lobbyists to Republican offices, they will have GOP credentials or they 
won't be allowed in the room.' NRCC Chairman John Linder said, `We're 
going to track where the money goes.' ''
  Mr. President, what does that mean? What are the implications of 
``money''? What do they mean when they say business leaders who 
contribute to Democrats will no longer be involved in Republican 
decisionmaking?
  Here's another passage from Roll Call, October 30, 1995.

       Upon winning control of the 104th Congress, Congressman 
     John Boehner, chair of the House Republican Conference, 
     organized a leadership/lobbyist operation to help pass the 
     Republicans' budget plan. Business lobbyists contributed at 
     least $2,000 toward an advertising campaign to support the 
     Republican budget. ``In exchange, they got a seat in the 
     inner circle that met every Monday in one of the Capitol's . 
     . . meeting rooms.''

  So $2,000 for a seat in the inner circle meeting every Monday in the 
Capitol's meeting rooms.
  Here's another example from Time magazine, March 27, 1995. Mr. 
Boehner also organized the Thursday group of ``lobbyists representing 
some of the richest special interests in the country.'' The Republican 
leadership let these lobbyists use congressional office space and 
official resources to conduct their bill drafting and lobbying 
activities. The Thursday group served as command central for a million 
dollar campaign to enact items in the Contract With America. On tort 
reform, the group's efforts included ``daily meetings of dozens of 
lobbyists on the seventh floor of the Longworth House Office Building, 
a budget of several million dollars raised under the guidance of a 
General Motors executive, and a vote-counting operation that was led by 
former top lobbyists for Ronald Reagan and George Bush.''
  Here is yet another example, this time from the Washington Post and 
Legal Times, dated October 29, 1996, and September 16, 1996, 
respectively: ``Gingrich ally and foreign agent Grover Norquist's 
Americans for Tax Reform received a $4.6 million contribution from the 
RNC in October,'' 1 month before the election, ``in October 1996 * * * 
the RNC contributed $4.6 million to the tax-exempt Americans for Tax 
Reform, which is headed by Gingrich ally Grover Norquist. Because it is 
not structured as a political committee, ATR is not required to 
disclose how it spends the money, as the RNC is. This $4.6 million in 
`soft money' could be used by ATR directly on behalf of federal 
candidates--which would be scored as `hard money' if spent by the RNC. 
Grover Norquist is a close ally of Gingrich and is also registered as a 
foreign agent for the Republic of Seychelles, and Jonas Savimbi, rebel 
leader of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola.''
  Mr. President I could go on and on.
  Perhaps I will end with this one just received yesterday: 1997 RNC 
Annual Gala, May 13, 1997. Cochairman--for a $250,000 fundraising 
requirement, you get ``Breakfast and a Photo Opportunity with Senate 
Majority Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on 
May 13, 1997.'' You get a luncheon with ``Republican Senate and House 
leadership and the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of 
your choice.''
  I am still reading from the document. You get a luncheon with the 
chairmen of your choice if you are willing to donate $250,000. If you 
only donate $100,000, you still get a luncheon with the chairmen of 
your choice, and you still get a breakfast and photo opportunity with 
``Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt 
Gingrich.'' You do not get dais seating. For $45,000, amazingly, you 
are still entitled to lunch with the chairmen of your choice.
  Mr. President, we do not need that. We do not need that in this 
institution or in our political system. This has to end. This will not 
go on without ultimately and directly affecting the quality and the 
historic standing of this institution.
  Now let me address the last issue, and that is the constitutional 
issue. Mr. President, I have to say it is the hardest one. It is the 
hardest because there are a lot of people whose judgment I respect who 
are not willing to go as far as I am. But it is hard for me to 
understand what the Supreme Court said in Buckley versus Valeo. On the 
one hand, they said it is all right to limit how much you give; on the 
other hand, it is not all right to limit how much you spend. Why? If we 
are worried about free speech, why is it appropriate to limit giving 
but not limit spending? What is the constitutional premise that allows 
us to say we can limit how much you give, but we cannot limit how much 
you spend? It seems to me that once they decided to limit how much you 
give, they set themselves up, as well, for limiting how much you spend.
  New York University law professor Ronald Dworkin and 40 other 
scholars wrote in a joint statement, ``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.''
  The decision in Buckley and Colorado are a threat to the principle of 
one person, one vote. There are Senators who disagree, and there are 
many, many ways with which to express that disagreement. But I will say 
this: No one is guaranteed free money. Mr. President, free speech is 
not the same as free money. It is no more right for us to stand up in 
indignation with all of these problems and to say there is no problem, 
or that if there is a problem, we cannot address it because of the free 
speech argument on this issue.
  Mr. President, we have limited speech in other ways. We have limited 
even the right of advertising in ways that have been demonstrated to be 
constitutional. When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad on 
television? When was the last time you saw ads for drugs on television? 
Obviously, there are restrictions on free speech. We all know that you 
cannot falsely yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Mr. President, I do 
not buy the argument that we cannot carefully restrict speech, because 
we restrict speech all the time.
  I am out of time, and I know the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia is about to speak as is required by the order. We will return 
to this issue again.
  Let me close by saying we also know that this legislation, this 
amendment, is not going to pass. But we also know that there will be 
another day. There will be another day to offer bipartisan campaign 
reform legislation from a statutory perspective. I intend to be as 
aggressively supportive of that as I can be.
  Let me say that this issue will not go away, not when our sons and 
daughters will be spending $145 million in the year 2025 just to walk 
in this door and vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11 a.m. 
has arrived. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized to speak up 
to 30 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I commend our leader who 
has just spoken. I agree with him, as I shall elaborate at this point.

                          ____________________