[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2382-S2393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CAMPAIGN FINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 18, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (Senate Joint Resolution 18) proposing 
     an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
     elections.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour equally divided 
between the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] and the Senator from 
South Carolina [Mr. Hollings].
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Byrd our 
resident Senate historian. I do not say that lightly--because the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia has been masterful in his 
analysis and been very, very cautious and careful. He has stood many a 
time for not amending the Constitution, that we don't do this, willy-
nilly, for any and every problem. But, after 20 years, thousands of 
speeches and hours and effort made, he has given a very masterful 
analysis of the need for this amendment. The Senate and the Nation are 
indebted to him.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd, of 
Connecticut, be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, although I commend the efforts of the 
minority leader and others seeking to statutorily reform our campaign 
finance laws, I am convinced the only way to solve the chronic problems 
surrounding campaign financing is reverse the Supreme Court's flawed 
decision in Buckley versus Valeo by adopting a constitutional amendment 
granting Congress the right to limit campaign spending.
  We all know the score--we are hamstrung by that decision and the ever 
increasing cost of a competitive campaign. With the total cost for 
congressional elections, just general elections, skyrocketing from $403 
million in 1990 to over $626 million in 1996, the need for limits on 
campaign expenditures is more urgent than ever. For nearly a quarter of 
a century, Congress has tried to tackle runaway campaign spending with 
bills aimed at getting around the disjointed Buckley decision. Again 
and again, Congress has failed.
  Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past campaign finance 
reform efforts, which have become bogged down in partisanship as 
Democrats and Republicans each tried to gore the other's sacred cows. 
During the 103d Congress there was a sign that we could move beyond 
this partisan bickering, when the Senate in a bipartisan fashion 
expressed its support for a constitutional amendment to limit campaign 
expenditures. In May 1993, a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
was agreed to which advocated the adoption of a constitutional 
amendment empowering Congress and States to limit campaign 
expenditures.
  Now it is time to take the next step. We must strike the decisive 
blow against the anything-goes fundraising and spending tolerated by 
both political parties. Looking beyond the current headlines regarding 
the source of these funds, the massive amount of money spent is 
astonishing and serves only to cement the commonly held belief that our 
elections are nothing more than auctions and that our politicians are 
up for sale. It is time to put a limit on the amount of money sloshing 
around campaign war chests. It is time to adopt a constitutional 
amendment to limit campaign spending--a simple, straightforward, 
nonpartisan solution.
  As Prof. Gerald G. Ashdown has written in the New England Law Review, 
amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign 
expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches-
to-reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in 
Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance 
atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could 
constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals, 
candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the 
troubles * * * would be eliminated.''
  Right to the point, back in 1974, Congress responded to the public's 
outrage over the Watergate scandals by passing, on a bipartisan basis, 
a comprehensive campaign finance law. The centerpiece of this reform 
was a limitation on campaign expenditures. Congress recognized that 
spending limits were the only rational alternative to a system that 
essentially awarded office to the highest bidder or wealthiest 
candidate.

  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court overturned these spending limits in 
its infamous Buckley versus Valeo decision of 1976. The Court 
mistakenly equated a candidate's right to spend unlimited sums of money 
with his right to free speech. In the face of spirited dissents, the 
Court came to the conclusion that limits on campaign contributions but 
not spending furthered ``* * * the governmental interest in preventing 
corruption and the appearance of corruption'' and that this interest 
``outweighs considerations of free speech.''
  I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental 
interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption--
does not overwhelmingly justify limits on campaign spending. The Court 
made a huge mistake. The fact is, spending limits in Federal campaigns 
would act to restore the free speech that has been eroded by the 
Buckley decision.
  After all, as a practical reality, what Buckley says is: Yes, if you 
have a fundraising advantage or personal wealth, then you have access 
to television, radio and other media and you have freedom of speech. 
But if you do not have a fundraising advantage or personal wealth, then 
you are denied access. Instead of freedom of speech, you have only the 
freedom to say nothing.
  So let us be done with this phony charge that spending limits are 
somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White points 
out, clear as a bell, in his dissent, both contribution limits and 
spending limits are neutral as to the content of speech and are not 
motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech in 
general.
  Mr. President, every Senator realizes that television advertising is 
the name of the game in modern American politics. In warfare, if you 
control the air, you control the battlefield. In politics, if you 
control the airwaves, you control the tenor and focus of a campaign.
  Probably 80 percent of campaign communications take place through the 
medium of television. And most of that TV airtime comes at a dear 
price. In South Carolina, you're talking between $1,000 and $2,000 for 
30 seconds of primetime advertising. In New York City, it's anywhere 
from $30,000 to $40,000 for the same 30 seconds.
  The hard fact of life for a candidate is that if you're not on TV, 
you're not truly in the race. Wealthy challengers as well as incumbents 
flushed with money go directly to the TV studio. Those without a 
fundraising advantage or personal wealth are sidetracked to the time-
consuming pursuit of cash.
  The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on 
campaign contributions, but struck down restrictions on how much 
candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical 
reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I 
have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of his speech. By 
failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear 
unwilling to speak up in his own defense.

  Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent 
to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend, 
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.''

[[Page S2383]]

  Indeed, Justice Marshall went further: He argued that by upholding 
the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall 
spending, the Court put an additional premium on a candidate's personal 
wealth.
  Justice Marshall was dead right and Ross Perot and Steve Forbes have 
proved it. Massive spending of their personal fortunes immediately made 
them contenders. Our urgent task is to right the injustice of Buckley 
versus Valeo by empowering Congress to place caps on Federal campaign 
spending. We are all painfully aware of the uncontrolled escalation of 
campaign spending. The average cost of a winning Senate race was $1.2 
million in 1980, rising to $2.9 million in 1984, and skyrocketing to 
$3.1 million in 1986, $3.7 million in 1988, and up to $4.3 in 1996. To 
raise that kind of money, the average Senator must raise over $13,800 a 
week, every week of his or her 6-year term. Overall spending in 
congressional races increased from $446 million in 1990 to more than 
$724 million in 1994--almost a 70-percent increase in 4 short years. I 
predict that when the final FEC reports are compiled for 1996, that 
figure will go even higher.
  This obsession with money distracts us from the people's business. It 
corrupts and degrades the entire political process. Fundraisers used to 
be arranged so they didn't conflict with the Senate schedule; nowadays, 
the Senate schedule is regularly shifted to accommodate fundraisers.
  I have run for statewide office 16 times in South Carolina. You 
establish a certain campaign routine, say, shaking hands at a mill 
shift in Greer, visiting a big country store outside of Belton, and so 
on. Over the years, they look for you and expect you to come around. 
But in recent years, those mill visits and dropping by the country 
store have become a casualty of the system. There is very little time 
for them. We're out chasing dollars.
  During my 1992 reelection campaign, I found myself raising money to 
get on TV to raise money to get on TV to raise money to get on TV. It's 
a vicious cycle.
  I remember Senator Richard Russell saying: ``They give you a 6-year 
term in this U.S. Senate: two years to be a statesman, the next 2 years 
to be a politician, and the last 2 years to be a demagogue.'' 
Regrettably, we are no longer afforded even 2 years as statesmen. We 
proceed straight to politics and demagoguery right after the election 
because of the imperatives of raising money.
  My proposed constitutional amendment would change all this. It would 
empower Congress to impose reasonable spending limits on Federal 
campaigns. For instance, we could impose a limit of, say, $800,000 per 
Senate candidate in a small State like South Carolina--a far cry from 
the millions spent by my opponent and me in 1992. And bear in mind that 
direct expenditures account for only a portion of total spending. For 
instance, my 1992 opponent's direct expenditures were supplemented by 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures by independent 
organizations and by the State and local Republican Party. When you 
total up spending from all sources, my challenger and I spent roughly 
the same amount in 1992.

  And incidentally, Mr. President, let's be done with the canard that 
spending limits would be a boon to incumbents, who supposedly already 
have name recognition and standing with the public and therefore begin 
with a built-in advantage over challengers. Nonsense. I hardly need to 
remind my Senate colleagues of the high rate of mortality in upper 
chamber elections. And as to the alleged invulnerability of incumbents 
in the House, I would simply note that well over 50 percent of the 
House membership has been replaced since the 1990 elections and just 3 
weeks ago we swore in 15 new Senators.
  I can tell you from experience that any advantages of incumbency are 
more than counterbalanced by the obvious disadvantages of incumbency, 
specifically the disadvantage of defending hundreds of controversial 
votes in Congress.
  Moreover, Mr. President, I submit that once we have overall spending 
limits, it will matter little whether a candidate gets money from 
industry groups or from PAC's or from individuals. It is still a 
reasonable amount any way you cut it. Spending will be under control, 
and we will be able to account for every dollar going out.
  On the issue of PAC's, Mr. President, let me say that I have never 
believed that PAC's per se are an evil in the current system. On the 
contrary, PAC's are a very healthy instrumentality of politics. PAC's 
have brought people into the political process: nurses, educators, 
small business people, senior citizens, unionists, you name it. They 
permit people of modest means and limited individual influence to band 
together with others of mutual interest so their message is heard and 
known.
  For years we have encouraged these people to get involved, to 
participate. Yet now that they are participating, we turn around and 
say, ``Oh, no, your influence is corrupting, your money is tainted.'' 
This is wrong. The evil to be corrected is not the abundance of 
participation but the superabundance of money. The culprit is runaway 
campaign spending.
  To a distressing degree, elections are determined not in the 
political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections 
are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate 
into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of 
corporations and special interests.
  Mr. President, I repeat, campaign spending must be brought under 
control. The constitutional amendment Senator Specter and I have 
proposed would permit Congress to impose fair, responsible, workable 
limits on Federal campaign expenditures and allow States to do the same 
with regard to State and local elections.
  Such a reform would have four important impacts. First, it would end 
the mindless pursuits of ever-fatter campaign war chests. Second, it 
would free candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and 
allow them to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office, 
we wouldn't have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep 
our seats. Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And 
fourth, it would create a more level playing field for our Federal 
campaigns--a competitive environment where personal wealth does not 
give candidates an insurmountable advantage.

  Finally, Mr. President, a word about the advantages of the amend-the-
Constitution approach that I propose. Recent history amply demonstrates 
the practicality and viability of this constitutional route. Certainly, 
it is not coincidence that five of the last seven amendments to the 
Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. In elections, the 
process drives and shapes the end result. Election laws can skew 
election results, whether you're talking about a poll tax depriving 
minorities of their right to vote, or the absence of campaign spending 
limits giving an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates. These are 
profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy, and it is 
entirely appropriate that they be addressed through a constitutional 
amendment.
  And let's not be distracted by the argument that the amend-the-
Constitution approach will take too long. Take too long? We have been 
dithering on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970's, and we 
haven't advanced the ball a single yard. All-the-while the Supreme 
Court continues to strike down campaign limit after campaign limit. It 
has been a quarter of a century, and no legislative solution has done 
the job.
  Except for the 27th amendment, the last five constitutional 
amendments took an average of 17 months to be adopted. There is no 
reason why we cannot pass this joint resolution, submit it to the 
States for a vote, and ratify the amendment in time for it to govern 
the 1998 election. Once passed by the Congress, the joint resolution 
goes directly to the States for ratification. Once ratified, it becomes 
the law of the land, and it is a Supreme Court challenge.
  And, by the way, I reject the argument that if we were to pass and 
ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be unable to 
hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign expenditure 
limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did exactly that 
in 1974, and we can certainly do it again.
  Mr. President, this amendment will address the campaign finance mess 
directly, decisively, and with finality.

[[Page S2384]]

 The Supreme Court has chosen to ignore the overwhelming importance of 
media advertising in today's campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it 
prescribed a bogus if-you-have-the-money-you-can-talk version of free 
speech. In its place, I urge the Congress to move beyond these 
acrobatic attempts at legislating around the Buckley decision. As we 
have all seen, no matter how sincere, these plans are doomed to fail. 
The solution rests in fixing the Buckley decision. It is my hope that 
as the campaign financing debate unfolds, the majority leader will 
provide us with an opportunity to vote on this resolution--it is the 
only solution.
  I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished colleague from California, 
Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized to 
speak for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with Senator Hollings 
and Senator Byrd and many other Senators today in support of Senate 
Joint Resolution 18. This measure proposes a constitutional amendment 
to allow the Congress to limit the amount of money that is spent on 
campaigns. I treasure the Constitution of the United States of America 
and never have I stood on the floor of the Congress supporting such a 
measure, except for the equal rights amendment and this measure. It is 
very rare that I stand to amend this Constitution. But we are about to 
lose our democracy. It is that serious. I think what Senator Hollings 
has come up with here is a way to save this democracy. So, I am so 
proud to be a cosponsor of his measure.
  Total campaign spending for general election congressional races has 
increased more than sixfold in the past 20 years. The total amount of 
money raised by Republicans and Democrats in 1996 was almost $900 
million. In my own reelection campaign, I believe that it could cost at 
least $20 million. I come from California. We have 33 million people. 
And $20 million would actually be less than what was spent several 
years ago to win a U.S. Senate seat. It is an unbelievable amount.
  So it is undeniable that there is an extraordinary amount of money in 
political campaigns. The amounts are growing and unfortunately, in my 
view, some partisan observers of our political system do not even see 
it as a problem. I have heard responses such as, ``So what?'' Or, 
``Money is the American way.'' Or ``The problem isn't too much money, 
it is too little money.'' And the most ludicrous I thought, ``We spend 
more advertising dollars on yogurt than we do on campaigns.'' I 
strongly disagree with the notion that money in politics is not a 
problem. It is a serious problem, undermining our democracy, depressing 
voter turnout, and, frankly, depressing the American people who should 
be depressed that their elected officials have to spend so much time 
away from their official duties.
  Let me talk about the California race. Today, a Senate candidate in 
California can expect to have to raise up to $10,000 a day, including 
Saturday and Sunday, 365 days a year, for 6 full years. Imagine, 
$10,000 a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for a full 6 years. That 
is too much time away from work, too much time away from doing the 
kinds of things that we want to do here, making life better for people. 
I resent it. And I am so proud to be able to support this 
constitutional amendment. Anyone who supports reform, therefore, has to 
support this. Because of the Supreme Court decision, we cannot control 
spending unless we pass this Hollings amendment. The Supreme Court 
decision discriminates against potential candidates who do not have a 
lot of personal wealth. The talent pool for the House and Senate is 
declining because of the amount of money that is needed to be raised.
  I want to talk a minute about the Supreme Court decision--which I 
know my colleagues, who are attorneys, who understand it, perhaps, in a 
deeper fashion, have already done--but I want to talk about it from a 
commonsense point of view, and as someone who loves this Constitution. 
I think the Supreme Court was just completely wrong on this Buckley 
versus Valeo decision that said that Congress could not put a cap on 
campaign spending. Freedom of speech is the most precious and most 
important of all the rights guaranteed in our Constitution. But, it 
seems to me, if you equate money with speech you are demeaning speech. 
You are demeaning speech. Not everything can be equated with the 
dollar. Free speech goes far beyond that. And what about the speech of 
the candidates who do not have personal wealth? What about their 
speech? When someone comes in who is worth $200 million, $300 million, 
and throws $30, $40 million into a race--we have had that in 
California. What happens to the people who cannot afford to put their 
own money in a race? What happens to their speech?
  So, it seems to me what the Court has done in Buckley is to support 
the speech of the wealthy candidates, not the speech of those of us who 
cannot afford to put those millions of dollars into place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from California has 
expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I so yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
2 additional minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. If money is speech, as the Supreme Court says, then more 
money must be more persuasive speech, and those ideas with the most 
money behind them will tend to prevail.
  This is un-American. I am a product of public schools. I go toe to 
toe here with people who went to Harvard and Yale and all those 
expensive schools. My schooling was free, from kindergarten all the way 
through college. It is the American way, to give us all that level 
playing field. We do not have a level playing field if we have to live 
with Buckley versus Valeo. It is an un-American decision. It is wrong. 
It is elitist. Ideas should prevail because of their inherent worth, 
not because they were able to be hyped in 30-second commercials.
  By the way, sometimes these commercials are not even ideas, they are 
terrible attacks on other candidates. So they are not even ideas, but 
somehow they are worth so much because an individual may have the 
money.

  ``Money is speech'' subverts the notion that ideas, not commercials, 
are the heart of the expression that the first amendment protects.
  My colleague, Senator Hollings, who has been so eloquent and so 
persuasive in this debate was right when he said--and I quote--``Our 
democracy must be saved from this excess.''
  Mr. President, it is time to go back to the original meaning of the 
first amendment, overturn Buckley versus Valeo and allow Congress to 
set spending limits that are fair for all congressional races. I can 
think of no more important issue than this one to be dealing with at 
this time as the furor swirls around all these large campaign 
contributions. Well, folks, those are the rules. Those are the rules. 
We allow it in the current system. We need to change the current 
system. To do that we need to pass the Hollings resolution.
  I thank you very much and I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me thank the distinguished colleague from 
California. She has spoken to the reality of what we really are 
confronting.
  I do not know how you run a race in the State of California. Mr. 
Huffington, of your State, spent $30 million of his own money to run 
for Senate and lost. Last week the Senator from Nevada suggested that 
all Mr. Huffington needs to do would be come to Nevada. In Nevada he 
could run a fine campaign for $10 million. He could move, saving $20 
million of his money, down to the State of Nevada and win, so to speak, 
with the $10 million. We know we know as in warfare, he who rules the 
air controls the battlefield. And he who rules the airwaves in politics 
controls the election.
  And it is just that cold, hard reality that the Senator from 
California has spoken to. I am most grateful for her leadership on this 
particular score.
  Going right back, Mr. President, to 1974 and the passage of the 
Federal Election Campaign Act, in the aftermath of Watergate. We acted 
together--Republicans and Democrats and said with a strong vote that we 
shall not have the Government up for

[[Page S2385]]

sale and that we had to limit spending in campaigns.
  So in the 1974 act we limited the individual amount of a 
contribution. In short, we limited the free speech. Congress did that 
after a studied debate. We limited the spending of the independent 
groups at that particular time. We limited the spending of the 
political action committees. We limited the spending of the individual 
candidates' own personal wealth, and we limited the overall spending. 
So the manifest intent in 1974 was to limit what my opponents now 
characterize as free speech.
  In the 1976, Buckley decision, the Court went along with Congress' 
effort to limit an individual's free speech. When it comes to an 
individual's contribution, they said fine, it is constitutional to 
limit the spending or free speech of independent groups or of political 
action committees.
  On the other hand, the Court then said, expenditures, they are not 
limited. Any limit on expenditures would be a violation of the first 
amendment. Now, that left us with a dilemma, the rich candidate or the 
candidate with a fundraising advantage, he has got unlimited speech 
because he does not have limits. This and the unlimited spending by 
candidates has become a cancer on the body politic. Combined spending 
of both political parties has gone up, as the Senator from California 
said, to almost a billion dollars.
  So, Mr. President, what we have here is a terrible dilemma. We 
wrestled with it for 10 years after that 1976 decision until the mid-
1980's when I first introduced a joint resolution to amend the 
Constitution and provide Congress the authority to limit campaign 
spending. We did not have a Pavlovian kind of reaction of ``Ipso facto, 
just run. Let's go ahead and amend the Constitution.'' We did it after 
numerous attempts to correct the problem. First it was Common Cause, 
they said we ought to publicly finance. Time and time again, Congress 
rejected public financing. Opponents characterized it as food stamps or 
welfare for politicians. So that is not going to fly.

  We tried individual voluntary restrictions. If we voluntarily 
limited, then you can get free time, free television time, free 
mailings and other benefits.
  We were never able to come to grips with reform largely because of 
the Buckley decision. As Chief Justice Burger said in his dissenting 
opinion, expenditures and contributions were two sides of the same 
coin, and to try to limit the one and not the other would not wash. 
That was Chief Justice Burger's characterization of the decision.
  So we are not coming here as just politicians, but with the support 
of the best of jurists who have come over the years and criticized the 
Buckley decision. J. Skelly Wright in the Yale Law Journal said that 
there was nothing in the first amendment that commits us to the dogma 
that money is speech.
  So after trying for 10 years I introduced a constitutional amendment. 
At that time, we believed perhaps the Court itself saw the practical 
and the scandalous effect the decision had had and that they would 
reverse their own decision.
  But please, my gracious, Mr. President, they shot that idea with last 
years Colorado Republican Party versus FEC decision and now ``Katie, 
bar the door. The sky is the limit.''
  Now what do we have? We have the practical effect of absolutely no 
limits. Business leaders now say, ``Senator, you know, we thought that 
we sort of had done our part when we gave our $1,000. Now after that 
Colorado decision the telephone rings off the hook. Now I want 
$100,000.'' ``What in the world has happened to you all here in 
Washington?''
  They think this is the result of a congressional decision.
  Back in 1974 the Congress agreed, in a bipartisan fashion--not 
partisan-- that we could only ask for that $1,000. That is no longer 
the case.
  I refer to an article in the Monday Washington Post, `Parties' 
Congressional Campaign Committees Took in Millions in `Soft Money' in 
1995-96.'' This is the practical effect of the Colorado decision.
  This soft money represents independent contributions that, under the 
Colorado decision, can be spent on congressional campaigns so long as 
you cannot prove categorically it was coordinated--even though it went 
for the benefit an individual candidate. In that case, they just 
started savaging a potential candidate way ahead of time on the radio.
  Even though the Court is limiting the individual contributions, the 
PAC contributions, and right on down the line, now they say, ``Well, 
after all, just go ahead with the so-called soft money,'' so that 
practically congressional committees have no limits. As the chart shows 
the committees received ``donations of as much as $735,000 from a 
single corporation, $310,000 from a union, and $250,000 from an 
individual from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1996.''

       The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee 
     raised near $27 million in these unregulated donations in the 
     election year, about three times the total 4 years earlier. 
     The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee actively 
     solicited soft money for the first time in the 1995-96 
     campaign, collecting about $14 million compared with the 
     $566,111 in 1991-1992.

  So, you see, both parties just went running amok.
  In response to my distinguished friend from Texas, who last week said 
on this floor that the Republican Party was the poor party and the 
Democrats were rich, I suggest a look at this chart.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article and the chart 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 17, 1997]

 Parties' Congressional Campaign Committees Took in Millions in ``Soft 
                           Money'' in 1995-96

                        (By Charles R. Babcock)

       While congressional and public attention has been focused 
     on the large donations the Democratic National Committee 
     solicited for the 1996 elections, the congressional arms of 
     both parties--whose stated purpose is helping to elect 
     federal officials--were busy raking in unlimited ``soft 
     money'' as well.
       Corporations and labor unions may not give directly to 
     federal candidates, and individuals are limited to giving 
     $1,000 to a candidate per election and $20,000 a year to a 
     party committee. But most national party committees have been 
     raising money outside the federal limits, often in $50,000 
     and $100,000 chunks. This soft money is supposed to be used 
     toward administrative costs and party-building activities 
     such as get-out-the-vote drives.
       Federal Election Commission records, analyzed by Common 
     Cause, which is pushing to ban soft money as part of 
     reforming the way federal campaigns are financed, show the 
     congressional committees had donations of as much as $735,000 
     from a single corporation, $310,000 from a union and $250,000 
     from an individual from Jan. 1, 1995, through Dec. 31, 1996.
       The National Republican Senatorial Committee raised nearly 
     $27 million in these unregulated donations in the election 
     cycle, about three times the total four years earlier. The 
     Democratic Senatorial Campaigns Committee actively solicited 
     soft money for the first time in the 1995-96 campaign, 
     collecting about $14 million, compared with $566,111 in 1991-
     92.
       On the House side, the National Republican Congressional 
     Committee raised nearly $19 million in soft money, three 
     times as much as it raised four years earlier. The Democratic 
     Congressional Campaign Committee raised nearly $12 million, 
     compared with $4.4 million in 1991-92.
       FEC rules require that a percentage of the soft money the 
     committees raised be transferred to state and local 
     candidates. The practice has caused some controversy, with 
     Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) complaining that the DSCC 
     shouldn't be in that business after she learned it had spent 
     more than $1 million on state candidates in California.
       The NRSC transferred $2.7 million to New York state 
     candidates and committees, with state Democrats complaining 
     that committee Chairman Alfonse M. D'Amato (R-N.Y.) did so to 
     shore up the party structure for his reelection run in 1998.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     To  DSCC   To  DCCC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gave $75,000 or more to one of the Democratic                           
 committees:                                                            
    American Federation of State County &                               
     Municipal Employees..........................   $310,000   $272,500
    Federal Express Corp..........................    250,125      7,500
    Philip Morris Cos.............................    237,500    192,768
    Peter B. Lewis (Progressive Corp.)............    225,000          0
    Connell Rice & Sugar Co.......................    200,000    207,000
    Association of Trial Lawyers of America*......    193,500     32,800
    Loral Corp.*..................................    155,500     75,000
      Bernard L. Schwartz.........................    155,500     70,000
    Archer Daniels Midland Co.....................    155,000     80,000
    RJR Nabisco Inc.*.............................    143,353     97,550
      RJ Reynolds Tobacco.........................     75,853     51,300
    Mashantucket Pequot Tribe*....................    139,000    105,000
    American Airlines.............................    121,333     97,033
    MCI Telecommunications Corp...................    110,193     94,950
    Sullivan & Liapakis PC*.......................    100,000    125,000
      Pamela Liapakis.............................     75,000          0
    AT&T Corp.....................................     99,980     20,500
    Walt Disney Co.*..............................     92,500     60,050
    Summit Technology Inc.........................     88,599          0
    Orin Kramer (Kramer Spellman LP)..............     82,500          0
    Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc.*................     80,000     95,000
      Edgar M. Bronfman Sr........................     80,000     80,000
    MacAndrews & Forbes Holding Inc.*.............     76,000     10,000
      NHCG Management Corp........................     50,000          0
    Time Warner Inc.*.............................     69,918     75,000
    Eli Lilly & Co................................     61,500    113,100

[[Page S2386]]

                                                                        
    AFL-CIO.......................................     52,000    122,500
    Michael Bloomberg (Bloomberg Financial                              
     Markets).....................................     50,000    100,000
    SBC Communications............................     43,792    122,798
    Flo-Sun Sugar Co.*............................     40,000     92,000
    United Food & Commercial Workers..............     35,000    171,500
    Laborers' International Union of North America     35,000     75,000
    American Federation of Teachers...............     30,000     85,500
    Atlantic Richfield Co.........................     19,000    126,800
    Wade E. Byrd (Berry & Byrd)...................     10,000     75,000
    E. & J. Gallo Winery..........................      7,500     80,700
    Don Henley (musician).........................          0    150,000
    Charles N. Davenport (SeaWest Inc.)...........          0    110,000
    Service Employees International Union.........          0    100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes contributions from executives and/or affiliates.              
                                                                        
Source: Common Cause from Federal Election Commission records.          


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     To NRSC    To NRCC 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gave $75,000 or more to one of the Republican                           
 committees:                                                            
    Phillip Morris Cos............................   $735,338   $353,432
    News Corp.*...................................    518,200    201,500
      Anna M. Murdoch.............................    250,000          0
      DLO Corp....................................    125,000          0
      News America Publishing Inc.................     65,000    150,000
    RJR Nabisco Inc.*.............................    287,500    175,950
      R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co....................    107,500     19,500
    Foster Friess (Friess Associates Inc.)........    259,900     30,000
    Atlantic Richfield Co.*.......................    217,000    180,400
    Union Pacific Corp.*..........................    191,500     49,500
      Anschutz Corp...............................     50,000          0
    Tobacco Institute.............................    187,100     84,000
    Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp...............    170,000    282,500
    Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp...............    165,000     85,000
    Flo-Sun Sugar Co.*............................    164,500     59,500
    American Financial Group *....................    160,000    270,000
    Carl Lindner..................................          0    150,000
    Bear Stearns & Co.............................    160,000     10,000
    Archer Daniels Midland Co.....................    155,000     50,000
    MacAndrews & Forbes Holding Inc.*.............    150,000     10,000
      Revlon Group Inc............................    100,000     10,000
      924 Bel Aire Corp...........................     50,000          0
    Chevron Corp..................................    145,200    133,850
    Glaxo Wellcome Inc.*..........................    141,100          0
    CSX Corp......................................    139,712     42,500
    Association of Trial Lawyers of America.......    138,600     37,500
    MBNA Corp.*...................................    135,000          0
    AT&T Corp.*...................................    133,295     78,545
    Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc.*................    130,000    140,000
    Walt Disney Co.*..............................    130,000     25,250
      BankAmerica Corp............................    128,700    105,500
    U.S. Tobacco Co...............................    121,000     82,900
    Time Warner Inc...............................    120,000    100,000
    NYNEX Corp.*..................................    119,600    191,750
    Circus Circus Enterprises Inc.................    115,000     25,000
    United Technologies Corp......................    115,000     95,500
    Schering-Plough Corp..........................    112,585    135,000
    Stephens Inc.*................................    112,500     47,500
    PaineWebber Group Inc.*.......................    110,000     50,000
    Beneficial Corp...............................    109,500     15,000
    TECO Energy...................................    105,100          0
    WMX Technologies Inc..........................    103,900     59,000
    John J. Cafaro (Cafaro International).........    103,200          0
    Federal Express Corp..........................    103,000     46,900
    Gateway 2000 *................................    100,000          0
    Ronald S. Lauder (Estee Lauder Cosmetics).....    100,000    100,000
    Loews Corp. *.................................    100,000    120,000
      CNA Financial Corp..........................     52,500     62,500
      Lorillard Tobacco...........................     47,500     57,500
    Mirage Resorts Inc............................    100,000    150,000
    Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association *........     96,500    115,658
    Exxon Corp....................................     95,000     45,000
    British Petroleum (BP Oil) *..................     94,000     55,829
      BP Exploration & Oil Inc....................     56,000     29,000
    Public Securities Association.................     94,000    118,200
    Goldman Sachs *...............................     91,390      2,250
    Merrill Lynch & Co............................     90,000     61,000
    Sprint Corp. *................................     89,673     41,400
    Viacom International Inc.*....................     82,700     10,000
    Great Western Financial Corp..................     82,000     40,000
    MCI Telecommunications Corp...................     82,000     44,718
    Prudential Insurance Co. of America *.........     78,100    103,950
      Prudential Securities Inc...................     55,000     48,000
    Occidental Petroleum Corp. *..................     77,000     67,750
    Federal National Mortgage Association.........     75,000     10,000
    Forstmann Little & Co.*.......................     73,000    162,000
      Theodore J. Forstmann.......................     50,000    150,000
    Smokeless Tobacco Council Inc.................     72,100    112,500
    National Association of Realtors..............     67,200     93,000
    Enron Corp.*..................................     55,000    115,000
    US West Inc...................................     53,000     98,400
    Textron Inc...................................     51,500    134,700
    Pfizer Inc....................................     50,000     71,000
    Ashland Oil Inc...............................     48,000     88,810
    Boeing Co.....................................     47,000    115,700
    Amgen Inc.....................................     40,000     95,000
    Pacific Telesis Group.........................     37,200     75,200
    American Insurance Association................     36,100     75,250
    SBC Communications *..........................     35,000    153,100
    Anheuser-Busch Co.............................     27,500    107,750
    Interface Group Inc...........................     20,000    100,000
    Chemical Manufacturers Association............     17,000     84,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This list includes contributions to the Republican Senate-House   
  Dinner Committee and the Democratic Congressional Dinner Committee,   
  which split their proceeds between their parties' House and Senate    
  campaign committees.                                                  

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, according to the Federal Election 
Commission, the total amount of money raised overall, hard and soft 
money, in 1996, by the Republicans was $548.7 million and by the 
Democrats was $332.3 million.
  So, the Democrats scramble everywhere. To the embarrassment of all of 
us both Democrat and Republican, but my opponents do not want to 
recognize that.
  I got a call from my distinguished colleague, the Senior Senator from 
Alabama. I understand he took the floor yesterday. Five times he has 
been a cosponsor of this particular joint resolution for a 
constitutional amendment. Now he is worried about the freedom of 
speech. You see now, the Senator from Alabama seems to have lost his 
freedom of speech. It is a sad, sad, commentary, Mr. President, but 
that is exactly what is happening. The other side says, look, here we 
have the advantage of money overwhelmingly, and that is our advantage 
in politics, and we are not going to give it up, so let us hide behind 
the First Amendment. It is a very shameful performance, a dog-and-pony 
show, coming up here and saying we should not amend the Constitution, 
we should not think of it. The very people saying that and quoting 
Patrick Henry have voted to amend the Constitution relative to the 
burning of the flag--the very speakers that have taken the floor. I 
have seen hypocrisy before, but not like this.
  Then they come saying ``Well, you know, we are not spending enough 
money in campaigns. What could happen,'' under this amendment is, ``the 
Congress could legislate us into incumbency, whereby you would never be 
opposed.''
  They use Patrick Henry to defend their actions. He once cried, 
``Peace, peace, there is no peace.'' Here today we cry ``Free speech, 
free speech, there is no free speech.'' In politics it is paid speech 
we are talking about. As for me, give me this constitutional amendment 
to save democracy.
  Justice Jackson said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, Mr. 
President. In that context, I will review several of the most recent 
constitutional amendments and show their relative significance to the 
pending amendment. Amendment No. 27 has to do with the compensation of 
Senators and Representatives. Certainly, this is more important than 
the 27th amendment. The 26th amendment has to do with the voting age. 
If they can change the voting age, they can certainly change the money 
limit. This is more important than the 26th amendment. The 25th 
amendment had to do with the succession in office. This is far more 
important a problem. We deal with this each and every day--day in and 
day out, exacerbating, getting worse and worse, turning elections into 
auctions. And going right to the 24th amendment, the poll tax. Well, we 
said in the 24th amendment that you cannot separate voters financially. 
That is exactly what Buckley has done. Those who have the money can 
shout to the rooftops. Those without money can get lockjaw--just hush, 
you cannot compete. The last five or six amendments, Mr. President, we 
have shown have been adopted in about a 20-month period. You can bet 
your boots that this could easily be adopted in 1998.
  What we have here is an amendment that is neutral. We do not say 
limit spending or not limit. We merely authorize the States and the 
Federal Government to limit spending. Here we are asking for a right.
  Here this devolution crowd that keeps coming up here and saying, 
``return government to the states, return government to the people, let 
the people act,'' that is what I am trying to do. Pass my amendment, 
send it to the States and let the American people make the decision. We 
do not say ``limit.'' We do not say ``not limit.'' We just say give the 
people's representative body--namely, the Congress of the United 
States--the authority to limit. My opponents do not want to give the 
people a chance to vote on it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from South 
Carolina he has 5 minutes 45 seconds remaining. Senator McConnell has 
30 minutes.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is a right way and a wrong way of 
reforming our system of campaign finance. The Hollings proposal to 
amend our Constitution is simply the wrong way. It would, in effect, 
amend the first amendment to our Constitution to allow any reasonable 
restrictions to be placed on independent campaign expenditures and 
contributions. Why does he propose that we amend the first amendment? 
Because the Supreme Court of the United States has held that 
restrictions on independent expenditures violate the first amendment's 
free speech protection and that such restrictions could only be 
justified upon a showing of a compelling--as opposed to any 
reasonable--reason.
  The Hollings amendment would gut the free speech protections of the 
first amendment. It would allow the curtailing of independent campaign 
expenditures that could overcome the natural advantage that incumbents 
have. It would, thus, limit free speech and virtually guarantee that 
incumbents be reelected. Thus, the Hollings amendment could change the 
very nature of our constitutional democratic form of Government by 
establishing what the Founders of the Republic feared most: A permanent 
elite or ruling oligarchy that dominates us all. Let me explain.
  The very purpose of the first amendment's free speech clause is to 
ensure that the people's elected officials effectively and genuinely 
represent the public. For elections to be a real check on Government, 
free speech must be guaranteed--both to educate the public about the 
issues, and to allow differing view points to compete in what Oliver

[[Page S2387]]

Wendell Holmes called the market place of ideas.
  Simply put, without free speech, Government cannot be predicated 
upon, what Thomas Jefferson termed, ``the consent of the governed.'' 
Without free speech, there can be no government based on consent 
because consent can never be informed.
  The Supreme Court of the United States recognized this fundamental 
principle of democracy in the 1976 case of Buckley versus Valeo, 424 
U.S. 1 (1976). The Court in Buckley recognized that free speech is 
meaningless unless it is effective. In the words of Justice White, 
``money talks.'' Unless you can get your ideas into the public domain, 
all the homilies and hosannas to freedom of speech are just talk. Thus, 
the Supreme Court held that campaign contributions and expenditures are 
speech--or intrinsically related to speech--and that regulating of such 
funds must be restrained by the prohibitions of the first amendment.
  The Buckley Court made a distinction between campaign contributions 
and campaign expenditures. The Court found that free speech interests 
in campaign contributions are marginal at best because they convey only 
a generalized expression of support. But independent expenditures are 
another matter. These are given higher first amendment protection 
because they are direct expressions of speech.
  Consequently, because contributions are tangential to free speech, 
Congress has a sizeable latitude to regulate them in order to prevent 
fraud and corruption. But not so with independent expenditures. In the 
words of the Court:

       A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can 
     spend 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 in today's 
     mass society requires the expenditure of money.

  The Hollings amendment's allowance of restrictions on expenditures by 
Congress and State legislatures would impose direct and substantial 
restraints on the quantity of political speech. It would permit placing 
drastic limitations on both individuals and groups from spending money 
to disseminate their own ideas as to which candidate should be 
supported and what cause is just. The Supreme Court noted that such 
restrictions on expenditures, even if neutral as to the ideas 
expressed, limit political expression at the core of our electoral 
process and of the first amendment freedoms.
  Indeed, even candidates under the Hollings proposal could be 
restricted in engaging in protected first amendment expression.
  Justice Brandeis observed, in Whitney versus California, that in our 
Republic, ``public discussion is a political duty,'' and that duty will 
be circumscribed where a candidate is prevented from spending his or 
her own money to spread the electoral message. That a candidate has a 
first amendment right to engage in public issues and advocate 
particular positions was considered by the Buckley Court to be of 
``particular importance. . . candidates [must] have the unfettered 
opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may 
intelligently evaluate the candidates' personal qualities and their 
positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on election 
day.''
  Campaign finance reform should not be at the expense of free speech. 
This amendment, in trying to reduce the costs of political campaigns--a 
noble goal, I can say--could cost us so much more; it could cost us our 
heritage of political liberty. Without free speech, our Republic could 
become a tyranny. Even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union 
opposes Senator Hollings-type approaches to campaign reform and calls 
such approaches a ``recipe for repression.''
  Mr. President, the simple truth is that there are just too many on 
the other side of the aisle that believe that the first amendment is 
inconsistent with campaign finance reform. That is why they are pushing 
the Hollings proposal. To quote House minority leader Richard Gephardt, 
``[w]hat we have is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of 
speech and our desire for a healthy campaign in a healthy democracy. 
You can't have both.''
  Well, I strongly disagree. You can have both. We have to have both. 
Without both, the very idea of representative democracy is imperiled. 
That is why I oppose the Hollings amendment. I think the distinguished 
Member of the House, Mr. Gephardt, is just absolutely wrong. I think if 
we change the Constitution to denigrate the first amendment, we would 
be absolutely wrong and it would fly in the face of what really ought 
to be done in campaign finance reform, which all of us would like to 
have. But until it can be done in a balanced, reasonable way that 
doesn't prefer one side over the other, it will never be done. That is 
one of the problems. We cannot get it done in a balanced, decent way 
that really evens the odds for everybody in our society, rather than 
stacking them in favor of one side or the other.
  Having said all this, I want to pay tribute to my colleague, our 
floor leader on this matter. He has taken a lot of flack from the media 
that always seems to stand up for first amendment rights and freedoms, 
until it comes to this issue. Frankly, I have a lot of respect for our 
colleague from Kentucky and the guts he has had to stand up for free 
speech and for first amendment rights more than any other single Member 
of Congress. He did it in his campaign when they made this a major 
focal effort of the campaign, and he still won by a considerable margin 
over the opponent who was making this a focal point.
  I think we can have campaign finance reform, but we won't have it 
until it is fair, balanced, until it effects all parties and 
candidates. And we won't have it, as far as I am concerned, unless we 
protect free speech rights the way they ought to be protected.
  Again, I compliment my colleague and express my support for his 
position on the floor at this time. I express regret to my friend from 
South Carolina that I can't support him on this constitutional 
amendment.

  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. ALLARD assumed the chair.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Utah for 
his wonderful contribution to this debate we have had. It has been a 
good debate about the first amendment. I also thank him very much for 
his kind remarks about my work on this issue.
  The Senator from Utah is right. It hasn't been easy from time to time 
because, as he pointed out, our friends in the press sometimes think 
the first amendment only applies to them. The first amendment was not 
crafted just for the press. It was crafted for all Americans. The free 
speech provisions of the first amendment apply to individuals, 
candidates, parties, groups; it applies to all of these people.
  What we have before us today, Mr. President, is an effort to cut a 
chunk out of the first amendment and say that political discourse in 
this country is entitled to less freedom than all other kinds of 
speech, all other kinds of speech. Why, Mr. President, even pornography 
and flag burning would have more protection--more protection--than 
political discourse after this amendment. Because this amendment would 
grant to Congress the power to shut everybody up, Congress being 
composed of incumbents, it is reasonable to assume that Congress would 
want to shut up all those people who are criticizing Congress.
  This amendment gives Congress the power to set reasonable limits--
whatever that is--on expenditures made, presumably, by the candidates, 
in support of--by people outside the campaigns--in support of the 
candidate, or in opposition to the candidate, and the American Civil 
Liberties Union said it could apply to the press as well.
  In short, this is a complete reversal of the kind of speech the 
Founding Fathers were the most concerned about. Mr. President, I am 
confident they were most concerned about political discourse, political 
discussion, political speech. They were beginning to have experiences 
with free press at that time. But I am confident that what they were 
mostly thinking about, when crafting the first amendment, was political 
discourse in the course of political campaigns.
  So the question is, as the Senator from Utah and others have pointed 
out, it is not whether you are for reform, but whether you are for the 
first amendment. That is what is before us here today. This ought to be 
a no- 

[[Page S2388]]

brainer. Even Common Cause is against this proposal. Even the 
Washington Post is against this proposal. Even Senator McCain and 
Senator Feingold, I believe, are going to oppose this.
  In short, this proposal doesn't have any constituency. Even the 
reform groups are not for it. Of course, it has many opponents. There 
is a coalition--in fact, I had a press conference with a coalition just 
Friday in opposition not only to this amendment, but also to McCain-
Feingold. The coalition spans the American political spectrum. At this 
press conference Friday, we had the ACLU and the National Education 
Association on the left, and the Christian Coalition, Right to Life, 
and the NRA on the right, and all other groups in between. What did 
they all have in common? These people had never met each other before. 
They didn't want the Government shutting them up. They didn't want the 
Government taking them off the playing field in political discussion in 
this country. That is what they all had in common. They want to be free 
to criticize us. They think they have a constitutional right to do 
that. They believe this amendment begins to eliminate that right, and 
proposals like McCain-Feingold do the same.
  So, Mr. President, this is a very, very important issue. This vote 
will be about whether you support the first amendment or not, whether 
you support political free speech in this country, not just by 
candidates, but by groups, individuals, and parties as well. This is at 
the core of our democracy, and we are having a legitimate discussion 
here about whether to carve that out and change that after 210 years.
  Mr. President, this is a very, very significant step in the wrong 
direction. I hope that it will be defeated later this afternoon 
overwhelmingly. It deserves to be defeated overwhelmingly. The goal 
here is to reverse the Buckley decision, a well-thought-out, well-
reasoned decision.
  In the Buckley case, the Supreme Court said, ``The first amendment 
denies Government''--that is us in here--``the Government the power to 
determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, 
excessive, or unwise.''
  The Court went on, ``In a free society ordained by our Constitution, 
it is not the Government but the people, individually as citizens, 
candidates, and collectively as associations and political committees, 
who must retain control over the quantity''--how much we speak--``and 
the range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.''
  That pretty well says it all, Mr. President. At least Senator 
Hollings, my good friend from South Carolina, understands that in order 
to change that ruling you really do have to change the first amendment. 
That is what is before us--to change the first amendment for the first 
time in 200 years to give the Government the power to shut up 
individuals, candidates, associations, and political committees; tell 
them how much they may speak, and maybe even what they may say. Who is 
to say how far the Government would go in seeking to quiet the voices 
of those who may oppose what we are trying to do?
  The Court went on. It said, ``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 reach. This is because virtually every means of 
communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of 
money.''
  The Court was recognizing the obvious, recognizing reality. The Court 
went on. It said, ``Even distribution of the humblest handbill costs 
money.'' Further, the Court stated, ``The electorate's increasing 
dependence on television and radio for news and information makes these 
`expenditures' of modes of communication indispensable instruments of 
effective political speech.''
  The Court further said, ``There is nothing invidious, improper, or 
unhealthy in a campaign spending money to communicate.'' Further, the 
Court said, ``The mere growth in the cost of Federal election campaigns 
in and of itself provides no basis''--they didn't equivocate here, Mr. 
President--``provides no basis for government restrictions on the 
quantity of campaign spending.'' The Court further addressed the old 
level-playing-field argument that we hear so frequently. The Court said 
about the level playing field, ``The concept that the 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.''
  The Buckley case was good in 1976, and it is good in 1997. In fact, 
the Supreme Court in virtually every case in this field since 1976, 
since the Buckley case, has moved further in the direction of more and 
more openness in political discourse in this country. In other words, 
they have reaffirmed Buckley time and time again over the last 20 
years. This is a position the Court isn't going to change. And the 
Senator from South Carolina, to his credit, understands that. He 
understands the Court is not going to shut up these individuals, 
groups, candidates, and parties. He understands the Court realizes that 
this kind of debate is at the heart of what makes America a great 
democracy.
  The Senator from South Carolina looks at that and finds it 
unappetizing. He finds all of this political discourse offensive and 
says we ought to carve a chunk out of the first amendment for the first 
time in 210 years and give to us here in the Government the power to 
control all of this discourse. It makes us uncomfortable. We don't like 
being criticized. We certainly do not like these campaigns against us 
by our opponents. But we don't like these outside groups either. It 
makes us uncomfortable. They sometimes say bad things about us. This is 
a terrible condition, that anybody other than the press could actually 
muster the resources to criticize. We had better do something about it. 
We had better shut those folks up. So we will just amend the first 
amendment, and we will decide that political speech is somehow less 
worthy than other kinds of speech, and we will take those people off 
the playing field, or we will make them report to the Government in 
advance and salute before they get permission to speak.
  That is what this is about, Mr. President. That is what this is 
about. This constitutional amendment ought to be defeated resoundingly. 
It is certainly my hope that it will be. As I said earlier, it has 
essentially no constituency even among those clamoring the loudest for 
some form of campaign finance reform.
  So later this afternoon when we vote on amending the first amendment 
for the first time in 200 years, I hope the Senate will defeat it 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there's an old joke that might help us put 
the current activity surrounding campaign finance reform into some 
perspective. The joke concerns two men who hire a small plane to go 
hunting bear. The pilot, as he drops the hunters off, insists that the 
plane can only carry two passengers and one bear on its return trip. 
With that warning ringing in their ears, the hunters go off and 
eventually return with two bears.
  The pilot protests that the huge second animal will overload the 
plane. The hunters remind him that that was just what he told them last 
year. They reminded him that they had given him an extra $100 the year 
before, and that he had let them load both bears. ``So here's another 
$100,'' they say and then they pack both carcasses into the rear of the 
plane. The plane struggles down the runway and lifts uncertainly into 
the sky. It gets halfway home but then crashes in the forest. The 
hunters crawl from the wreckage and ask the bruised pilot, ``Where are 
we?'' The pilot looks around and replies, ``Same place we crashed last 
year.''
  Today, the debris of scandal associated with campaign financing is 
strewn all about us. The White House is under siege as one news report 
after another brings new information about suspected improprieties. The 
Governmental Affairs Committee has now been asked to probe into the 
illegal and improper financial practices that may have taken place in 
this last election.
  What I want to remind my colleagues is that this is not the first 
time we have addressed this issue. In fact, this is, as Yogi Berra 
would say, deja vu all over again.
  More than two decades ago, Congress passed legislation on campaign 
finance

[[Page S2389]]

reform. That legislation included limits on all contributions and on 
candidate expenditures. It placed limits on independent expenditures, 
required disclosure, and set limits on the amount of personal wealth a 
candidate could spend on his campaign.
  This was done, Mr. President, in 1974. Following that legislation, 
however, the Supreme Court stepped in and decimated the reforms with 
its decision in Buckley versus Valeo.
  While the courts upheld limits on campaign contributions, it struck 
down the limits on independent expenditures and on the use of personal 
wealth. This, in effect, increased the disparity between the wealthy 
and the not-so-wealthy in campaigns. It also increased the power and 
impact of independent expenditures, much of which focuses on negative 
advertising.
  Each of these serious consequences of the Supreme Court's decision 
created conditions that were exactly opposite of what Congress had 
intended. For example concerning independent expenditures, this means 
that person or group has unlimited ability to spend money for or 
against any candidate, as long as they do not coordinate their efforts 
with the candidates.
  Because of the Supreme Court's decision, and the rising costs of 
political campaigns--costs that can be prohibitive and exclusionary--I 
remained active in trying to find a remedy, a remedy that would result 
in the kind of real reform that Congress had intended. Because of 
Buckley versus Valeo, it was clear that such reform could not be 
achieved by statute, but that it required a constitutional amendment. 
In four consecutive Congresses, Senator Hollings and I introduced 
constitutional amendments that would achieve Congress' goal of complete 
reform.
  In this Congress, Senator Hollings has reintroduced his 
constitutional amendment, and once again I intend to support it. I 
intend to support it because anything short of an amendment will fail 
to achieve the conditions necessary for real reform. Statutory reforms 
without a constitutional amendment will create even greater problems as 
political money will flow elsewhere to get around the statutory 
limitations.
  In other words, as restrictions are placed on certain channels, money 
will find its way into other channels--it will flow through independent 
expenditures and unlimited personal contributions, which are protected 
by the Supreme Court's decisions.
  Needless to say, this would further damage the ability of a sharp, 
qualified candidate to win office if he or she did not have the kind of 
money that a wealthy candidate--a candidate who may even come from out 
of State--can bring into a race. Small States like Delaware would be 
extremely vulnerable to the inequities created by these restrictions.
  For over two decades now, reformers in Congress have been seeking to 
overturn Supreme Court decisions by simple statute even though the 
decisions were based on the first amendment. That effort is a waste of 
time for anyone seeking comprehensive reform. Of course, if one's goal 
is to incapacitate all candidates who are not wealthy and to allow the 
wealthy and the special interests to determine the outcomes of 
elections, then perhaps such statutory reforms will do. But if one's 
goal is to level the playing field, then the solution must effectively 
address all the players and not only the candidates.
  So unlike some of my colleagues who support the pending 
constitutional amendment, I cannot support statutory proposals whose 
effect would be to weaken the role of candidates and to strengthen the 
role of those whose spending is constitutionally protected. No statute 
can limit what the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, 
protects.
  The Constitution gives us, in these circumstances, a simple choice: 
we can overturn the Supreme Court so that we can reenact the 1974 
campaign finance law or we can live under the Supreme Court decision, 
powerless to enact comprehensive reform.
  I am glad to see that this basic constitutional fact of life has now 
been embraced by the minority leaders in both Houses. But we need more 
support than theirs to achieve the supermajority in both Houses 
required to propose ratification. And that will happen when those 
organizations espousing reform stop blocking the only path to real 
reform.
  Last week on the floor, opponents of the pending constitutional 
amendment argued that adoption of the proposal would allow Congress to 
do all sorts of unreasonable things, such as outlawing all campaign 
expenditures so that incumbents would be reelected. It may be helpful 
to recall that 10 years ago the Hollings proposal did not include the 
important word ``reasonable'' modifying the limits Congress could 
impose on campaign expenditures. At that time, I argued that adding the 
word ``reasonable'' would make clear that judicial review of 
congressional limits was intended.
  Opponents seem to suggest that the pending proposal would give 
Congress unlimited discretion. That's not true. Courts now under the 
fourth amendment review what is ``unreasonable'' search and seizure. 
Under the pending proposal, courts would review what is or is not a 
``reasonable'' limit on campaign expenditures.
  Opponents also raised the question whether the proposal would 
authorize Congress to limit editorials. I must say that I never viewed 
editorials as campaign expenditures, and I believe that most people 
have the same view. If that point needed further clarification, I would 
think legislative history could make clear that editorial coverage is 
not intended to be included within the pending proposal.
  Mr. President, campaign finance reform must be fair. A constitutional 
amendment will allow us to make it fair. Campaign finance reform must 
also look at making races less expensive and more accessible to fine 
candidates who are deterred from running because of money.
  Campaigns can be made less expensive by shortening the campaign 
season, and by requiring television stations to grant free advertising 
time as a condition of their Federal licenses.
  It's no secret that the major expense in the electoral process is 
buying media time. I have long been an advocate of free TV for 
campaigns--going back to the 1970's--and I have introduced legislation 
toward this end.
  In 1993, I wrote to President Clinton seeking his support, and I'm 
now delighted to see that he has suggested requiring broadcasters to 
provide free time for candidates in exchange for new licenses to 
provide high-definition television.
  This will be no easy feat. When I first broached this idea, I could 
only find three Senators who would support me. One was Majority Leader 
Mike Mansfield. That was many years ago, and I must admit we have seen 
some progress. The last time I brought this legislation to the floor, a 
few years ago, I received six votes. But perhaps, in light of the 
scandal plaguing the White House, as well as the outcry from our 
constituents, this is an idea whose time has come.
  I have talked to my constituents, Mr. President. I know their 
feelings on campaign finance reform. They want reasonable limitations 
on campaign expenditures. They want reasonable limits placed on 
independent expenditures. And they want shorter campaigns.
  It is my sincere hope that as we move forward in this important 
debate, we will achieve these three very basic objectives, and, unlike 
our bear hunters, we will not, in the years to come, find ourselves in 
the same situation we are in now.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Joint 
Resolution 18, the campaign finance reform constitutional amendment 
sponsored by Senators Hollings and Specter. This constitutional 
amendment gives Congress and the States the power to limit campaign 
spending. Although I've supported similar constitutional amendments in 
the past, this is the first time I've cosponsored such an amendment.
  Amending the Constitution is not something I take lightly. The 
Constitution is the basic law of our land, and the guarantor of our 
country's most precious rights and liberties. The Constitution has only 
been changed 27 times--only 17 times since the first 10 amendments, the 
Bill of Rights, were adopted in 1789. Voting to amend the Constitution 
is perhaps the most important vote I can cast as a U.S. Senator. 
However, it seems to me we have reached a crisis point with our current 
campaign finance system. To put it simply, campaign spending is out of

[[Page S2390]]

control. It is my belief that this constitutional amendment will help 
us address in a fair and reasonable manner the chronic problems 
plaguing our current campaign finance system.
  In 1974, 23 years ago, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign 
Practices Act in response to the controversy surrounding the Watergate 
scandal. The Federal Election Campaign Practices Act required greater 
disclosure by candidates and parties, restricted cash contributions, 
and limited campaign expenditures. In 1976, the Supreme Court reviewed 
the constitutionality of the act in Buckley versus Valeo. In reviewing 
the case, the Court struck down the limits on campaign expenditures as 
an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. The effect of 
this decision is that it equated the unlimited expenditure of campaign 
money with the exercise of free speech. In my view, this decision was a 
mistake.
  Since that time, Congress has made numerous attempts at addressing 
this decision, particularly during the last 10 years, by putting forth 
various comprehensive campaign finance reform initiatives. Most of 
these bills attempted to address the campaign expenditure problem 
either by providing a system of public financing or providing 
inducements for voluntary spending limits. During my 10 years in the 
Senate, I have supported most of these proposals. Unfortunately, all of 
these initiatives were defeated.
  The campaign spending problem was further exacerbated by the Supreme 
Court's decision last June in the Colorado Republican Party versus FEC. 
In that decision, the Court struck down the spending limits of 
political parties in congressional campaigns. This decision virtually 
wiped out the remaining Federal campaign spending limits.
  Last year, we saw record amounts of money spent on campaigns. 
Republican and Democratic committees alone spent $881 million and it 
has been estimated that more than $4 billion was spent on campaigns at 
all levels during the last election cycle. There is every indication to 
believe that the costs of campaigns will continue to skyrocket. Some 
argue that the amount of money spent on campaigns is insignificant when 
compared with the amount we spend on other facets of our economy. I 
think this is a specious comparison.
  The current campaign finance system is out of control and it 
threatens to push average Americans out of the process. Voter cynicism 
and apathy are on the increase. In the last election, voter turnout 
fell below 50 percent. Most people understand the corrosive effect the 
current campaign finance system has on our democracy.
  The time has come for us to fix this system by placing reasonable 
limits on the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns. We must 
restore confidence in our political system. Voting for this 
constitutional amendment will allow us to do just that. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 18.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
constitutional amendment we are debating today.
  Frankly, I think this amendment is very dangerous.
  It is dangerous anytime you tinker with the first amendment, our 
right to freedom of speech.
  I suppose what is most appalling to me is that we have the tenacity 
to even consider this amendment. Two weeks ago, the Senate could not 
muster the fortitude to pass a constitutional amendment to control 
Federal spending.
  Now, here we are debating an amendment to limit an individual's 
spending.
  Mr. President, this demonstrates just how backward our priorities 
are.
  We can't control how much the Federal Government will spend--but we 
will presume to tell an individual how much he or she can spend on 
political campaigns.
  That is simply unacceptable.
  Also, Mr. President, I am not a lawyer. But the term ``reasonable'' 
limits used in this amendment appears to be pretty loose.
  How can we reasonably restrict what someone can spend?
  How can we reasonably restrict political speech?
  And the very thought that the Federal Government--the Congress--would 
be setting a reasonable standard is troubling.
  Further, Mr. President, we should call this for what it really is--
the incumbent protection constitutional amendment.
  Everyone knows that if you limit your opponent's spending--the better 
known incumbent has an advantage. And under this amendment, we can 
limit opposition spending.
  This is absurd--the Congress setting how much our opponents can spend 
against us.
  Who can possibly hope to challenge an incumbent if he or she is not 
allowed to use their own money--however little or much--in the 
campaign.
  Of course, this amendment probably puts us on the path to Federal 
funding of political campaigns.
  Mr. President, I cannot abide the fact that not only do we pay a 
politician's salary. Now some politicians expect the citizens to spend 
their tax dollars paying for the campaign as well.
  We can't ask the working men and women of this country to do that.
  Further, I would remind my colleagues that we have full Federal 
funding for Presidential races--and has this stopped the President from 
shamelessly raising money? The answer is no.
  President Clinton didn't need to sell the Lincoln bedroom to pay for 
his campaign. The taxpayers of this country paid for every penny of his 
campaign. We did this so that the President wouldn't have to be 
bothered or be influenced by the fundraising process.
  But that apparently did not matter. His goal was to raise as much 
money as possible--beyond that legally permissible for himself--to buy 
misleading ads on Medicare.
  Federal funding has failed at the Presidential level--and it won't 
work at the congressional level.
  Mr. President, I also have to question why the minority and the 
President is in such a hurry to enact campaign finance reform.
  During 1996, they used the White House and the executive branch to 
squeeze money out of everyone from banks to Indian tribes.
  Now the American public is finding out about it.
  Suddenly, the No. 1 priority of the Democratic Party is campaign 
finance reform.
  When the horse is out of the barn, a horsethief running down the 
street telling everyone about it isn't going to do any good.
  If the front pages weren't covered in negative stories about the 
sordid tales of DNC and White House fundraising, I don't think we would 
be out here rushing to clutter the Constitution with supposed campaign 
reform.
  Finally, Mr. President, we never seem to question why there is so 
much money in politics. One reason we have overlooked is because the 
Government is in everyone's business.
  If we weren't threatening to legislate and regulate businesses on a 
daily basis, perhaps they wouldn't feel compelled to give large 
donations.
  The best campaign finance reform we can make here is to get out of 
Americans' daily lives. They shouldn't have to buy access for the 
purpose of making their views heard on legislation that would be 
ruinous to the free enterprise system.
  If we would stop the bad legislation and regulation--we could stop 
the bad campaign finance practices we don't like.
  Mr. President, I have great respect for Senator Hollings and Senator 
Bryan, they are both fine Senators from the other party, but I believe 
that on this issue, they have taken a very dangerous approach by 
suggesting that we amend the Constitution.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield our remaining time to the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleague 
from South Carolina.
  Mr. President, I am here to express my support for Senate Joint 
Resolution 18, introduced by the Senator from

[[Page S2391]]

South Carolina and the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  If I may, let me just briefly respond to the statement made by my 
friend from Kentucky that there are not any interest groups supporting 
this amendment on the left or on the right. I am not surprised by that. 
Do you know who is supporting this amendment? The unorganized mass of 
the American people who do not belong to special interest groups of the 
left or the right and who know that something fundamentally wrong is 
happening in our democracy that is depriving them of their equal and 
individual right to affect their government. What is happening is the 
unlimited, and I am afraid corrupting, use of money in America 
politics.
  Mr. President, I do not come to supporting a constitutional amendment 
of any kind, certainly one affecting the first amendment, lightly. I do 
not believe that I have ever supported any other amendment to the 
Constitution that would alter the first amendment. But I think that the 
threat to our democracy from the excess of money in politics is so 
serious that it merits--in fact, it calls out for--support of this 
constitutional amendment.
  Let's remember what we are doing here when we talk about the Buckley 
decision. To pass this constitutional amendment is not to contradict 
what the Framers of the Constitution did in their great work more than 
200 years ago. It is to contradict five of the Members of the U.S. 
Supreme Court, who gave a rendering of the first amendment that I 
cannot imagine the Framers of our Constitution had in mind, which is 
that money is speech. It is hard to believe. The consequences are 
serious.
  So it is only by supporting this amendment and giving us the right to 
limit the amount of money in politics that I think we can restore a 
sense of integrity and sanity to our campaign finance system and, if I 
do say so, to our democracy.
  Mr. President, much of the debate over this proposed constitutional 
amendment has centered on this question of the threat to the principle 
of free speech. Of course, we all hold that principle dear. But free 
speech is not what is at issue here. Free speech is about the 
inalienable God-given right of all of us to express our points of view 
without governmental interference. That simply is not at issue here in 
this proposed amendment, or in our campaign finance system.
  Mr. President, nothing in this amendment or in any campaign finance 
reform package that I have seen that could be passed here would 
diminish or threaten individual Americans' rights to express their 
views about candidates running for office, or about any problem or 
issue in American life. What would be threatened by this constitutional 
amendment is what should be threatened by it, and that is something 
entirely different--the ever-increasing and disproportionate power that 
those with money have over our political system. As everyone in this 
Chamber knows, the spiraling costs of running for office require all of 
us to spend more and more time raising money and more and more time 
with those who give it.
  Barely a day goes by in which we do not learn of an event or a 
meeting with elected officials attended only by those who could afford 
to give $5,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 or more--sums of money that are 
obviously beyond the capacity of the overwhelming majority of the 
American people. And that is threatening a principle all of us also 
hold dear, as dearly as the principle of free speech, which is the 
fundamental underlying principle of our democracy. It is a sacred 
principle. I say it is sacred because of that line in the beginning of 
the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal and we, men 
and women of America, are endowed not by Congress, not by some 
committee but by our Creator with the inalienable right to life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  That principle guarantees that every person has one vote and each and 
every one of us, rich or poor or in between, has an equal right and an 
equal ability to influence the workings of our Government. As it stands 
now, it is that sacred principle, the underlying principle of all of 
the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, that is 
under attack from our campaign finance status quo system, and that 
sacred principle that promises to remain under attack until we do 
something to save it and protect it, and that something, I submit, is 
quite simply to limit the influence of money in politics. I do not see 
a way to do that without limiting the amount of money spent in 
political campaigns, and I do not see a way to do that constitutionally 
without passing this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. President, nothing less than the future of our great democracy is 
at stake here. Unless we act to reform our campaign finance system, 
people with money will continue to have disproportionate influence in 
our system. People who are not even citizens of the United States will 
try to influence our Government's decision by their use of money. And 
the genius of America--that our citizenship based on our common 
creation by God, not our pocketbook, gives us each equal power to play 
a role in our governance--that genius will continue to be under seige.
  Mr. President, I support the constitutional amendment. I thank the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Kentucky has the remaining time, 8 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my good friend from Connecticut 
acknowledged that there were no groups agitating for a constitutional 
amendment but the unorganized mass of people were.
  Well, America is a seething cauldron of special interests. We all 
belong to one group or another, many of which have legitimate issues 
before the Government. And, of course, we do not think the group we 
belong to is a special interest. That is the other guy's group that is 
trying to do something I do not like. But the fact is, the Founders of 
this country envisioned that we would be a seething cauldron of 
interest groups all banding together to petition the Government, which 
is another part of the first amendment. These people do not want to be 
pushed off the playing field. They do not want to be pushed off the 
playing field. They think that their involvement in issues is 
important. They think it helps create a better America. They do not 
view themselves as pursuing some evil goal. After all, who is it that 
is going to have the wisdom to sort of sanitize America of all these 
special interests and who are we to be so arrogant as to preach to 
these groups that their interests are somehow evil. Who is not suspect? 
Whose interests are above reproach?
  This amendment says we get to determine that right in here; we, the 
Government, get to decide what is reasonable speech. And you know what 
we will do, Mr. President. We will shut up all the people who are 
criticizing us. We will pull them off the playing field altogether. We 
will set a spending limit so low that all of us are guaranteed to be 
reelected. We will control the game all right.
  This is a preposterous suggestion, with all due respect to those who 
will vote for it. It guts the first amendment. It takes citizens off 
the playing field and out of the process. This is exactly the wrong 
thing to do.
  George Will, in a column in the Washington Post February 13, referred 
to this as a ``Government Gag''--a ``Government Gag.'' I ask unanimous 
consent that George Will's column be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 1997]

                             Government Gag

                          (By George F. Will)

       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

[[Page S2392]]

       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 frontal assault ever 
     mounted on 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 discrimination 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. In addition to that, Mr. President, the American Civil 
Liberties Union in a letter to me dated March 6, 1997, also expressed 
their opposition to this constitutional amendment to amend the first 
amendment for the first time in 200 years. I ask unanimous consent that 
it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                    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 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.
       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.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       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. . . .
       The ACLU urges Senators to oppose S.J. Res. 18.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Laura W. Murphy.


[[Page S2393]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, just today the Washington Times 
editorialized, saying ``Save the First Amendment,'' very strongly in 
opposition to the Hollings amendment. I ask unanimous consent that this 
editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 18, 1997]

                        Save the First Amendment

       ``The First Amendment denies government the power to 
     determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
     wasteful, excessive or unwise.'' So said the U.S. Supreme 
     Court in what some now refer to as its ``infamous'' 1976 
     ruling in the landmark case Buckly vs. Valeo. The high 
     court's decision struck down as unconstitutional post-
     Watergate reforms restricting campaign expenditures, and 
     critics have been trying to get around the decision ever 
     since.
       Today, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to take up a proposed 
     constitutional amendment to override the ruling and, in 
     effect, reform the reforms. South Carolina Sen. Ernest 
     Hollings, the amendment's chief backer along with 
     Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, calls it the only ``rational 
     alternative'' to a system that awarded public office to the 
     highest bidder.'' Among other things it states Congress can 
     set ``reasonable'' limits on contributions to and 
     expenditures by candidates for federal office. It gives 
     states similar powers to control state campaign spending.
       The proposed amendment is but the first shot in a battle 
     over campaign finance reform that gets hotter with each new 
     story about the golden handshakes Mr. Clinton got from 
     contributors during the last presidential campaign. Still to 
     come is the McCain-Feingold bill to put ``voluntary'' limits 
     on campaign contributions and an effort to provide for 
     taxpayer financing of campaigns or, as critics refer to the 
     idea, food stamps for politicians.
       Arrayed against the Hollings amendment is a formidable 
     coalition of interest groups ranging from the American Civil 
     Liberties to the National Rifle Association, who have little 
     in common other than the principle that limiting 
     contributions and expenditures will restrict the right of 
     their members to free speech. These days, some speech costs a 
     lot, whether in the form of commercials, mailings or bumper 
     stickers. Cutting off funds in this case inevitably means 
     cutting off your ability to disseminate your message--free 
     speech, in other words.
       At the head of the coalition is Kentucky Sen. Mitch 
     McConnell, whom Ellen Miller of Public Campaign calls the 
     Darth Vader of campaign-finance reform, so successful has 
     he been in blocking the proposed changes. Mr. McConnell is 
     an unapologetic defender of the political debate that 
     comes of campaign spending. Indeed, he considers such 
     spending to be evidence of the robust debate indispensible 
     to the well-being of the country.
       If such a position makes him the Darth Vader of campaign 
     reform, then here's hoping the force, so to speak, is with 
     him. Campaign spending is one measure of the power government 
     has to manipulate political and economic ends to the benefit 
     of one group or another. If you want to limit spending, limit 
     the power and watch how quickly the fund-raisers dissipate.
       Short of that, there is a danger that tightened regulations 
     may tilt campaign laws to benefit one group or other. If you 
     limit soft-money contributions to political parties, for 
     example, you may end up giving an edge to organized labor, 
     which favors candidates with in-kind and off-the-books 
     contributions in the form of get-out-the-vote drives and 
     phone banks.
       There are also free-speech concerns with government 
     campaign financing. Why should taxpayers have to see their 
     hard-earned dollars go to support candidates with whom they 
     disagree?
       Does the current system really favor those candidates with 
     deep pockets? Ask Oliver North, Michael Huffington and Steve 
     Forbes, all of whom raised and spent huge sums of money, in 
     some cases their own, without winning office.
       The best kind of reform, long advocated here, would drop 
     spending limits and increase disclosure. As University of 
     Virginia professor Larry Sabato has put it, ``Let a well-
     informed marketplace, rather than a committee of federal 
     bureaucrats, be the judge of whether someone has accepted too 
     much money from a particular interest group or spent too much 
     to win an election. Reformers who object to money in politics 
     would lose little under such a scheme, since the current 
     system--itself a product of reform--has already utterly 
     failed to inhibit special-interest influence.''
       Congress shouldn't aggravate the problem by gutting the 
     First Amendment.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I referred earlier to a press conference that I 
happened to have had Friday with various groups opposed to this 
amendment and also opposed to McCain-Feingold. The press conference was 
really about both. Among the groups organized in opposition: the 
National Taxpayers Union, the National Right to Life Committee, the 
National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the 
Christian Coalition, the Direct Marketing Association, the National 
Association of Broadcasters, the National Assocation of Business PAC's, 
the National Education Association, the National Association of 
Realtors.
  All of these groups, which represent over 15 million American 
citizens, are saying in effect to the Congress, do not amend the first 
amendment for the first time in 200 years. Do not pass a measure like 
McCain-Feingold. Do not shut us up. We are not part of the problem. We 
are busily at work expressing our point of view, arguing for the causes 
that we think are important. This is totally American. This is the 
essence of America.
  And so those groups came together last Friday in an effort to express 
themselves about this proposal to amend the first amendment and also 
McCain-Feingold. I think one of the most interesting speakers was from 
an organization with which I am seldom aligned, the National Education 
Association. Don Morabito, who is from the NEA, was at the press 
conference, and he said, ``The fact is,'' referring to the groups in 
the room, ``We don't represent the same people, don't contribute to the 
same candidates and don't believe in the same things,'' with one 
exception. We agree on the first amendment. We agree on the first 
amendment.
  The ACLU, in referring to the proposal before us, said the 
constitutional amendment is ``truly an abhorrent proposal,'' with 
``breathtaking implications, and McCain-Feingold is draconian 
regulation.'' ``And if you want to talk `unseemly,' added ACLU 
Washington director Laura Murphy, what about the current reform 
proposal's efforts to `demonize' special interests and political action 
committees that follow the law?''
  So I think it is important to remember what the current feeding 
frenzy is all about. We all thought it was about illegal, illegal 
activity, and there seems to have been a good deal of that particularly 
at the White House and in the Democratic campaign for President last 
year, but now the effort is to switch, change the subject and to pass 
either a constitutional amendment or some legislation to take American 
citizens out of the game.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a 
question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, would it be appropriate to say, I ask my 
friend from Kentucky, that at the present time under the first 
amendment the American people are free to participate in their 
political system and in public affairs pretty much in any way they 
wish, that their freedom of speech is entirely unlimited?
  And would it be fair also to say that the thrust of this 
constitutional amendment is that its sponsors are asking the American 
people to give the Congress of the United States the right to devise, 
to knit together a gag which is then to be applied to the American 
people themselves, not just candidates but to any American who wishes 
to express his views about a candidate, any organization that wishes to 
express its views about a candidate, for that matter, any newspaper or 
television station that wishes to express its view about a candidate; 
that this constitutional amendment says that what has been entirely 
free, an entirely free process, we now ask that you allow us to impose 
whatever we consider to be a reasonable gag upon your exercise of that 
right?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Washington, he is 
absolutely correct. He describes the constitutional amendment with 
precision. And that is exactly what the sponsors of this proposal have 
in mind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________