[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2504-S2507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 COMPREHENSIVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the last several days of debate in 
this Chamber we have heard those who favored the appointment of a 
special counsel say that time is of the essence, and that we should 
move forward and ask the Attorney General to make this appointment as 
quickly as possible. In fact, they were so determined to pass this 
resolution as a bon voyage gift to the President as he heads off to the 
Helsinki summit that we had to vote today. Today, before the President 
left, we had to make certain that this gesture was made. Many of us 
felt this was unnecessary and ill-timed and, frankly, unprecedented, 
that this type of embarrassment would be directed at the President as 
he left our shores to head off for a critical summit with the only 
other superpower with nuclear weapons in the world. And yet those who 
prevailed on the majority side were convinced that time was of the 
essence: let us move forward and do it now.
  Catching that spirit, I come before the Senate today with the 
suggestion that we not stop with this resolution but go even further 
and plumb the depths of the real problem that we are examining here. It 
goes beyond the 1996 Presidential campaign. It goes beyond the 
Democratic Party. What we are focusing on is our very campaign finance 
system itself as used by Presidential candidates, congressional 
candidates, Democrats and, yes, Republicans.
  And so today I am hoping that that same sense of urgency, that same 
commitment to truth, and that same perseverance that we find changes to 
win back the confidence of the American people will be demonstrated 
when I call a resolution before this body in a few moments.
  You see, Mr. President, those who follow Federal election campaigns 
know that there have been some dramatic changes over the last few 
decades. Federal election campaign costs have increased from an 
estimated $2.65 billion in the 1996 cycle--that is a threefold increase 
over campaign spending just 20 years ago even adjusting for inflation--
$2.6 billion on our campaigns. In the 1995-96 election cycle, the 
Democratic Party committees raised $332 million, a 73-percent increase 
over the $192 million raised just 4 years before. The Republicans 
outdid us, as usual, raising $549 million, a 74-percent increase over 
the $316 million that they raised 4 years earlier.
  Take a look at congressional races. In 1976, all congressional races 
in the United States cost $99 million. By 1996, 20 years later, that 
$99 million had mushroomed to $626 million--more than a sixfold 
increase.
  Soft money. Well, for those who do not follow this closely, it may be 
a curiosity to use these terms ``hard money'' and ``soft money,'' but 
politicians know what it is all about. Soft money is kind of the 
mystery money in politics. And has it grown. Take a look at the fact 
that since 1992, the amount of soft money in campaigns has tripled, 
from $86 million to $263 million.
  Stepping aside from the whole debate about the nature of campaigns 
and whether they are too negative, too personal and too nasty, most 
everyone will concede that we are plowing more and more money into our 
political campaigns in America.
  There is a curious thing that has to be noted, though. As political 
campaigns have become longer, more expensive, and more negative, voters 
have apparently decided not to participate in elections. Consider this. 
Between 1948 and 1968, 60 percent of the electorate showed up to vote 
in a Presidential election. Then from 1972 to 1992, we saw a 53 percent 
turnout, a decline after Watergate. Listen to what happened in 1996, 
the most expensive Federal election in our history for congressional 
candidates, senatorial candidates and Presidential candidates, heaping 
dollar upon dollar in this election process. The voters out there 
listened carefully and a majority of them decided to stay home. So, for 
the first time since 1948, we had fewer than 50 percent of the 
electorate turning out to vote in a Presidential election; 49 percent 
of the electorate turned out. Is it not interesting that the more money 
we plow into our election campaigns, the fewer voters turn out?

  Consider if you had a company and you were designing a marketing 
program and you went to the owners of the company and said, ``We have 
just got the statistics and information back. After we spent millions 
of dollars on advertising, people are buying fewer products.'' It might 
raise some serious questions. Maybe your advertising campaign is not 
what it should be--and I think the voters tell us that when they see 
negative ads. But perhaps the fact that you are spending more on 
advertising is not helping the low regard people have for your product. 
In this case, the voters told us, in 1996, in the November election, 
that they had a pretty low regard for the product, the candidates, all 
of us.
  I think there is a message here, an important message about the 
future of this democracy. We can talk about special investigations: Did 
someone violate the law in 1996, Democrat or Republican, and should we 
hold them accountable if they did? But if we do not get down to the 
root cause of the problem here, if we do not address what I consider to 
be the serious issue of campaign finance reform, I can guarantee the 
cynicism and skepticism among voters will just increase. So, we have 
heard a lot of talk today about the sense of urgency and the need to 
deal quickly with this whole question of campaign finance reform. Some 
of my colleagues have said, ``Oh, don't move too quickly now; let us 
make sure we make the right changes.''
  Let me show a little illustration. How much time have we spent on the 
issue of campaign finance reform in the last 10 years? Mr. President, 
6,742 pages of hearings; 3,361 floor speeches--add one for this one 
today; 2,748 pages of reports from the Congressional Research Service, 
1,063 pages of committee reports; 113 votes in the Senate; 522 
witnesses; 49 days of testimony; 29 sets of hearings by 8 different 
congressional committees; 17 filibusters; 8 cloture votes on one bill; 
1 Senator arrested and dragged to the floor--with bodily injury, I 
might add--and 15 reports issued by 6 different congressional 
committees. And what do we have to show for it? Nada, zero, zilch, 
nothing. What we have to show for it is the call for an independent 
counsel to determine whether someone has violated the laws under the 
current system. I think there is a lot more to this.
  I hope my colleagues join me in believing that if this process of 
investigation does not lead to reform, the American people will be 
disappointed. It is one thing to be hyperinflated with moral rectitude 
about the violations of campaign law. But that is not enough. Just 
cataloging the sins of the current system, that is not enough. The real 
test is whether we are prepared to change the system, reform the law, 
and return public confidence to our democratic process.
  There are a lot of options out there. One of those that is frequently 
spoken of is the McCain-Feingold legislation, I believe the only 
bipartisan campaign reform bill before us. Two Republican Senators and, 
I believe, 22 Democratic Senators have come together in an effort to 
have campaign finance reform. I have cosponsored it. It may not be the 
best, or the only, but it is a good one. We should consider it as a 
starting point in the debate.
  Yesterday, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, Senator

[[Page S2505]]

Kerry of Massachusetts, and others announced agreement to introduce a 
plan modeled after the Maine election law reform. It is a very 
interesting proposal which would really deflate the money in politics. 
Senator Wellstone is here to join me in this debate and describe that 
bill and his own thoughts on that subject.
  There are lots of ideas, good ideas. We have to really dedicate 
ourselves with the same sense of urgency and with the same passion to 
reforming the system that we are dedicated to investigating wrongdoing 
under the current political finance system.
  At this point, I yield to my colleague from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek recognition in his own 
right?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is speaking within the 60 minutes?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Of course, the Senator will stay within the 60 
minutes. And, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, far less than 60 
minutes. I just wanted to add a couple of things to what the Senator 
from Illinois has just said.
  First of all, I really appreciate the emphasis of the Senator from 
Illinois on representative democracy in our country. I think this is 
the central issue for this Congress. I think this is the most important 
issue in American politics. I have spoken before on the floor of the 
Senate about this. I am not going to repeat what I have said already.
  But I really think, if we want to have people engaged in the 
political process, if we want people to register to vote and vote in 
elections, if we want people to believe in our political process, if we 
want people to believe in us, then I think we absolutely have to deal 
with this awful mix of money and politics. Because regular people--
which I use in a positive way--in Illinois and Minnesota and Oklahoma 
and around the country, know that, No. 1, too much money is spent on 
these campaigns; No. 2, some people count more than others and there is 
too much special interest access and influence; No. 3, there is too 
much of a money chase and Senators from both political parties have to 
spend entirely too much time raising money.
  I just ran for office. I had to raise the money.
  And, No. 4, I think people in the country know that it is getting 
dangerously close to the point where either you are a millionaire 
yourself, or you have to be very dependent upon those that have the 
hugest amounts of capital for these expensive capital-intensive TV 
campaigns. Otherwise, you are disqualified.
  In a democracy, people should not be, de facto, disqualified because 
they are not wealthy or because they do not have access to those people 
who have the wealth or the economical clout or the political clout in 
America. That turns the very idea of representative democracy on its 
head. That takes the very goodness of our country and turns it on its 
head. That takes the American dream and turns it on its head. I have 
said it before, but it is worth repeating, that if you believe in the 
standard that each person ought to count as one and no more than one, 
then you would be for reform.
  My last point, because I could talk about this for a long, long time, 
my colleague was kind enough to mention the McCain-Feingold bill. He 
was kind enough to mention the bill that yesterday we agreed to 
introduce, Senator Kerry and I, and Senator Glenn and Senator Reid; and 
Senator Bumpers was there as well.
  Mr. President, the point today is as follows. I think people--
unfortunately, but the proof is going to be in eating the pudding--
believe that what is going on in the Congress amounts to little more 
than symbolic politics. I think people believe we are going to have a 
committee investigation, an attempt to move some of these issues to the 
Rules Committee, maybe try and bury this here, maybe have hearings and 
hearings and hearings, then have a variety of different charges or 
countercharges made, maybe more polarization, maybe more accusations. 
Then, after all is said and done, it will be the same moving picture 
shown over and over and over again, where you have hearings, speeches, 
reports, witnesses, you name it, followed by the same hearings, the 
same speeches, the same calls to action, the same kind of 
investigations, followed by inaction. I do not understand, for the life 
of me, why we do not move forward. I think the purpose of this 
resolution is to say, set a date.
  A good friend of mine, Jim Hightower, who was great on the Ag 
Committee, loves to say, ``You don't have to be `Who's Who' to know 
what's what.'' People in this country have figured this out. It is time 
for reform. We know more than enough about what is wrong. We know more 
than enough about what is wrong with this game, the ways it is broken, 
and it is time to fix it.
  So this resolution calls for a date certain. It is right on mark, and 
I am proud to support it.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise also to support the unanimous-
consent request that will be propounded by the Senator from Illinois.
  Almost the first question from our constituents that all of us, I 
suppose, when we reach the airport going back to our States, confront 
is, ``Well, what are you working on?'' I know what I would like to be 
working on. A moment ago we talked about the need for this Senate to 
work on the chemical weapons treaty, a treaty that has been in the 
works for a number of years, has been signed by many countries, and 
would end the spread of poisonous gas around our world and make this a 
safer world. I would like to be working on that, but we cannot get it 
to the floor of the Senate. I hope it will get here soon. The power of 
scheduling, of course, is not on this side of the aisle.
  The Senator from Illinois raises the other issue that I would like 
for us to be working on, and that is the issue of campaign finance 
reform. No one who has been paying attention in this country can fail 
to understand the need for us to consider campaign finance reform. The 
Senator from Illinois is simply raising the question, and a 
recommendation is implicit, to say we would like, by a date certain, to 
have a commitment to consider campaign finance reform on the floor of 
the Senate. That is what the Senator from the State of Illinois is 
saying to the Senate with his resolution, a resolution that I think is 
timely, one that I support and one that I hope will allow us to reach 
an agreement with the majority party on a date certain to bring 
campaign finance reform to the floor of the Senate.
  The Senator from Illinois held up a chart that shows the number of 
hearings that have been held, the number of pages of testimony, the 
number of witnesses. There doesn't need to be a great deal more 
discussion about whether we should be considering campaign finance 
reform. The system is broken, it ought to be fixed, and there isn't 
just one answer to fix it. There are a number of ideas, probably from 
both sides of the aisle, that can contribute to an approach that will 
address this in a way the American people believe we ought to address 
this issue.
  So, this issue is not one that will simply go away. This is not an 
issue you can bury in the backyard somewhere and forget about it. Every 
day when you read the newspapers, you see stories, again, about this 
campaign or that campaign, about this administration or that Member of 
Congress. The American people, I think soon, will insist to know who in 
the Congress, in the House and the Senate, contributed to making 
campaign finance reform a reality and who stood in the way.
  I guess the message here is for those who do not want to see any 
reform of our campaign financing system, our message is to them: Get 
out of the way, let us at least have a shot on the floor of the Senate 
in crafting, hopefully, a bipartisan approach, if we can craft it, a 
campaign finance reform proposal that gives the American people some 
confidence that the abuses we have read about, the excesses, the 
exponential growth in campaign spending in this country can come to an 
end.
  I happen to feel very strongly that one of the ingredients that is 
necessary is spending limits. The Supreme Court had a decision in 
Buckley versus

[[Page S2506]]

Valeo--it was a 5 to 4 decision, I believe --in which they said it is 
perfectly constitutional to limit political contributions, but it is 
unconstitutional to limit political expenditures. Far be it for me to 
speak over the shoulder of the Supreme Court, but, by the same token, I 
don't understand that logic.
  It seems to me, and we have had debate on this on a constitutional 
amendment just in the last days, it seems to me that part of the answer 
to this problem is to reasonably limit campaign expenditures for all 
politicians running for all offices in a fair and thoughtful way. We do 
not deserve the kind of campaigns that the American people are now 
getting.

  There are other models around the world. I kind of like the British 
system, where they apparently sound a starting gun, or whatever it is, 
and for 30 or 45 days, they scramble and wrestle and debate and do 
whatever you do in campaigns, and the fur flies and the dust is all 
over, and then the bell goes off and it is over. It is over. Then they 
vote.
  In this country, my Lord, what happens is years in advance of an 
election now, we have campaign activities cranking up for President and 
the Senate and Congress, and it never ends. It bores the American 
people to death, first of all, and second, they have become so long and 
so expensive, is it any wonder that 50 percent of the American people 
said when it comes time to casting a vote, they say, ``Count me out, 
I'm not going to participate''?
  There are a lot of things we need to do to reform our political 
system and make it better. It seems to me job one is this issue of 
reforming the campaign finance system, the method by which all 
campaigns are financed in this country. The Senator from Illinois is 
simply saying today, let us have an opportunity, a commitment, a date 
by which the Senate will consider campaign finance reform. I am pleased 
to support him, and I hope others in the Senate will do the same. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Who seeks time?
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there have been a lot of headlines in the 
last several weeks of embarrassment to both political parties. There 
have been a lot of questions asked about the system by which we raise 
funds at all levels. Questions were raised about the use of a telephone 
by the Vice President, and I do not know, frankly, what was legal and 
what was proper in that situation, but we all know that at least two 
Members of this body have acknowledged that they used their office 
telephones in campaigns gone by to raise money. They said they will 
never do it again, as the Vice President has said. But it raises a 
bipartisan challenge to us in limiting campaign fundraising activities 
in any public building.
  There was a question raised as to whether or not an employee at the 
White House was handed a check for the Democratic National Committee 
which she then turned over to the committee, and whether that was legal 
or proper. We know 2 years ago a Republican Congressman on the floor of 
the House walked around handing out campaign checks from tobacco 
companies to their favorite candidates, and that, of course, raises a 
bipartisan question about the propriety of receiving or distributing 
campaign checks in a public building, on the floor of the House or the 
Senate. These are all legitimate and bipartisan questions.
  This morning's Washington Post raised a question on the front page as 
to whether a Member of Congress was putting some pressure on a certain 
group to raise money for him in the last campaign, and the pressure 
went so far as to suggest that the Ambassador from the country involved 
was saying, ``This is unusual; we have never had this kind of pressure 
put on us.'' The same charges are made against the White House: Did 
they go too far in soliciting contributions? Again, a bipartisan 
problem and one we clearly should address.
  For those who have tunnel vision on this and see all of the sins and 
wrongdoing only on the Democratic side, I think in all honesty, they 
know better. We are all guilty of this. We are guilty of this at the 
congressional level, at the Presidential level, Democrats and 
Republicans, and to merely turn that spotlight on one group or one 
party really does not get to the real challenge here. And the real 
challenge is, will we change the system?
  The resolution that I am going to offer says to the Senate, let us 
make a commitment, both sides of the aisle, that by a time certain, we 
will bring to this floor campaign finance reform legislation and pass 
it by a time certain. I do not presume what that might include. I do 
not presume to suggest that any bill pending might be passed. We might 
come up with a new work product completely, totally, but I do suggest 
to you that unless and until we make this commitment to reform the 
system, the skepticism and cynicism will continue and may increase.
  So, Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Dorgan and 
Wellstone, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 65, a resolution calling 
on the Senate to commit to bring comprehensive campaign finance reform 
legislation to the floor by May 31 and to adopt, as a goal, the 
enactment of such legislation by July 4 of this year; that the 
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Did you conclude, I ask my colleague from Illinois?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will just make a couple brief comments concerning 
campaign finance.
  One, I share some of the concerns of my colleague from Illinois. I 
will be happy to work with him. I did object to the resolution saying 
we wanted to have it done by May 31 or July 4. But I am committed to 
making campaign reform. And I will work with my colleague and friend 
from Illinois and others to try and see if we cannot come up with a 
bipartisan package that would do just that.
  It may not include everything that everybody has been talking about, 
but it will be constitutional, and, hopefully, may be passable through 
both Houses. It may not include everything. We may have to pass a 
couple pieces of legislation before we are done. But I have been 
charged with the responsibility on this side to try to put together a 
package that is saleable. I will work with my colleague and friend from 
Illinois to try to make that happen.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his statement. And 
it may be progress. I hope it is.
  Would the Senator be kind enough to tell me his thoughts as to 
whether or not we should accomplish significant and meaningful campaign 
finance reform this year so that the 1998 election cycle can be a 
cleaner, perhaps better managed election with more interest and 
participation by our voters across the country?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to tell my colleague, if you are asking 
me what the effective date of the legislation will be, I am not sure. 
But I do think that we have an interest, and I would say a bipartisan 
interest, in trying to do some things together: Greater disclosure, 
trying to make sure that nobody is forced or compelled to contribute to 
any campaign against their will, maybe making some change in 
contribution limits, increasing individual limits, maybe reducing other 
limits. Possibly we can get a bipartisan coalition on that, and doing a 
few other things that we might be able to get agreement on.
  But the effective date, well, that would be one of the things we will 
have to wrestle with. That is a challenge. Some of those things for 
disclosure, I expect could be effective certainly for the 1998 
election. If you changed individual contributions, which I am 
contemplating offering as one suggestion, whether that should be 
effective immediately or effective post the 1998 election is something 
we will have to discuss.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield further?

[[Page S2507]]

  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Could the Senator give me some assurance by the majority 
leadership that this issue should come to the floor this calendar year?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will just tell my colleague, I have been charged with 
the responsibility of trying to make sure that we are ready to do that. 
It is my hope and expectation that we will be ready to do that--not tie 
this down to a particular timetable--but I hope that we will be able to 
do it in the not-too-distant future. Maybe we will be able to meet the 
timeframe as suggested by my colleague from Illinois. I am not ready to 
give a date. But you are saying for this year. I hope that will be the 
case.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would further yield.
  I will return and my colleagues will return with similar resolutions 
in the hopes that we can reach a bipartisan agreement for a timetable 
to consider this issue. Absent that agreement, many of us are afraid 
that we will once again fall into this morass of hearings and speeches 
and a lot of jawboning and very little progress on the subject. I hope 
that my colleague from Oklahoma will join me in that effort.

  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend.

                          ____________________