[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6955-S6956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE NEED FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. FEINGOLD. It was just about 1 year ago, Mr. President, last June, 
when I stood here on the Senate floor with the senior Senator from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, and others, and participated in a somewhat 
abbreviated debate on the need for meaningful, bipartisan campaign 
reform.
  We discussed several issues during that debate, Mr. President. We 
talked about the 1994 elections and the resulting record amount of 
campaign spending in that election.
  We had a chance to talk briefly about how one candidate for the U.S. 
Senate had spent $30 million of his own money to try and win a 
California Senate seat.
  We talked about how the average amount of money spent by a winning 
1994 Senate candidate had, unfortunately, reached over $4.6 million. We 
talked about the damaging effect that the unabated flow of campaign 
cash had on our political system as well as on the public perceptions 
of this institution.
  In response to all of that, interestingly, we were told by opponents 
of reform that all was well, that spiraling campaign spending would 
somehow strengthen our democracy, and that our system was far from 
crying out for reform.
  And then, on a quiet Tuesday afternoon, after a few paltry hours of 
debate

[[Page S6956]]

and absolutely no opportunity for Senators to offer amendments, the 
bipartisan McCain-Feingold reform bill fell six votes short of breaking 
a filibuster, and that was done effectively by the guardians of the 
status quo.
  That was a year ago, Mr. President. Although our opponents continue 
to proclaim that all is well and reform is not a priority, the evidence 
from the 1996 campaign stands in stark contrast to the declarations of 
those who are trying to defend the indefensible.
  Last year, according to the Washington Post, candidates and parties 
spent a record amount of money on Federal elections--$2.7 billion. Mr. 
President, $2.7 billion was spent on those elections, which is an all-
time record. This record amount of campaign spending, I assume, is 
exactly what the opponents of reform, including the Speaker of the 
other body and the junior Senator from Kentucky had really hoped would 
happen.
  Recall Speaker Gingrich's words from the last Congress:

       One of the greatest myths in modern politics is that 
     campaigns are too expensive. The political process, in fact, 
     is not overfunded, but underfunded.

  My distinguished colleague from Kentucky, referring to the 1996 
election said:

       I look on all that election activity as a healthy sign of a 
     vibrant democracy.

  Well, Mr. President, back here on planet Earth, and back home in my 
State of Wisconsin, the American people have a very different view. 
They are disgusted by our current campaign finance system. They are 
appalled at the insane amount of money that is being spent on 
democratic elections. And not surprisingly, they told us how appalled 
they are by staying home in huge numbers last November. In fact, fewer 
Americans turned out to vote in 1996 than in any Presidential election 
year in the last 72 years.
  There are mountains of evidence demonstrating the failure of current 
election laws. Poll after poll demonstrates the mistrust and cynicism 
the public feels toward this institution as a result of large campaign 
contributions.
  The newspapers and nightly news programs are brimming with reports of 
election scandals, with charges and countercharges of abuse and 
illegality filling the headlines every day.
  Scores of candidates--including many current officeholders--are 
choosing not to run for office principally because of the millions of 
dollars needed for a campaign for the U.S. Senate. In fact, the theory 
that unlimited campaign spending produces competitive elections has 
been completely discredited, as the average margin of victory in Senate 
elections last year was 17 percent.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Not only did 95 percent of 
incumbent Senators win reelection last November, most of these 
elections weren't even close. On average, 17 percentage points 
separated the winners from the losers.
  Mr. President, while Rome burns and our campaign finance system 
crumbles all around us, the junior Senator from Kentucky characterizes 
the chaos of the 1996 elections as a healthy sign of a vibrant 
democracy.
  Mr. President, as the U.S. Senate continues to duck and weave and 
dodge around the issue of campaign finance reform, the American people 
are becoming more and more convinced that we here in this body do not 
have the courage or the will to reform a system that has provided 
Members of this institution with a consistent reelection rate of well 
over 90 percent.

  As we all know, Mr. President, this week hearings will begin in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee on the abuses and possible illegalities 
that occurred in the last election. I can think of no better time for 
us to make a major step forward to fundamentally overhaul our failed 
election laws.
  Opponents of reform will surely assert that we should wait until the 
conclusion of these hearings before we consider reform legislation, so 
we can adequately identify the loopholes and the gaps and holes in our 
campaign finance system. But, Mr. President, in the last 10 years on 
this issue alone, we have had 15 reports by 6 different congressional 
committees, over 1,000 pages of committee reports, 29 sets of hearings, 
49 days of testimony, over 6,700 pages of hearings, 522 witnesses, 446 
different legislative proposals, more than 3,300 floor speeches, 76 CRS 
reports, 113 Senate votes, and 17 different filibusters.
  So I think it is safe to assume that we have probably reviewed this 
issue more than almost any other issue pending before this body.
  So, Mr. President, it is time now for serious consideration of reform 
legislation. I have joined with the senior Senator from Arizona, and 
others, in authoring the only comprehensive, bipartisan plan to be 
introduced in the Senate this year.
  Mr. President, we are very aware that this bill is not perfect. Some 
have voiced their concerns or objections about this or that provision, 
or have criticized the legislation for not addressing particular areas. 
As we have said--and I think as we have shown all along--this 
legislation is primarily a vehicle for reform, and we are more than 
willing to consider additions, deletions, or modifications to the 
package.
  We do have some bottom lines, though. First, we should have a full 
and robust debate on the issue, with all Senators having the 
opportunity both to debate the many complicated issues involved here 
and, also, to have the opportunity they didn't have last year to offer 
amendments.
  Second, it is imperative that any legislative vehicle ban on so-
called party soft money. These are the monstrous, unlimited and 
unregulated contributions that have poured in from labor unions, 
corporations, and wealthy individuals to the political parties.
  It is these multihundred-thousand-dollar campaign contributions that 
were, more than anything else, at the root of the abuses and outrage 
stemming from the 1996 elections. Individuals and organizations 
certainly should have the opportunity to contribute to their parties 
with funds that can be used for Federal elections. But all of those 
funds, Mr. President, should be raised and spent within the scope and 
context of Federal election law.
  Finally, Mr. President, we must have provisions in this reform 
legislation that encourage candidates to spend less money on their 
campaigns and, if we can, to encourage them to raise most of their 
campaign funds from the people they intend to represent in their 
district or State.
  We have to provide candidates, and particularly challengers who have 
less access to large financial resources, with the tools and means to 
effectively convey their message, without having to raise and spend 
millions of dollars.
  Unless we take fundamental steps to change the 90 to 95 percent 
reelection rates for incumbents that are seemingly enshrined under 
current election laws, the American people will justifiably perceive 
such reform as little more than one more incumbent protection plan.
  Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona and I have waited 
quite patiently for the opportunity to have this historic debate. It is 
my hope that we can sit down with the majority leader in the coming 
days and begin the process of bringing such a meaningful discussion to 
the Senate floor in the next few weeks.
  I look forward to that discussion, and I hope that it will eventually 
lead to passage of bipartisan reform legislation that will result in 
what I like to call moderate, mutual disarmament.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we have 30 minutes set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized. Under 
a previous order, the majority leader or his designee is to be 
recognized to speak for 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________