[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 117 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S8933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          McCAIN-FEINGOLD CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support 
for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation currently 
being considered by the Congress.
  I am cosponsoring the McCain-Feingold bill because I believe this 
Congress must address the issue of campaign finance reform. The 
American public and the people in my State of North Dakota are 
demanding that we clean up the system and that we clean it up now. Day 
after day, they read another story in the newspaper about the ever-
increasing, and often unregulated, money flowing into campaigns, all 
the while seeing a Congress that appears unable or unwilling to tackle 
the problem. The time has come for us to do the job we were sent here 
to do and enact meaningful, comprehensive reform.
  Mr. President, the current system of electing Members of Congress is 
badly in need of reform. Elections are too long, too negative, and too 
expensive. Voter participation continues to drop to new lows, and far 
too often, the bulk of the debate the American public sees takes place 
in 30-second attack ads. And the costs of running for office are 
exploding. The average Senate race in 1996 cost $3.6 million. Twenty 
years ago, the average Senate race cost just $609,100. The cost of a 
race for the House of Representatives has increased sixfold over the 
last 20 years, from $99 million in 1976 to $626 million in 1996.
  Spending on Federal election campaigns increased to an estimated $2.7 
billion in the most recent election cycle, a threefold increase over 
campaign spending just 20 years ago, even after adjusting for 
inflation.
  Even worse, the money is increasingly coming through channels 
designed to skirt the Federal Election Campaign Act. The use of soft 
money, which I call legalized cheating, has skyrocketed in the last 4 
years. In the 1995-96 cycle, the two major parties spent $263 million 
in soft money, compared with $81 million in the 1993-94 cycle. That's 
an increase of 224 percent.
  Now, these contributions often come in very large amounts, and are 
clearly intended to have an impact on Federal elections even as they 
are designed to snake around the laws that are supposed to regulate 
Federal elections. So we have large chunks of money entering the system 
in ways that are largely unlimited, unregulated, and undisclosed. No 
wonder the American people think the system is broken.
  Just as our campaign law has been stretched to the breaking point in 
order to push more money into the system, the protections in current 
law have recently been handed a severe blow by the Supreme Court. As a 
result of a decision handed down last year, independent expenditures 
that aren't really independent can be spent and have a dramatic impact 
on elections without any notion of what the source of the money was.
  These, and many other areas of campaign spending cry out for reform 
and this Congress must address it now.
  McCain-Feingold is a strong step in the right direction, and I am 
pleased to serve as a cosponsor of the legislation, consistent with the 
changes the sponsors announced on May 22. It includes voluntary 
expenditure limits, with a variety of carrots and sticks to encourage 
candidates to comply. It tightens the definition of independent 
expenditure in ways that will help make sure the expenditures truly are 
independent. It will prohibit the national political parties from 
raising and spending soft money to influence Federal elections. And it 
makes a strong first step toward controlling soft money spent by 
outside groups on so-called issue advocacy.

  This last point is important, Mr. President, so I want to take a 
moment to elaborate. As currently defined under FEC regulations, only 
communications which use such words as ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' 
``support,'' ``defeat,'' ``reject,'' or ``Smith for Congress'' are 
considered express advocacy which must be paid for with money raised in 
compliance with Federal election law, that is, hard money.
  This overly narrow definition of what constitutes express advocacy 
has created a giant loophole for attack ads. Simply by avoiding the 
magic words I mentioned above, corporations, unions, and other special 
interest groups can pay for brutal attack ads. Anyone who has seen some 
of these ads can tell they're intended to influence the outcome of 
Federal elections. And because they can be paid for with soft money, 
groups can raise money for them without limits, buy them in the 
millions of dollars, and never have to disclose what they're doing to 
the FEC.
  This is a critical part of the soft money puzzle, Mr. President, and 
McCain-Feingold takes strong steps to remedy it. Far from limiting 
discussion of the issues as some of its critics would suggest, this 
provision simply says that if an ad is meant to influence a Federal 
election, it should be paid for with money raised under the purview of 
Federal election law. It's simple common sense, and it's a badly 
needed, and long overdue, reform.
  Now, I admit, there are several provisions in the McCain-Feingold 
bill that I would write differently and that I hope we might change 
along the way. I'd like to add a provision that provides that the 
lowest television rate for political advertising will apply only to 
commercials which are at least 1-minute in length and in which the 
candidate appears 75 percent of the time. The 30-second political 
attack ad does little, if anything, to inform the public about the 
issues and advance the debate. And by appearing in the commercials, 
candidates will be more accountable for the ads and will likely be more 
responsible about their content. When selecting their leaders, the 
American people deserve better than a ``hit and run'' debate.
  I would also like to add provisions with greater inducements for 
candidates to participate in the voluntary spending limit system, and 
with greater penalties if they choose not to, in order to virtually 
require people to adopt the limits for their campaigns. I would like to 
encourage more participation in the process by ordinary citizens by 
restoring an annual 100 percent tax credit for the first $100 of 
contributions to congressional campaigns. And I would like to see some 
changes in the provisions dealing with political action committees as 
well.
  But having said that, I think this is a worthy campaign finance 
reform proposal and I am going to fight hard for it. I want to get it 
passed, and get it signed by the President. The American people demand 
and deserve no less from us.

                          ____________________