[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 132 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10103-S10151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Under the previous order, the Senate 
will now resume consideration of S. 25 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 25) to reform the financing of Federal 
     elections.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the majority leader a 
question before I send a modification to the desk. Maybe I can discuss 
this with him on the floor.
  It is not clear to me as to what his plans are for the following 
week. I understand tomorrow is taken up with conference reports and 
other business. As he said, we would go back on Wednesday to debate S. 
25 with the modification. And then would it be his intention to begin 
votes later this week, or the following week? I know it is a little 
hard to tell, but I wonder if maybe we should have some discussion off 
the floor on this issue.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield so that I may make 
a comment on that, I hope, first, that we will have some time on 
Tuesday of this week, before or after, during some of the votes that 
may be occurring on the continuing resolution, as well as the

[[Page S10104]]

appropriations conference reports. I hope that most of those won't take 
a lot of time. We will have some time for debate tomorrow. But until we 
see exactly what will be available and how much time is needed on the 
CR, we won't know for sure. But we will find that out, hopefully, today 
and we will confer with the leadership on both sides of the aisle, as 
well as the Senators interested in this bill.
  I had hoped that we could also have some debate on Wednesday 
afternoon, even though we would not have any votes after 1 o'clock. But 
we would still have debate up until about 4 o'clock, and then Thursday 
is open. We don't want to, in any way, infringe on the religious 
holiday. So we will need to talk that through. We could have some 
debate on Thursday and, of course, we can, and I assume will, have some 
debate Friday. We want to talk that through to make sure everybody is 
comfortable with that.
  My hope is that we could continue debate on Monday the 6th and begin 
having votes on Tuesday, and the possibility also on Wednesday. But, 
again, we need to go and get started with debate and see how that is 
going to stack up, and we will talk about that. It is a little bit 
broken up because of the religious holiday, but we want to have full 
time for debate, and we will start votes after that. That was my 
thinking.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the majority leader. I think that clarifies a 
great deal. I also appreciate his sensitivity to those who have to be 
home at this holiday season. I know my colleague from Wisconsin and 
other Senators who need to be involved in this issue. I want to thank 
the majority leader for what seems to me to be a generous amount of 
time for debate and discussion of this issue.
  Mr. President, in just a few moments, I will lay before the Senate 
the modified version of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform 
bill. After I do so, the leader will be recognized to offer an 
amendment to the bill. Therefore, I wanted to take a few minutes before 
that action occurs to speak briefly to the modification.
  First, I want to thank my cosponsors and allies in this fight. 
Senator Thompson and Senator Collins have played crucial roles as we 
moved forward on this matter. Their steadfast support, advice, and 
friendship is greatly appreciated.
  But more than anybody, I want to thank my friend from the other side 
of the aisle, the Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold. I do not 
believe that when he and I first sat down and began a discussion on 
this matter that we would be where are today--engaged in a historic 
battle to reform the electoral system of this great Nation. My friend, 
as he is indeed my friend, has been steadfast in his commitment and his 
belief in this cause and I want to state for the Record that I am 
grateful he is my ally in this fight.
  Mr. President, I want to briefly highlight again what the modified 
bill does and does not do. This is not a big government solution. The 
modified test is just over 50 pages long.
  The defenders of the status quo are not defending an unbridled, 
unregulated bastion of free speech. The Federal Election Campaign Act, 
known as FECA, governs Federal elections today.
  Elections are regulated today. They need to be regulated. We do not 
want corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals to buy and sell 
elections. This is not a country where a royal class controls the 
Government. No one here wants corporations to give directly to 
campaigns. The fact is that at certain times and certain places, there 
is a role for some regulation and restraint in order to protect the 
greater public good.
  Title I of the modified bill seeks to reduce the influence of special 
interest money in campaigns by banning the use of soft money in Federal 
races. Soft money would be allowed to be contributed to State parties 
in accordance with State law.
  We do, however, seek to differentiate between State and Federal 
activities. Soft money contributed to State parties could be used for 
any and all State candidate activities. Let me repeat that statement. 
Soft money given to the State parties could be used for any State 
electioneering activities.

  If a State allows soft money to be used in a gubernatorial race, a 
State senate race, or the local sheriff's race, it would still be 
allowed under this bill. However, if a State party seeks to use soft 
money to indirectly influence a Federal race, such activity would be 
banned 120 days prior to the general election. Using such funds to 
finance voter registration activities would be allowed except during 
the 120 days prior to the election.
  Voter registration efforts are very important. I know my colleagues 
recognize that fact. We want individuals to register and then to vote. 
This bill recognizes that fact and allows parties to engage in voter 
registration activities. Additionally, State parties would be allowed, 
within limits, to engage in generic party advertising. These activities 
help build the party and encourage people to vote.
  To make up for the loss of soft money, the modified bill doubles the 
limit that individuals can give to State parties in hard money. 
Consequently, the aggregate contribution limit for hard money that 
individuals could donate to political races would rise to $30,000.
  Title II of the modified bill seeks to limit the role of independent 
expenditures in political campaigns.
  Mr. President, I think we ought to pay attention to this part of it 
because, over the weekend, it seems to be the attack point for various 
pundits and those throughout the Nation, most of whom by the way have 
not seen the bill.
  The bill in no way bans, curbs, or seeks to control real, 
independent, noncoordinated expenditures in any manner. Additionally, 
if hard money--money that is recorded and traceable--is used, then 
there are no restrictions of any kind on advertising.
  Let me repeat that fact. This bill in no way restricts any message or 
any use of the airwaves. It does however place limits and controls on 
expenditures if certain kinds of money are used to fund such activity.
  Any independent expenditure made to advocate any cause, with the 
exception of the express advocacy of a candidate's victory or defeat, 
is fully allowed. To do any thing else would violate the first 
amendment.
  However, the bill does expand the definition of express advocacy. The 
courts have routinely ruled that the Congress may define express 
advocacy. In fact, current standards of express advocacy have been 
derived from the Buckley case itself.
  As we all know, the Supreme Court case of Buckley versus Valeo stated 
that campaign spending cannot be mandatorily capped. This bill is fully 
consistent with the Buckley decision. I ask unanimous consent that a 
letter signed by 126 legal scholars expressing support for the 
constitutionality of this bill be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Brennan Center for Justice,

                                 New York, NY, September 22, 1997.
     Senator John McCain,
     Senator Russell Feingold,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators McCain and Feingold: We are academics who 
     have studied and written about the First Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution. We submit this letter to respond 
     to a series of recent public challenges to two components of 
     S. 25, the McCain-Feingold bill. Critics have argued that it 
     is unconstitutional to close the so-called ``soft money 
     loophole'' by placing restrictions on the source and amount 
     of campaign contributions to political parties. Critics have 
     also argued that it is unconstitutional to offer candidates 
     benefits, such as reduced broadcasting rates, in return for 
     their commitment to cap campaign spending. We are deeply 
     committed to the principles underlying the First Amendment 
     and believe strongly in preserving free speech and 
     association in our society, especially in the realm of 
     politics. We are not all of the same mind on how best to 
     address the problems of money and politics; indeed, we do not 
     all agree on the constitutionality of various provisions of 
     the McCain-Feingold bill itself. Nor are we endorsing every 
     aspect of the bill's soft money and voluntary spending limits 
     provisions. We all agree, however, that the current debate on 
     the merits of campaign finance reform is being sidetracked by 
     the argument that the Constitution stands in the way of a ban 
     on unlimited contributions to political parties and a 
     voluntary spending limits scheme based on offering 
     inducements such as reduced media time.


I. Limits on Enormous Campaign Contributions to Political Parties from 
Corporations, Labor Unions, and Wealthy Contributors Are Constitutional

       To prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption, 
     federal law imposes limits on

[[Page S10105]]

     the source and amount of money that can be given to 
     candidates and political parties ``in connection with'' 
     federal elections. The money raised under these strictures is 
     commonly referred to as ``hard money.'' Since 1907, federal 
     law has prohibited corporations from making hard money 
     contributions to candidates or political parties. See 2 
     U.S.C. Sec. 441b(a) (current codification). In 1947, that ban 
     was extended to prohibit union contributions as well. Id. 
     Individuals, too, are subject to restrictions in their giving 
     of money to influence federal elections. The Federal Election 
     Campaign Act (``FECA'') limits an individual's contributions 
     to (1) $1,000 per election to a federal candidate; (2) 
     $20,000 per year to national political party committees; and 
     (3) $5,000 per year to any other political committee, such as 
     a PAC or a state political party committee. 2 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 441a(a)(1). Individuals are also subject to a $25,000 
     annual limit on the total of all such contributions. Id. 
     Sec. 441a(a)(3).
       The soft money loophole was created not by Congress, but by 
     a Federal Election Commission (``FEC'') ruling in 1978 that 
     opened a seemingly modest door to allow non-regulated 
     contributions to political parties, so long as the money was 
     used for grassroots campaign activity, such as registering 
     voters and get-out-the-vote efforts. These unregulated 
     contributions are known as ``soft money'' to distinguish them 
     from the hard money raised under FECA's strict limits. In the 
     years since the FEC's ruling, this modest opening has turned 
     into an enormous loophole that threatens the integrity of the 
     regulatory system. In the last presidential elections, soft 
     money contributions soared to the unprecedented figure of 
     $263 million. It was not merely the total amount of soft 
     money contributions that was unprecedented, but the size of 
     the contributions as well, with donors being asked to give 
     amounts $100,000, $250,000 or more to gain preferred access 
     to federal officials. Moreover, the soft money raised is, for 
     the most part, not being spent to bolster party grassroots 
     organizing. Rather, the funds are often solicited by federal 
     candidates and used for media advertising clearly intended to 
     influence federal elections. In sum, soft money has become an 
     end run around the campaign contribution limits, creating a 
     corrupt system in which monied interests appear to buy access 
     to, and inappropriate influence with, elected officials.
       The McCain-Feingold bill would ban soft money contributions 
     to national political parties, by requiring that all 
     contributions to national parties be subject to FECA's hard 
     money restrictions. The bill also would bar federal 
     officeholders and candidates for such offices from 
     soliciting, receiving, or spending soft money and would 
     prohibit state and local political parties from spending soft 
     money during a federal election year for any activity that 
     might affect a federal election (with exceptions for 
     specified activities that are less likely to impact on 
     federal elections).
       We believe that such restrictions are constitutional. The 
     soft money loophole has raised the specter of corruption 
     stemming from large contributions (and those from prohibited 
     sources) that led Congress to enact the federal contribution 
     limits in the first place. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme 
     Court held that the government has a compelling interest in 
     combating the appearance and reality of corruption, an 
     interest that justifies restricting large campaign 
     contributions in federal elections. 424 U.S. 1, 23-29 (1976). 
     Significantly, the Court upheld the $25,000 annual limit on 
     an individual's total contributions in connection with 
     federal elections. Id. at 26-29, 38. In later cases, the 
     Court rejected the argument that corporations have a right to 
     use their general treasury funds to influence elections. See, 
     e.g., Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 
     (1990). Under Buckley and its progeny, Congress clearly 
     possesses power to close the soft money loophole by 
     restricting the source and size of contributions to political 
     parties, just as it does for contributions to candidates, for 
     use in connection with federal elections.
       Moreover, Congress has the power to regulate the source of 
     the money used for expenditures by state and local parties 
     during federal election years when such expenditures are used 
     to influence federal elections. The power of Congress to 
     regulate federal elections to prevent fraud and corruption 
     includes the power to regulate conduct which, although 
     directed at state or local elections, also has an impact on 
     federal races. During a federal election year, a state or 
     local political party's voter registration or get-out-the-
     vote drive will have an effect on federal elections. 
     Accordingly, Congress may require that during a federal 
     election year state and local parties' expenditures for such 
     activities be made from funds raised in compliance with FECA 
     so as not to undermine the limits therein.
       Any suggestion that the recent Supreme Court decision in 
     Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 116 S. 
     Ct. 2309 (1996), casts doubt on the constitutionality of a 
     soft money ban is flatly wrong. Colorado Republican did not 
     address the constitutionality of banning soft money 
     contributions, but rather the expenditures by political 
     parties of hard money, that is, money raised in accordance 
     with FECA's limits. Indeed, the Court noted that it ``could 
     understand how Congress, were it to conclude that the 
     potential for evasion of the individual contribution limits 
     was a serious matter, might decide to change the statute's 
     limitations on contributions to political parties.'' Id. at 
     2316.
       In fact, the most relevant Supreme Court decision is not 
     Colorado Republican, but Austin v. Michigan Chamber of 
     Commerce, in which the Supreme Court held that corporations 
     can be walled off from the electoral process by forbidding 
     both contributions and independent expenditures from general 
     corporate treasuries. 494 U.S. at 657-61. Surely, the law 
     cannot be that Congress has the power to prevent corporations 
     from giving money directly to a candidate, or from expending 
     money on behalf of a candidate, but lacks the power to 
     prevent them from pouring unlimited funds into a candidate's 
     political party in order to buy preferred access to him after 
     the election.
       Accordingly, closing the loophole for soft money 
     contributions is in line with the longstanding and 
     constitutional ban on corporate and union contributions in 
     federal elections and with limits on the size of individuals' 
     contributions to amounts that are not corrupting.


     ii. efforts to persuade candidates to limit campaign spending 
  voluntarily by providing them with inducements like free television 
                        time are constitutional

       The McCain-Feingold bill would also invite candidates to 
     limit campaign spending in return for free broadcast time and 
     reduced broadcast and mailing rates. In Buckley, the Court 
     explicitly declared that ``Congress . . . may condition 
     acceptance of public funds on an agreement by the candidate 
     to abide by specified expenditure limitations.'' 424 U.S. at 
     56 n.65. The Court explained: ``Just as a candidate may 
     voluntarily limit the size of the contributions he chooses to 
     accept, he may decide to forgo private fundraising and accept 
     public funding.'' Id.
       That was exactly the Buckley Court's approach when it 
     upheld the constitutionality of the campaign subsidies to 
     Presidential candidates in return for a promise to limit 
     campaign spending. At the time, the subsidy to Presidential 
     nominees was $20 million, in return for which Presidential 
     candidates agreed to cap expenditures at that amount and 
     raise no private funds at all. The subsidy is now worth over 
     $60 million and no Presidential nominee of a major party has 
     ever turned down the subsidy.
       In effect, the critics argue that virtually any inducement 
     offered to a candidate to persuade her to limit campaign 
     spending is unconstitutional as a form of indirect 
     ``coercion.'' But the Buckley Court clearly distinguished 
     between inducements designed to elicit a voluntary decision 
     to limit spending and coercive mandates that impose 
     involuntary spending ceilings. If giving a Presidential 
     candidate a $60 million subsidy is a constitutional 
     inducement, surely providing free television time and reduced 
     postal rates falls into the same category of acceptable 
     inducement. The lesson from Buckley is that merely because a 
     deal is too good to pass up does not render it 
     unconstitutionally ``coercive.''
           Respectfully submitted,
     Ronald Dworkin,
       Professor of Jurisprudence and Fellow of University College 
     at Oxford University; Frank H. Sommer Professor of Law, New 
     York University School of Law.
     Burt Neuborne,
       John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, Legal Director, 
     Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of 
     Law.
  Mr. McCAIN. What the modified bill seeks to do is establish a so-
called bright line test 60 days out from an election. Any independent 
expenditures that fall within that 60-day window could not use a 
candidate's name or his or her likeness. During this 60-day period, ads 
could run that advocate any number of issues. Pro-life ads, pro-choice 
ads, antilabor ads, prowilderness ads, pro-Republican party or 
Democratic party ads--all could be aired without restriction. However, 
ads mentioning candidates themselves could not be aired.
  This accomplishes much. First, if soft money is banned to the 
political parties, such money will inevitably flow to independent 
campaign organizations. These groups often run ads that the candidates 
themselves disapprove of. Further, these ads are almost always negative 
attack ads and do little to further beneficial debate and a healthy 
political dialog. To be honest, they simply drive up an individual 
candidate's negative polling numbers and increase public cynicism for 
public service in general.
  The modified bill explicitly protects voter guides. I believe this is 
a very important point. Some have unfairly criticized the original bill 
because they thought it banned or prohibited the publication and 
distribution of voter guides and voting records. While I disagree with 
those individual's conclusions, the sponsors of the modified bill 
sought to clarify this matter.

[[Page S10106]]

  Let me state that voter guides are completely protected in the 
modified bill. Any statements to the contrary are simply not true.
  Some of my colleagues have voiced concern about the 60-day bright 
line test as being arbitrary. They have noted that different standards 
would exist prior to 60 days out. They are right. But what is their 
point. Election law is riddled with deadlines and time frames. When a 
candidate runs for office, he or she must file papers by a certain 
date. In order to appear on the ballot, certain deadlines must be met, 
certain events must occur. What is their point. Would they advocate 
abolishing all time frames and just let elections occur as spontaneous 
events? I don't think so.
  I hope that we will not allow our attention to be distracted from the 
real issues at hand--how to raise the tenor of the debate in our 
elections and give people real choices. No one benefits from negative 
ads. They don't aid our Nation's political dialog. Again, if someone 
chooses to run negative ads, this bill will not restrict their right to 
do so. But we should not just throw up our hands and say, ``Who 
cares?'' We should seek, within the protections of the Constitution, to 
encourage a healthy political debate.
  I believe that in 1994 it was not better funding and more money that 
gave Republicans victory; it was better and more ideas. If money was 
the key to Republican victory, why then did it take so long?
  I am very serious about this point. Some have stated that money helps 
equalize the Republican Party's ability to win elections due to the 
liberal press. If that is true, then why didn't it work? Since 1974, 
when we last reformed the campaign finance system, throughout the 
1970's and 1980's and 1990's, Republicans routinely have outraised and 
outspent Democrats. Yet, with the exception of 1980 to 1986 in the 
Senate, we did not control the Congress. I would argue that the 6 years 
in which we controlled the Senate during the 1980's was due to the 
strength and leadership of Ronald Reagan; not our ability to spend.
  When we took over the Congress in 1994--and I say this not to agitate 
my Democrat colleagues--it was not due to money. It was due to our 
superior ideas. It was due to the Contract With America. It was due to 
a fundamental change in the views of the American electorate. It was 
not due to a spate of negative campaign advertising.
  Title III of the modified bill mandates greater disclosure. Our bill 
mandates that all FEC filings documenting campaign receipts and 
expenditures be made electronically and that they then be made 
accessible to the public on the Internet not later than 24 hours after 
the information is received by the Federal Election Commission.
  Additionally, current law allows for campaigns to make a ``best 
effort'' to obtain the name, address, and occupation information of the 
donors, et cetera. The bill also mandates random audits of campaigns. 
Such audits would only occur after an affirmative vote of at least four 
of the six members of the FEC. This will prevent the use of audits as a 
purely partisan attack.
  Title IV seeks to encourage individuals to limit the amount of 
personal money they spend on their own campaigns. If an individual 
voluntarily elects to limit the amount of money he or she spends in his 
or her race to $50,000, then the national parties are able to use funds 
known as ``coordinated expenditures'' to aid such candidates. If 
candidates refuse to limit their own personal spending, the parties are 
prohibited from contributing coordinated funds to the candidate.
  This serves to limit the advantage that wealthy candidates enjoy and 
strengthens the party system by encouraging candidates to work more 
closely with the parties.
  Lastly, the bill codifies the Beck decision, which states that 
nonunion employees in a closed-shop union workplace who are required to 
contribute funds to the union can request and ensure that his or her 
money not be used for political purposes.
  I personally support stronger language. I believe no individual 
should be forced to contribute to political activities. However, I 
recognize stronger language would invite a filibuster of this bill and 
would doom its final passage.

  Mr. President, what I have outlined is a basic summary of our 
modification to the original bill.
  I have heard many colleagues say that they could not support S. 25, 
the original McCain-Feingold bill, for a wide variety of reasons. Some 
oppose spending limits. Others oppose free or reduced rate broadcast 
time. Yet others could not live with postal subsidies to candidates, 
and others complain that nothing was being done about labor.
  Again, as I stated in the opening debate on Friday, I hope all of my 
colleagues who made such statements will take a new and openminded look 
at this bill. Gone are spending limits. Gone is free broadcast time. 
Gone are reduced rate TV time and postal subsidies. We have sought to 
address the problem of undue influence being exercised by the labor 
unions. All of the excuses of the past are gone.
  Mr. President, let me close again by emphasizing that the sponsors of 
this legislation have but one purpose--to enact a fair, bipartisan 
campaign reform that seeks no advantage for one party or the other but 
only seeks to find common ground upon which we can all agree to pass 
the best, most balanced, and most important reform we have ever had.
  All we ask of our colleagues is that they approach this debate with 
the same purpose in mind.
  To those who accuse the opponents of this bill of being unyielding in 
their opposition to any reform, let me recite the words of my friend 
from Kentucky from an op-ed piece he wrote for the Washington Post in 
1993. My friend, Senator McConnell from Kentucky, said:
  ``The truth is that Republicans support a ban on all soft money,'' 
Senator McConnell wrote, ``regardless of whether it benefits 
Republicans or Democrats.''
  Let me repeat that.
  ``The truth is that Republicans support a ban on all soft money,'' 
Senator McConnell wrote, ``regardless of whether it benefits 
Republicans or Democrats.''
  The Senator went on to identify himself and the Republican Party with 
the advocates of reform:
       Truly campaign finance reform is needed--

  truly campaign finance reform is needed--

     but it should not have to cost the taxpayers, and it does not 
     have to include spending limits. If we are going to pass a 
     meaningful bipartisan campaign finance bill, we must drop the 
     roadblocks to reform: taxpayers financing and spending 
     limits.

  Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kentucky that, as a sign of 
our good faith, the sponsors of this bill have listened to his 
objections, and we have dropped the provisions which he once criticized 
as roadblocks. Moreover, we share Senator McConnell's view that soft 
money must be banned.
  I would say that we are very close to the proposed reforms that 
Senator McConnell proposed in 1993. We pled with our colleagues not to 
use the amendment process only to kill the prospects for real reform by 
offering amendments intended to be, as Senator McConnell put it, 
``roadblocks'' to reform.
  If Senator McConnell is as sincere in proposing reforms as he was a 
few years ago--which I do not doubt--work with us to resolve our very 
few remaining differences and help us reach our common goal of genuine 
campaign finance reform.


                         Modification to S. 25

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan 
     Campaign Reform Act of 1997''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for State committees of 
              political parties and aggregate contribution limit for 
              individuals.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.

           TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Civil penalty.

[[Page S10107]]

Sec. 203. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 204. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 205. Coordination with candidates.

                         TITLE III--DISCLOSURE

Sec. 301. Filing of reports using computers and facsimile machines; 
              filing by Senate candidates with Commission.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of deposit of contributions with incomplete 
              contributor information.
Sec. 303. Audits.
Sec. 304. Reporting requirements for contributions of $50 or more.
Sec. 305. Use of candidates' names.
Sec. 306. Prohibition of false representation to solicit contributions.
Sec. 307. Soft money of persons other than political parties.
Sec. 308. Campaign advertising.

                    TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION

Sec. 401. Voluntary personal funds expenditure limit.
Sec. 402. Political party committee coordinated expenditures.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Codification of Beck decision.
Sec. 502. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 503. Limit on congressional use of the franking privilege.
Sec. 504. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 505. Penalties for knowing and willful violations.
Sec. 506. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 507. Prohibition of contributions by minors.
Sec. 508. Expedited procedures.
Sec. 509. Initiation of enforcement proceeding.

 TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS

Sec. 601. Severability.
Sec. 602. Review of constitutional issues.
Sec. 603. Effective date.
Sec. 604. Regulations.
            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

     SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 324. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional campaign committee 
     of a political party) and any officers or agents of such 
     party committees, shall not solicit, receive, or direct to 
     another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of 
     funds, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to an 
     entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, 
     maintained, or controlled by a national committee of a 
     political party (including a national congressional campaign 
     committee of a political party), or an entity acting on 
     behalf of a national committee, and an officer or agent 
     acting on behalf of any such committee or entity.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--An amount that is expended or disbursed 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     (including an entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity) for Federal election activity shall be made from 
     funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot); and
       ``(iii) a communication that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a 
     candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or 
     identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is 
     express advocacy).
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) campaign activity conducted solely on behalf of a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, 
     provided the campaign activity is not a Federal election 
     activity described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated or used 
     to pay for a Federal election activity described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office;
       ``(v) the non-Federal share of a State, district, or local 
     party committee's administrative and overhead expenses (but 
     not including the compensation in any month of an individual 
     who spends more than 20 percent of the individual's time on 
     Federal election activity) as determined by a regulation 
     promulgated by the Commission to determine the non-Federal 
     share of a State, district, or local party committee's 
     administrative and overhead expenses; and
       ``(vi) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, District or local 
     committee.
       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a national, 
     State, district, or local committee of a political party, by 
     an entity that is established, financed, maintained, or 
     controlled by a national, State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party, or by an agent or officer of any such 
     committee or entity, to raise funds that are used, in whole 
     or in part, to pay the costs of a Federal election activity 
     shall be made from funds subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party, an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national, 
     State, district, or local committee or its agent, an agent 
     acting on behalf of any such party committee, and an officer 
     or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee or 
     entity), shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct 
     any donations to, an organization that is described in 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (or 
     has submitted an application to the Secretary of the Internal 
     Revenue Service for determination of tax-exemption under such 
     section).
       ``(e) Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, or agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal 
     office shall not solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend 
     funds for a Federal election activity on behalf of such 
     candidate individual, agent or any other person unless the 
     funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(A) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation or receipt of funds by an individual who is a 
     candidate for a State or local office if the solicitation or 
     receipt of funds is permitted under State law for any 
     activity other than a Fedral election activity.
       ``(B) Fundraising events.--Paragraph (1) does not apply in 
     the case of a candidate who attends, speaks, or is a featured 
     guest at a fundraising event sponsored by a State, district, 
     or local committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES 
                   OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION 
                   LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political 
     Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year that, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000''.
       (b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by 
     section 203) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Political Committees.--
       ``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The 
     national committee of a political party, any national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party, and 
     any subordinate committee of either, shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 324 
     applies.--A political committee (not described in paragraph 
     (1)) to which section 324(b)(1) applies shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements made for activities described in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3)(A)(v) of section 324(b).
       ``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts 
     or disbursements to which this subsection applies from any 
     person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year, 
     the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed 
     under this subsection shall be filed for the same time 
     periods required for political committees under subsection 
     (a).''.

[[Page S10108]]

       (b) Building Fund Exception to the Definition of 
     Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (viii); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xiv) as clauses 
     (viii) through (xiii), respectively.
           TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Definition of Independent Expenditure.--Section 301 of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the following:
       ``(17) Independent expenditure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `independent expenditure' means 
     an expenditure by a person--
       ``(i) for a communication that is express advocacy; and
       ``(ii) that is not provided in coordination with a 
     candidate or a candidate's agent or a person who is 
     coordinating with a candidate or a candidate's agent.''.
       (b) Definition of Express Advocacy.--Section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Express Advocacy.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `express advocacy' means a 
     communication that advocates the election or defeat of a 
     candidate by--
       ``(i) containing a phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect', 
     `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of candidate) for 
     Congress', `(name of candidate) in 1997', `vote against', 
     `defeat', `reject', or a campaign slogan or words that in 
     context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate 
     the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly identified 
     candidates;
       ``(ii) referring to 1 or more clearly identified candidates 
     in a paid advertisement that is broadcast by a radio 
     broadcast station or a television broadcast station within 60 
     calendar days preceding the date of an election of the 
     candidate and that appears in the State in which the election 
     is occurring, except that with respect to a candidate for the 
     office of Vice President or President, the time period is 
     within 60 calendar days preceding the date of a general 
     election; or
       ``(iii) expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for 
     or opposition to 1 or more clearly identified candidates when 
     taken as a whole and with limited reference to external 
     events, such as proximity to an election.
       ``(B) Voting record and voting guide exception.--The term 
     `express advocacy' does not include a printed communication 
     that--
       ``(i) presents information in an educational manner solely 
     about the voting record or position on a campaign issue of 2 
     or more candidates;
       ``(ii) that is not made in coordination with a candidate, 
     political party, or agent of the candidate or party; or a 
     candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a 
     candidate or a candidate's agent;
       ``(iii) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for', `re-
     elect', `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of 
     candidate) for Congress', `(name of candidate) in 1997', 
     `vote against', `defeat', or `reject', or a campaign slogan 
     or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other 
     than to urge the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly 
     identified candidates.''.
       (c) Definition of Expenditure.--Section 301(9)(A) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a payment for a communication that is express 
     advocacy; and
       ``(iv) a payment made by a person for a communication 
     that--
       ``(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate;
       ``(II) is provided in coordination with the candidate, the 
     candidate's agent, or the political party of the candidate; 
     and
       ``(III) is for the purpose of influencing a Federal 
     election (regardless of whether the communication is express 
     advocacy).''

     SEC. 202. CIVIL PENALTY.

       Section 309 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 437g) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (4)(A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``clause (ii)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii)''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) If the Commission determines by an affirmative vote 
     of 4 of its members that there is probable cause to believe 
     that a person has made a knowing and willful violation of 
     section 304(c), the Commission shall not enter into a 
     conciliation agreement under this paragraph and may institute 
     a civil action for relief under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6)(B), by inserting ``(except an action 
     instituted in connection with a knowing and willful violation 
     of section 304(c))'' after ``subparagraph (A)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Any person'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), any 
     person''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) In the case of a knowing and willful violation of 
     section 304(c) that involves the reporting of an independent 
     expenditure, the violation shall not be subject to this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 203. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       Section 304(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking the undesignated matter 
     after subparagraph (C);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (7); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as amended by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(d) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day, 
     but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election shall 
     file a report describing the expenditures within 24 hours 
     after that amount of independent expenditures has been made.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 24 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $1,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to 
     and including the 20th day before the date of an election 
     shall file a report describing the expenditures within 48 
     hours after that amount of independent expenditures has been 
     made.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 48 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $10,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
       ``(B) shall contain the information required by subsection 
     (b)(6)(B)(iii), including the name of each candidate whom an 
     expenditure is intended to support or oppose.''.

     SEC. 204. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY 
                   PARTY.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting 
     ``, (3), and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Independent versus coordinated expenditures by 
     party.--
       ``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a 
     political party nominates a candidate, a committee of the 
     political party shall not make both expenditures under this 
     subsection and independent expenditures (as defined in 
     section 301(17)) with respect to the candidate during the 
     election cycle.
       ``(B) Certification.--Before making a coordinated 
     expenditure under this subsection with respect to a 
     candidate, a committee of a political party shall file with 
     the Commission a certification, signed by the treasurer of 
     the committee, that the committee has not and shall not make 
     any independent expenditure with respect to the candidate 
     during the same election cycle.
       ``(C) Application.--For the purposes of this paragraph, all 
     political committees established and maintained by a national 
     political party (including all congressional campaign 
     committees) and all political committees established and 
     maintained by a State political party (including any 
     subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be 
     considered to be a single political committee.
       ``(D) Transfers.--A committee of a political party that 
     submits a certification under subparagraph (B) with respect 
     to a candidate shall not, during an election cycle, transfer 
     any funds to, assign authority to make coordinated 
     expenditures under this subsection to, or receive a transfer 
     of funds from, a committee of the political party that has 
     made or intends to make an independent expenditure with 
     respect to the candidate.''.

     SEC. 205. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES.

       (a) Definition of Coordination With Candidates.--
       (1) Section 301(8).--Section 301(8) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) anything of value provided by a person in 
     coordination with a candidate for the purpose of influencing 
     a Federal election, regardless of whether the value being 
     provided is a communication that is express advocacy, in 
     which such candidate seeks nomination or election to Federal 
     office.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) The term `provided in coordination with a candidate' 
     includes--
       ``(i) a payment made by a person in cooperation, 
     consultation, or concert with, at the request or suggestion 
     of, or pursuant to any general or particular understanding 
     with a candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, or an 
     agent acting on behalf of a candidate or authorized 
     committee;
       ``(ii) a payment made by a person for the production, 
     dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in 
     part, of any

[[Page S10109]]

     broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign 
     material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's authorized 
     committee, or an agent of a candidate or authorized committee 
     (not including a communication described in paragraph 
     (9)(B)(i) or a communication that expressly advocates the 
     candidate's defeat);
       ``(iii) a payment made by a person based on information 
     about a candidate's plans, projects, or needs provided to the 
     person making the payment by the candidate or the candidate's 
     agent who provides the information with the intent that the 
     payment be made;
       ``(iv) a payment made by a person if, in the same election 
     cycle in which the payment is made, the person making the 
     payment is serving or has served as a member, employee, 
     fundraiser, or agent of the candidate's authorized committee 
     in an executive or policymaking position;
       ``(v) a payment made by a person if the person making the 
     payment has served in any formal policy making or advisory 
     position with the candidate's campaign or has participated in 
     formal strategic or formal policymaking discussions with the 
     candidate's campaign relating to the candidate's pursuit of 
     nomination for election, or election, to Federal office, in 
     the same election cycle as the election cycle in which the 
     payment is made;
       ``(vi) a payment made by a person if, in the same election 
     cycle, the person making the payment retains the professional 
     services of any person that has provided or is providing 
     campaign-related services in the same election cycle to a 
     candidate in connection with the candidate's pursuit of 
     nomination for election, or election, to Federal office, 
     including services relating to the candidate's decision to 
     seek Federal office, and the person retained is retained to 
     work on activities relating to that candidate's campaign;
       ``(vii) a payment made by a person who has engaged in a 
     coordinated activity with a candidate described in clauses 
     (i) through (vi) for a communication that clearly refers to 
     the candidate and is for the purpose of influencing an 
     election (regardless of whether the communication is express 
     advocacy);
       ``(viii) direct participation by a person in fundraising 
     activities with the candidate or in the solicitation or 
     receipt of contributions on behalf of the candidate;
       ``(ix) communication by a person with the candidate or an 
     agent of the candidate, occuring after the declaration of 
     candidacy (including a pollster, media consultant, vendor, 
     advisor, or staff member), acting on behalf of the candidate, 
     about advertising message, allocation of resources, 
     fundraising, or other campaign matters related to the 
     candidate's campaign, including campaign operations, 
     staffing, tactics, or strategy; or
       ``(x) the provision of in-kind professional services or 
     polling data to the candidate or candidate's agent.
       ``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term 
     `professional services' includes services in support of a 
     candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or election, 
     to Federal office such as polling, media advice, direct mail, 
     fundraising, or campaign research.
       ``(E) For purposes of subparagraph (C), all political 
     committees established and maintained by a national political 
     party (including all congressional campaign committees) and 
     all political committees established and maintained by a 
     State political party (including any subordinate committee of 
     a State committee) shall be considered to be a single 
     political committee.''.
       (2) Section 315(a)(7).--Section 315(a)(7) (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(7)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) a thing of value provided in coordination with a 
     candidate, as described in section 301(8)(A)(iii), shall be 
     considered to be a contribution to the candidate, and in the 
     case of a limitation on expenditures, shall be treated as an 
     expenditure by the candidate.
       (b) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes 
     of Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall include'' and inserting ``includes a 
     contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in 
     section 301, and also includes''.
                         TITLE III--DISCLOSURE

     SEC. 301. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUTERS AND FACSIMILE 
                   MACHINES; FILING BY SENATE CANDIDATES WITH 
                   COMMISSION.

       (a) Use of Computer and Facsimile Machine.--Section 302(a) 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(11)(A) The Commission shall promulgate a regulation 
     under which a person required to file a designation, 
     statement, or report under this Act--
       ``(i) is required to maintain and file a designation, 
     statement, or report for any calendar year in electronic form 
     accessible by computers if the person has, or has reason to 
     expect to have, aggregate contributions or expenditures in 
     excess of a threshold amount determined by the Commission; 
     and
       ``(ii) may maintain and file a designation, statement, or 
     report in electronic form or an alternative form, including 
     the use of a facsimile machine, if not required to do so 
     under the regulation promulgated under clause (i).
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed electronically with the 
     Commission accessible to the public on the Internet not later 
     than 24 hours after the designation, statement, report, or 
     notification is received by the Commission.
       ``(C) In promulgating a regulation under this paragraph, 
     the Commission shall provide methods (other than requiring a 
     signature on the document being filed) for verifying 
     designations, statements, and reports covered by the 
     regulation. Any document verified under any of the methods 
     shall be treated for all purposes (including penalties for 
     perjury) in the same manner as a document verified by 
     signature.''.
       (b) Senate Candidates File With Commission.--Title III of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 302, by striking subsection (g) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(g) Filing With the Commission.--All designations, 
     statements, and reports required to be filed under this Act 
     shall be filed with the Commission.''; and
       (2) in section 304--
       (A) in subsection (a)(6)(A), by striking ``the Secretary 
     or''; and
       (B) in the matter following subsection (c)(2), by striking 
     ``the Secretary or''.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF DEPOSIT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WITH 
                   INCOMPLETE CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION.

       Section 302 of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 432) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Deposit of Contributions.--The treasurer of a 
     candidate's authorized committee shall not deposit, except in 
     an escrow account, or otherwise negotiate a contribution from 
     a person who makes an aggregate amount of contributions in 
     excess of $200 during a calendar year unless the treasurer 
     verifies that the information required by this section with 
     respect to the contributor is complete.''.

     SEC. 303. AUDITS.

       (a) Random Audits.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``The 
     Commission''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Random audits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Commission may conduct random audits and investigations to 
     ensure voluntary compliance with this Act. The selection of 
     any candidate for a random audit or investigation shall be 
     based on criteria adopted by a vote of at least 4 members of 
     the Commission.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Commission shall not conduct an 
     audit or investigation of a candidate's authorized committee 
     under subparagraph (A) until the candidate is no longer a 
     candidate for the office sought by the candidate in an 
     election cycle.
       ``(C) Applicability.--This paragraph does not apply to an 
     authorized committee of a candidate for President or Vice 
     President subject to audit under section 9007 or 9038 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Extension of Period During Which Campaign Audits May Be 
     Begun.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended by striking ``6 months'' 
     and inserting ``12 months''.

     SEC. 304. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $50 OR 
                   MORE.

       Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     at 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$200'' and inserting ``$50''; and
       (2) by striking the semicolon and inserting ``, except that 
     in the case of a person who makes contributions aggregating 
     at least $50 but not more than $200 during the calendar year, 
     the identification need include only the name and address of 
     the person;''.

     SEC. 305. USE OF CANDIDATES' NAMES.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4)(A) The name of each authorized committee shall 
     include the name of the candidate who authorized the 
     committee under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) A political committee that is not an authorized 
     committee shall not--
       ``(i) include the name of any candidate in its name; or
       ``(ii) except in the case of a national, State, or local 
     party committee, use the name of any candidate in any 
     activity on behalf of the committee in such a context as to 
     suggest that the committee is an authorized committee of the 
     candidate or that the use of the candidate's name has been 
     authorized by the candidate.''.

     SEC. 306. PROHIBITION OF FALSE REPRESENTATION TO SOLICIT 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``Sec. 322.'' the following: ``(a) 
     In General.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Solicitation of Contributions.--No person shall 
     solicit contributions by falsely representing himself or 
     herself as a candidate or as a representative of a candidate, 
     a political committee, or a political party.''.

     SEC. 307. SOFT MONEY OF PERSONS OTHER THAN POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 
     103(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Disbursements of Persons Other Than Political 
     Parties.--

[[Page S10110]]

       ``(1) In general.--A person, other than a political 
     committee or a person described in section 501(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that makes an aggregate amount 
     of disbursements in excess of $50,000 during a calendar year 
     for activities described in paragraph (2) shall file a 
     statement with the Commission--
       ``(A) on a monthly basis as described in subsection 
     (a)(4)(B); or
       ``(B) in the case of disbursements that are made within 20 
     days of an election, within 24 hours after the disbursements 
     are made.
       ``(2) Activity.--The activity described in this paragraph 
     is--
       ``(A) Federal election activity;
       ``(B) an activity described in section 316(b)(2)(A) that 
     expresses support for or opposition to a candidate for 
     Federal office or a political party; and
       ``(C) an activity described in subparagraph (C) of section 
     316(b)(2).
       ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection does not apply to--
       ``(A) a candidate or a candidate's authorized committees; 
     or
       ``(B) an independent expenditure.
       ``(4) Contents.--A statement under this section shall 
     contain such information about the disbursements made during 
     the reporting period as the Commission shall prescribe, 
     including--
       ``(A) the aggregate amount of disbursements made;
       ``(B) the name and address of the person or entity to whom 
     a disbursement is made in an aggregate amount in excess of 
     $200;
       ``(C) the date made, amount, and purpose of the 
     disbursement; and
       ``(D) if applicable, whether the disbursement was in 
     support of, or in opposition to, a candidate or a political 
     party, and the name of the candidate or the political 
     party.''.
       (b) Definition of Generic Campaign Activity.--Section 301 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et 
     seq.) (as amended by section 201(b)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(21) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means an activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.''.

     SEC. 308. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``direct''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street 
     address'' after ``name''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Any printed communication described in subsection (a) 
     shall--
       ``(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by 
     the recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the 
     other contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d)(1) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described 
     in paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall include, in 
     addition to the requirements of that paragraph, an audio 
     statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and 
     states that the candidate has approved the communication.
       ``(2) If a broadcast or cablecast communication described 
     in paragraph (1) is broadcast or cablecast by means of 
     television, the communication shall include, in addition to 
     the audio statement under paragraph (1), a written statement 
     that--
       ``(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.
       ``(e) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described in 
     paragraph (3) of subsection (a) shall include, in addition to 
     the requirements of that paragraph, in a clearly spoken 
     manner, the following statement: `________________ is 
     responsible for the content of this advertisement.' (with the 
     blank to be filled in with the name of the political 
     committee or other person paying for the communication and 
     the name of any connected organization of the payor). If 
     broadcast or cablecast by means of television, the statement 
     shall also appear in a clearly readable manner with a 
     reasonable degree of color contrast between the background 
     and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4 
     seconds.''.
                    TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION

     SEC. 401. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by section 101) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 325. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.

       ``(a) Eligible Senate Candidate.--
       ``(1) Primary election.--
       ``(A) Declaration.--A candidate is an eligible primary 
     election Senate candidate if the candidate files with the 
     Commission a declaration that the candidate and the 
     candidate's authorized committees will not make expenditures 
     in excess of the personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be filed not later than the date on which the candidate 
     files with the appropriate State officer as a candidate for 
     the primary election.
       ``(2) General election.--
       ``(A) Declaration.--A candidate is an eligible general 
     election Senate candidate if the candidate files with the 
     Commission--
       ``(i) a declaration under penalty of perjury, with 
     supporting documentation as required by the Commission, that 
     the candidate and the candidate's authorized committees did 
     not exceed the personal funds expenditure limit in connection 
     with the primary election; and
       ``(ii) a declaration that the candidate and the candidate's 
     authorized committees will not make expenditures in excess of 
     the personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be filed not later than 7 days after the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date on which the candidate qualifies for the 
     general election ballot under State law; or
       ``(ii) if under State law, a primary or run-off election to 
     qualify for the general election ballot occurs after 
     September 1, the date on which the candidate wins the primary 
     or runoff election.
       ``(b) Personal Funds Expenditure Limit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The aggregate amount of expenditures 
     that may be made in connection with an election by an 
     eligible Senate candidate or the candidate's authorized 
     committees from the sources described in paragraph (2) shall 
     not exceed $50,000.
       ``(2) Sources.--A source is described in this paragraph if 
     the source is--
       ``(A) personal funds of the candidate and members of the 
     candidate's immediate family; or
       ``(B) proceeds of indebtedness incurred by the candidate or 
     a member of the candidate's immediate family.
       ``(c) Certification by the Commission.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall determine whether a 
     candidate has met the requirements of this section and, based 
     on the determination, issue a certification stating whether 
     the candidate is an eligible Senate candidate.
       ``(2) Time for certification.--Not later than 7 business 
     days after a candidate files a declaration under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the Commission shall certify 
     whether the candidate is an eligible Senate candidate.
       ``(3) Revocation.--The Commission shall revoke a 
     certification under paragraph (1), based on information 
     submitted in such form and manner as the Commission may 
     require or on information that comes to the Commission by 
     other means, if the Commission determines that a candidate 
     violates the personal funds expenditure limit.
       ``(4) Determinations by Commission.--A determination made 
     by the Commission under this subsection shall be final, 
     except to the extent that the determination is subject to 
     examination and audit by the Commission and to judicial 
     review.
       ``(d) Penalty.--If the Commission revokes the certification 
     of an eligible Senate candidate--
       ``(1) the Commission shall notify the candidate of the 
     revocation; and
       ``(2) the candidate and a candidate's authorized committees 
     shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to the amount of 
     expenditures made by a national committee of a political 
     party or a State committee of a political party in connection 
     with the general election campaign of the candidate under 
     section 315(d).''.

     SEC. 402. POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE COORDINATED EXPENDITURES.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) (as amended by section 204) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) This subsection does not apply to expenditures made 
     in connection with the general election campaign of a 
     candidate for the Senate who is not an eligible Senate 
     candidate (as defined in section 325(a)).''.
                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. CODIFICATION OF BECK DECISION.

       Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Nonunion member payments to labor organization.
       ``(1) In General.--It shall be an unfair labor practice for 
     any labor organization which receives a payment from an 
     employee pursuant to an agreement that requires employees who 
     are not members of the organization to make payments to such 
     organization in lieu of organization dues or fees not to 
     establish and implement the objection procedure described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Objection Procedure.--The objection procedure 
     required under paragraph (1) shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) The labor organization shall annually provide to 
     employees who are covered by such agreement but are not 
     members of the organization--
       ``(i) reasonable personal notice of the objection 
     procedure, the employees eligible to

[[Page S10111]]

     invoke the procedure, and the time, place, and manner for 
     filing an objection; and
       ``(ii) reasonable opportunity to file an objection to 
     paying for organization expenditures supporting political 
     activities unrelated to collective bargaining, including but 
     not limited to the opportunity to file such objection by 
     mail.
       ``(B) If an employee who is not a member of the labor 
     organization files an objection under the procedure in 
     subparagraph (A), such organization shall--
       ``(i) reduce the payments in lieu of organization dues or 
     fees by such employee by an amount which reasonably reflects 
     the ratio that the organization's expenditures supporting 
     political activities unrelated to collective bargaining bears 
     to such organization's total expenditures;
       ``(ii) provide such employee with a reasonable explanation 
     of the organization's calculation of such reduction, 
     including calculating the amount of organization expenditures 
     supporting political activities unrelated to collective 
     bargaining.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `expenditures supporting political activities unrelated 
     to collective bargaining' means expenditures in connection 
     with a federal, state, or local election or in connection 
     with efforts to influence legislation unrelated to collective 
     bargaining.''.

     SEC. 502. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a 
     candidate, and any other amount received by an individual as 
     support for activities of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual--
       ``(1) for expenditures in connection with the campaign for 
     Federal office of the candidate or individual;
       ``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in 
     connection with duties of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office;
       ``(3) for contributions to an organization described in 
     section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party.
       ``(b) Prohibited Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contribution or amount described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to 
     personal use.
       ``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     contribution or amount shall be considered to be converted to 
     personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill 
     any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would 
     exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or 
     individual's duties as a holder of Federal officeholder, 
     including--
       ``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
       ``(B) a clothing purchase;
       ``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
       ``(D) a country club membership;
       ``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
       ``(F) a household food item;
       ``(G) a tuition payment;
       ``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or 
     other form of entertainment not associated with an election 
     campaign; and
       ``(G) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or 
     recreational facility.''.

     SEC. 503. LIMIT ON CONGRESSIONAL USE OF THE FRANKING 
                   PRIVILEGE.

       Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) A Member of Congress shall not mail any mass mailing 
     as franked mail during a year in which there will be an 
     election for the seat held by the Member during the period 
     between January 1 of that year and the date of the general 
     election for that Office, unless the Member has made a public 
     announcement that the Member will not be a candidate for 
     reelection to that year or for election to any other Federal 
     office.''.

     SEC. 504. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       
       Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (a) striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     solitict or receive a donation of money or other thing of 
     value for a political committee or a candidate for Federal, 
     State or local office from a person who is located in a room 
     or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by 
     an officer or employee of the United States. An individual 
     who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     including the President, Vice President, and Members of 
     Congress, shall not make solicit a donation of money or other 
     thing of value for a political committee or candidate for 
     Federal, State or local offices, while in any room or 
     building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an 
     officer or employee of the United States, from any person.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be 
     fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or 
     both.''.
       (b) Inserting a subsection (b) after ``Congress'' ``or 
     Executive Office of the President''.

     SEC. 505. PENALTIES FOR KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.

       (a) Increased Penalties.--Section 309(a) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (5)(A), (6)(A), and (6)(B), by striking 
     ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
       (2) in paragraphs (5)(B) and (6)(C), by striking ``$10,000 
     or an amount equal to 200 percent'' and inserting ``$20,000 
     or an amount equal to 300 percent''.
       (b) Equitable Remedies.--Section 309(a)(5)(A) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) 
     is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 
     ``, and may include equitable remedies or penalties, 
     including disgorgement of funds to the Treasury or community 
     service requirements (including requirements to participate 
     in public education programs).''.
       (c) Automatic Penalty for Late Filing.--Section 309(a) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Penalty for late filing.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Monetary penalties.--The Commission shall establish a 
     schedule of mandatory monetary penalties that shall be 
     imposed by the Commission for failure to meet a time 
     requirement for filing under section 304.
       ``(ii) Required filing.--In addition to imposing a penalty, 
     the Commission may require a report that has not been filed 
     within the time requirements of section 304 to be filed by a 
     specific date.
       ``(iii) Procedure.--A penalty or filing requirement imposed 
     under this paragraph shall not be subject to paragraph (1), 
     (2), (3), (4), (5), or (12).
       ``(B) Filing an exception.--
       ``(i) Time to file.--A political committee shall have 30 
     days after the imposition of a penalty or filing requirement 
     by the Commission under this paragraph in which to file an 
     exception with the Commission.
       ``(ii) Time for Commission to rule.--Within 30 days after 
     receiving an exception, the Commission shall make a 
     determination that is a final agency action subject to 
     exclusive review by the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit under section 706 of title 
     5, United States Code, upon petition filed in that court by 
     the political committee or treasurer that is the subject of 
     the agency action, if the petition is filed within 30 days 
     after the date of the Commission action for which review is 
     sought.'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)(D)--
       (A) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``In any case in which a penalty or filing requirement 
     imposed on a political committee or treasurer under paragraph 
     (13) has not been satisfied, the Commission may institute a 
     civil action for enforcement under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the last 
     sentence the following: ``or has failed to pay a penalty or 
     meet a filing requirement imposed under paragraph (13)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (4)(A) or (13)''.

     SEC. 506. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following: 
     ``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
       ``(A) a donation of money or other thing of value, or to 
     promise expressly or impliedly to make a donation, in 
     connection with a Federal, State, or local election to a 
     political committee or a candidate for Federal office; or
       ``(ii) a contribution or donation to a committee of a 
     political party; or
       ``(B) for a person to solicit, accept, or receive such 
     contribution or donation from a foreign national.''.

     SEC. 507. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by section 401) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 326. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

       An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not make 
     a contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation 
     to a committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 508. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) (as amended by 
     section 505(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(14)(A) If the complaint in a proceeding was filed within 
     60 days preceding the date of a general election, the 
     Commission may take action described in this subparagraph.
       ``(B) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts 
     alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the 
     Commission, that there is clear and convincing evidence that 
     a violation of this Act has occurred, is occurring, or is 
     about to occur, the Commission may order expedited 
     proceedings, shortening the time periods for proceedings 
     under

[[Page S10112]]

     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as necessary to allow the 
     matter to be resolved in sufficient time before the election 
     to avoid harm or prejudice to the interests of the parties.
       ``(C) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts 
     alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the 
     Commission, that the complaint is clearly without merit, the 
     Commission may--
       ``(i) order expedited proceedings, shortening the time 
     periods for proceedings under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 
     (4) as necessary to allow the matter to be resolved in 
     sufficient time before the election to avoid harm or 
     prejudice to the interests of the parties; or
       ``(ii) if the Commission determines that there is 
     insufficient time to conduct proceedings before the election, 
     summarily dismiss the complaint.''.
       (b) Referral to Attorney General.--Section 309(a)(5) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) 
     is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) The Commission may at any time, by an affirmative 
     vote of at least 4 of its members, refer a possible violation 
     of this Act or chapter 95 or 96 of title 26, United States 
     Code, to the Attorney General of the United States, without 
     regard to any limitation set forth in this section.''.

     SEC. 509. INITIATION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING.

       Section 309(a)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``reason to 
     believe that'' and inserting ``reason to investigate 
     whether''.
 TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS

     SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 602. REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.

       An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States from any final judgment, decree, or order 
     issued by any court ruling on the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act.

     SEC. 603. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act take effect on the date that is 
     60 days after the date of enactment of this Act or January 1, 
     1998, whichever occurs first.

     SEC. 604. REGULATIONS.

       The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe any 
     regulations required to carry out this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act not later than 270 days after the effective 
     date of this Act.


                           amendment no. 1258

    (Purpose: To guarantee that contributions to Federal political 
                        campaigns are voluntary)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1258.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all of section 501, and insert the following:

     SEC. 501. PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1259 to Amendment No. 1258

    (Purpose: To guarantee that contributions to Federal political 
                        campaigns are voluntary)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1259 to amendment No. 1258.


  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
  In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the following:

     SEC. 501. PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect one day 
     after enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1260 to Amendment No. 1258

    (Purpose: To guarantee that contributions to Federal political 
                        campaigns are voluntary)

  Mr. LOTT. I send a perfecting amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1260 to amendment No. 1258.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the word ``SEC.'' in the pending amendment 
     and insert the following:

     501. PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect two 
     days after enactment of this Act.


                           Amendment No. 1261

    (Purpose: To guarantee that contributions to Federal political 
                        campaigns are voluntary)

  Mr. LOTT. I now send an amendment to the desk to the language 
proposed to be stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S10113]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment No. 1261.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 42, in the language proposed to be stricken, strike 
     all after ``SEC. 501'' through the end of the page and insert 
     the following:

     PAYCHEK PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect three 
     days after enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LOTT. I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1262 to Amendment No. 1261

    (Purpose: To guarantee that contributions to Federal political 
                        campaigns are voluntary)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1262 to amendment No. 1261.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word in the pending amendment 
     and insert the following:

     PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess to its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment it any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect four 
     days after enactment of this Act.


                           Motion to Recommit

      Amendment No. 1263 to Instructions to the Motion to Recommit

    (Purpose: To guarantee that contributions to Federal political 
                        campaigns are voluntary)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now move that the Senate recommit S. 25 to 
the Committee on Rules and Administration with instructions to report 
back forthwith, and I send an amendment to the instructions to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1263 to instructions to the motion to 
     recommit.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the instructions add the following:

     ``with an amendment as follows:
       Strike all of section 501 and insert the following:

     SEC.   . PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''

  Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1264 to Amendment No. 1263

    (Purpose: To guarantee that contributions to Federal political 
                        campaigns are voluntary)

  Mr. LOTT. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1264 to amendment No. 1263.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object to suspension of the reading. I would like to 
know what the amendment is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''
       Effective Date.--This section shall take effect one day 
     after enactment of this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second to the request 
for the yeas and nays?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1265 To Amendment No. 1264

    (Purpose: To guarantee that contributions to Federal political 
                        campaigns are voluntary)

  Mr. LOTT. I send a final amendment to the desk.

[[Page S10114]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1265 to amendment No. 1264.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Strike all after the word ``section'' in the first degree 
     amendment and insert the following:

       . PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 316 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of each individual, it shall be 
     unlawful--

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
part of the reading of the amendment be dispensed with since it is the 
same as the other amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The remainder of the amendment is as follows:

       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess its stockholders or 
     employees any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess its members or nonmembers any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorized described in paragraph (1) shall remain 
     in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''
       (b) Effective Date--This section shall take effect two days 
     after enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to explain what just 
transpired.
  Mr. President, Senate procedure can be sometimes confusing. So let me 
take a moment to go over what are the amendments that were offered and 
what is pending.
  Under the unanimous-consent agreement reached last week, Senator 
McCain modified his original McCain-Feingold bill. I was then 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  The amendment I offered--the Paycheck Protection Act--will not wipe 
out the underlying McCain bill, if it is adopted. On the contrary, if 
adopted, this amendment would become part of the bill.
  The other amendments I just offered were part of the process which is 
informally known as ``filling up the amendment tree.'' This is a fairly 
standard procedure to ensure opponents of an amendment cannot gut it by 
offering yet another amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that five recent examples be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the materials was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       1977--Jimmy Carter's Energy Deregulation Bill--Byrd filled 
     up amendment tree.
       1984--Grove City--Byrd (in minority) filled up the tree.
       1985--Budget Resolution--Dole filled up the tree.
       1988--Campaign Finance--Byrd filled up the tree (eight 
     cloture votes).
       1993--Emergency Supplemental Approps (Stimulus Bill)--Byrd 
     filled up the tree.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, also, I note that this is done two or three 
times a year and certainly is not unprecedented.
  I hope no one will characterize this amendment as a ``poison pill'' 
for campaign finance reform. It is so fundamental to fairness in the 
campaign process. Shouldn't workers in America be able to have some say 
about how their fees, assessments, or dues are used in political 
campaigns? I think the answer truly should be yes.
  Some of our colleagues may not want to expose, much less vote on, one 
of the worst campaign abuses that exists--compulsory business or union 
dues--but that is no reason for them to suddenly change their position 
on campaign finance reform as a whole.
  Most Americans would be shocked to learn that some workers in our 
Nation are forced to contribute to a candidate or campaign they don't 
support or do not know anything about. They have no way of directing 
where those funds go.
  Because of that abuse, this amendment, the Paycheck Protection Act, 
is an essential element to genuine campaign reform. It requires that 
all political contributions be voluntary.
  The McCain-Feingold bill places restrictions on political parties, 
bans soft money, and curbs the activities of grassroots organizations. 
But it contains a giant loophole: It allows corporations and unions to 
confiscate money, for political purposes, from their employees' and 
members' paychecks without getting their permission. This loophole must 
be closed.
  Senator McCain himself stated that he ``personally supports much 
stronger [Beck] language.'' He said he ``believes that no individual--a 
union member or not--should be required to contribute to political 
activities.'' This was on a floor statement of September 26, 1997.
  The McCain-Feingold bill limits what people can voluntary contribute 
for political purposes, but it does not protect people from being 
forced to contribute involuntarily to political campaigns.
  We must require unions and corporations to get a worker's permission 
before taking money out of his or her paycheck for political purposes.
  As I have said before, my own father was a union member. This 
amendment is not targeted at unions. It is, as a matter of fact, 
directed at affecting both unions and corporations as well.
  No worker--whether union or corporate business, large or small--
should be forced to contribute against his or her will, as a condition 
of their employment.
  Many workers don't want to pay and be involved in campaigns or in 
politics, and many of those don't want to be told what they have to do 
and don't want to have their funds taken from them without their 
permission.
  A recent poll of union members revealed that 78 percent did not know 
they had the right to stop paying for politics.
  A 1996 poll of union members found that 62 percent opposed the AFL-
CIO's expenditure of over $35 million--and probably much more--of their 
money in a campaign to control Congress.
  No worker should be forced to pay for politics that they do not 
support. As such, I hope Senators will support my amendment.
  There will be plenty of time to debate this amendment and other 
amendments, and then we will design a process to have some votes to see 
where the Senate stands on this and other issues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished leader if I may be 
designated as a cosponsor of his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend the leader because there is no 
more essential thing in America than our freedom. It is written into 
every important document. It is the very foundation upon which our 
Republic was formed, yet we have turned aside and winked at this 
process whereby the American worker is penalized in that he or she 
cannot exercise his or her own free will in making the most fundamental 
of decisions: Whether or not to have his or her paycheck involuntarily 
docked for a sum of money for which in most instances they have no idea 
to what uses it will be put by people who make decisions for them.
  Then that same worker will exercise his or her right of freedom to go 
to a polling place and write in a check or pull a lever or whatever the 
procedure may be by which he or she will exercise his or her freedom to 
select that individual, Democrat or Republican, independent, whether it 
is for chairman of the board of supervisors in the hometown, President 
of the United States, or whatever the case may be. To me it is a total 
anachronism to say that you cannot make a decision with regard to your 
paycheck, yet you are free to go into the polling booth and make that 
decision.
  This amendment is referred to as a poison pill.

[[Page S10115]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a sample of the type of thing that is being used today in certain 
States by which that worker signs and sends into his or her respective 
employer his or her written consent to do just what this amendment 
asks.
  There being no objection, the sample was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

            Political Contribution Withholding Authorization

       No employer or other person may withhold a portion of a 
     Washington State resident's earnings (or that of a non-
     resident whose primary place of work is in Washington) in 
     order to make contributions to a political committee that 
     must report to the Public Disclosure Commission or to a 
     candidate for state or local office without annual, written 
     permission from that individual. Completion of this form 
     entitles the entity specified to make such a withholding for 
     no more than 12 consecutive months.
       I, (First Name, Middle Initial, Last Name) authorize (Name 
     of Employer or Other Person) to withhold ($ Amount per/pay 
     period/week/month/year/ from my earnings in order to make 
     political contributions to (Name, City and State of political 
     committee(s) and/or candidate(s) to receive deductions).
       If more than one recipient is indicated, each is to receive 
     the following portion of the deduction made: 
     ________________. This authorization is valid for no more 
     than twelve consecutive months. It is effective on (Month/
     Day/Year) and expires on (Month/Day/Year).
       Signature:
       Date:
       According to state law, no employer or labor organization 
     may discriminate against an officer or employee in the terms 
     or conditions of employment for (a) the failure to contribute 
     to, (b) the failure in any way to support or oppose, or (c) 
     in any way supporting or opposing a candidate, ballot 
     proposition, political party, or political committee.


                        Timing of Contributions

       Primary and General Contributions: With the exception of 
     contributions from a bona fide political party organization 
     or a legislative caucus committee, no primary election 
     contribution may be made after the date of the primary.
       No general election contribution is permitted after 
     November 30 of the election year from any contributor--except 
     the candidate using personal funds for his own campaign.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I remember a famous poem written years and 
years ago, and I will insert in the Record portions of it. But it 
related to military people around the turn of the century. It says: 
``Yours is not to reason why; yours is but to do or die.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt of ``The 
Charge of the Light Brigade'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    The Charge of the Light Brigade


                                  ii.

     ``Forward, the Light Brigade!''
     Was there a man dismay'd?
     Not tho' the soldier knew
       Some one had blunder'd:
     Theirs not to make reply,
     Theirs not to reason why,
     Theirs but to do and die:
     Into the valley of Death
       Rode the six hundred.

  Mr. WARNER. That is the philosophy behind this automatic deduction-- 
yours is not to reason why; you just do as we tell you. That is 
antithetical. It is not a poison pill to correct that and have maybe 
six simple words which say, I hereby consent to have my paycheck 
deducted in a certain amount. How can anyone in good conscience call 
that simple one sentence a poison pill? It is the exercise of the very 
essence of democracy in this country and no longer adheres to the 
refrain ``yours is not to reason why.''
  The American worker is quite different in profile today than when 
this statute, which they predicate the automatic deduction, was put in. 
Given a few gray hairs and a few years, I bridge back to those thirties 
when so much of the labor legislation was enacted. That laboring person 
was drawn from a segment of society that was struggling for its very 
existence, would take any job, would follow any order, would accept any 
working condition just to have enough of an opportunity to provide for 
his or her family.
  Fortunately, this country has progressed today to where that is gone, 
and today that working person is of an entirely different profile. They 
have had the opportunity to get education, and many are still seeking 
to augment their education. They have the opportunity to think for 
themselves. We are in a society today dominated by all sorts of 
opportunities, be it on television or in schools or otherwise, to 
enhance one's level of education and to develop, Mr. President, a 
thought process by which the American worker can make many, many more 
decisions for himself or for herself than at the time of the origin of 
these very oppressive statutes that we still struggle with today.
  So I commend the distinguished majority leader. It seems to me anyone 
who wants to call this a poison pill should hold up that simple form, 
point to it and say that the exercise of the right to simply say that I 
consent is a poison pill. I call it, Mr. President, a ``freedom'' pill, 
if you want to use that phraseology. This is a ``freedom'' pill for the 
ability of the American worker to begin to think and exercise his or 
her own judgment. I commend those who support this measure. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, very briefly, reluctantly, I must oppose 
the amendment before the Senate. I do so not because I disagree with 
its intent. In fact, I strongly support what it seeks to do. But, as 
with all difficult choices, a decision must be made. In this case, I 
must decide that passage of overall campaign finance reform must be the 
Senate's first goal. The cosponsors of the modified bill recognized 
that something must be done about enforcing the Beck decision.
  S. 25, our original bill, was silent on this point. We chose in the 
modification to take the important step to codify Beck. This step was 
not taken lightly, and it should not be discounted by those who want 
more. The fight with my friends on the other side of the aisle over 
this issue loomed large for some time. To be frank, this was certainly 
one of the most contentious issues we faced. In fact, inclusion of Beck 
language in the bill nearly fractured our bipartisan coalition. 
However, in the end, all involved came to the same conclusion that I 
have today. We must put the goal of overall campaign finance reform 
first. By this I do not mean to say that workers' rights issues are 
second to any other subject. They are extremely important and are long 
overdue in being addressed, but now is the time to debate campaign 
finance reform. We can turn to other subjects in due time.
  Mr. President, in the modified bill, we seek to codify the landmark 
1988 Supreme Court Beck decision. President Bush did this by Executive 
order in 1992 to the applause of the right and a condemnation of the 
left and the unions. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the 
right first step now.
  Unfortunately, as we all know, elections have consequences, and after 
winning the White House, President Clinton soon reversed course and 
repealed President Bush's Executive order. This bill would effectively 
reverse the actions of President Clinton. The bill would require that 
all labor unions give notice to nonunion individuals who are forced to 
pay agency fees annual notice of their Beck rights. Such notice would 
occur by mail and must inform the worker how much money he or she could 
receive. Again, this notification must occur each and every year.

  If an employee chooses to utilize his or her rights, an employee 
would be able to notify the union of such action by mail and have his 
or her fees reduced accordingly. The Beck decision does not affect 
labor's contributions to candidates from its PAC. The law already 
restricts dues and fees from being used for any PAC activity. The 
codification of Beck contained in the modified bill is not 
inconsequential. An estimated 3 million of 19 million individuals 
working under labor contracts are in union or agency shops where they 
must pay union fees even though they are not members. If nonunion 
employees chose to invoke their rights, unions would have to return up 
to $2.4 million a year.
  On April 14, 1992, after President Bush issued his Executive order, 
the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported:

       ``Unions in truth have not been complying with Beck,'' said 
     Robert Duvin, a Cleveland lawyer who represents management on 
     labor issues. ``It's a joke. I am not saying workers don't 
     get their money back. Unions are not keeping the kind of 
     accounting they should.''


[[Page S10116]]


  The language in the modified bill will go far to stop this ``joke.'' 
It will make clear that Beck is the law of the land, that it must be 
complied with, and that the status quo is no longer acceptable.
  As I noted, in 1992, when President Bush took this action, it was 
widely applauded by Republicans as a good first step, and I admit it is 
exactly that, a good first step, not comprehensive action. Just as the 
bill before the Senate is not all that I would want, it, too, is only a 
good first step. In both cases we must not let perfect be the enemy of 
the good. I hope that we can quickly resolve this issue. Now is not the 
time for a debate on labor policy. This amendment should be offered on 
other legislation. I would strongly support debate on a freestanding 
bill. Perhaps all my colleagues could agree to move to Senator Nickles' 
Paycheck Protection Act immediately after debate on campaign finance 
reform. I challenge my Democratic colleagues to come to the floor and 
pledge to allow the majority leader to bring the Nickles' Paycheck 
Protection Act to the floor and to allow for full debate in the regular 
order. Just as we are debating campaign finance reform, we could have a 
healthy debate on labor law, and that is the best way to deal with this 
issue.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to work out a solution to this matter 
that does not jeopardize passage of campaign finance reform. Both sides 
of the aisle must come to an agreement to deal with this subject 
without engaging in a filibuster. A filibuster at this time will doom 
campaign finance reform. There will be plenty of blame to go around if 
such action occurs. I hope the public will understand that any 
prolonged debate at this time is designed solely to kill campaign 
finance reform. If we can't come to some agreement to bring this matter 
up freestanding, then I hope my colleagues will allow us to vote on the 
matter. Let the will of the majority of the Senate prevail. Then we can 
and must continue under the regular order and proceed with other 
amendments. We should not let the prospects for passage of campaign 
finance reform come crashing down based on the first amendment offered.
  Let me point out again, Mr. President, I think we ought to go ahead 
and vote on this amendment, dispose of it and move forward. I hope that 
we can do that soon, since it is an issue that is fairly well known to 
most of my colleagues.
  Mr. President, on Friday, we began a historic debate on the issue of 
campaign finance reform. The Senate heard from many Members who feel 
very passionately on this subject. The Washington Post characterized 
the debate as having ``rare passion and eloquence,'' and that goes on 
both sides of this issue. I think it is a tribute to the nature of this 
body that such a debate is now occurring. We must not allow this 
opportunity to be lost. I urge the Senate to move forward with debate 
on campaign finance reform and resolve this unrelated labor debate as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the Senator from Arizona going to 
stay in the Chamber? I would like to enter into a colloquy with him if 
he is available for that.
  If I could, I would ask my friend from Arizona, last Friday when the 
debate began, the substitute which the Senator from Arizona laid down 
today was not ready until today. Is the Senator from Kentucky correct 
about that?
  Mr. McCAIN. Of course.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And the letter from the Brennan Center in New York, 
which the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin received, 
was dated last Monday, September 22. So would the Senator from Kentucky 
be correct in saying that the 126 signatories to that letter probably 
had not seen the substitute which the Senator from Arizona laid down 
today?
  Mr. McCAIN. Of course, the Senator from Kentucky knows that the core 
of the bill basically remains the same. What we did was, as I mentioned 
in both my statement on Friday and again this morning, we did away with 
a number of the provisions in the bill which would have guaranteed its 
failure, not that we had in any way abandoned the fundamental belief in 
those provisions of the bill, but we were not going to let the perfect 
be the enemy of the good. We are in contact with the Brennan Center, 
and they will update their views on this within a very short period of 
time. So if the Senator from Kentucky has some concerns about their 
being up to date with the latest changes, let me calm his fears at this 
time to tell him that we will be receiving very soon another letter 
that approves of the modified version.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, the original letter to the Senator from Arizona, 
which I have read, talks about party soft money and spending limits on 
campaigns. The spending limits on campaigns portion, I understand, is 
not in the revision that the Senator from Arizona has sent to the desk.
  According to my reading of the letter, there is no mention of either 
independent expenditures or issue advocacy provisions, which I assume 
are the same in the substitute as were in the original bill. Am I 
missing something, or is the Senator from Arizona----
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Kentucky did miss something. I am sorry 
he wasn't able to attend our press conference that we held last week 
with Burt Neuborne, if you will look the final signature for Burt 
Neuborne, John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, legal director, Brennan 
Center for Justice, New York University School of Law. He was queried 
on exactly that point and stated that he firmly believed in its 
constitutionality and, as I say, that letter will be updated very soon 
to include that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Arizona I am reading 
from the letter of September 22. It says, ``We do not all agree on the 
constitutionality of various provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill 
itself, nor are we endorsing every aspect of the bill's soft money and 
voluntary spending limits provision.''
  Is the Senator from Arizona then suggesting that all 126 signatories 
to the letter endorse the independent expenditure and issue advocacy 
provisions of the modification?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am telling the Senator from Kentucky that I am totally 
confident that all or the overwhelming majority of the 126 who signed 
this letter will also sign and approve of the changes that we have 
made. Again, fundamentally because there have been reductions in the 
bill instead of an expansion of it.
  Again, Mr. Neuborne, who was the one who was the progenitor of this 
entire letter and contacted all 126 people, expressed his confidence 
that that would also be the case.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just say there have been a whole series of 
cases----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Not at this time.
  There have been a whole series of cases on issue advocacy. It is not 
in a gray area. In fact, the FEC's enforcement actions and regulatory 
efforts to suppress issue advocacy have been going on for a number of 
years.
  They have been involved in a number of cases. I am looking at a whole 
list here, FEC versus AFSCME, in 1979; FEC versus CLITRIM, in 1980; FEC 
versus Machinists, in 1981; FEC versus Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 
in 1986; FEC versus----
  Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator from Kentucky, is our colloquy over 
or is it going to continue?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I apologize to my friend from Arizona. I am now making 
some observations about issue advocacy.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. FEC versus Phillips Publishing, in 1981; FEC versus 
National Organization for Women; FEC versus Survival Education Fund, in 
1995; FEC versus Christian Action Network, in 1996; FEC versus GOPAC, 
in 1994; FEC versus Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, in 
1996.
  Now, in all of those cases the Federal Election Commission was trying 
to snuff out issue advocacy. It was rebuffed in all of those cases and, 
in the case of FEC versus the Christian Action Network, in the fourth 
circuit, the court was so angry at the FEC for continuing to pursue 
these citizens

[[Page S10117]]

groups that it ordered the FEC to pay the legal fees of the citizen 
group which had been harassed by the FEC.
  Mr. President, there may be some things that are in a gray area in 
this debate, but issue advocacy is not. The court has been very, very 
clear, since Buckley, that it is impermissible for the Congress to shut 
these people up when they seek to criticize us. An effort to say that 
in proximity to the election they can't criticize us would be an 
exercise in futility. I mean, these citizens have a right to band 
together. We don't like it. I stipulate that I have been subjected, 
shall I say, to these issue advocacy campaigns myself. I don't like it. 
I would rather not be criticized. But, as a practical matter, the 
courts are not going to allow us to shut these people up just because 
we find what they say about us offensive.

  The enforcement actions that I mentioned are just the tip of the 
iceberg, since many enforcement actions never progress beyond the 
administrative levels. But these administrative investigations can be 
equally chilling on free speech.
  The FEC has attempted to buttress its position regulating issue 
advocacy by extensive regulatory proceedings resulting in the adoption 
of the following regulations, which have been invalidated by the 
courts.
  The FEC has been on this mission to shut these people up for a long 
time. So they issued a variety of different regulations, 11 CFR 
114.4(b)(5), which was invalidated in Faucher versus FEC, in 1991; 11 
CFR 114.1(e)(2), invalidated in Chamber of Commerce versus FEC, in 
1995; 11 CFR 100.22, invalidated in Maine Right to Life Committee 
versus FEC in 1996; 11 CFR 114.10, invalidated in Minnesota Citizens 
Concerned for Life versus FEC, in 1995; 11 CFR 114.4(c)(4) and (5) 
invalidated in Clifton versus Federal Election Commission, in 1996.
  I don't know who these constitutional scholars are. I am not prepared 
to argue with the Senator from Arizona or the Senator from Wisconsin 
that they all went to law school. But this business of seeking to 
regulate the expressions of citizens against our voting records doesn't 
have any chance at all of being upheld in the courts. I would hope the 
Senate would not waste its time engaging in some ill-conceived idea 
here to try to keep people from criticizing our records. It is a clear 
violation of the first amendment.
  So, it seems to this Senator that that is something we ought not to 
be engaging in. As the Senator from Arizona pointed out, that provision 
of McCain-Feingold remains largely the same as it was in the original 
version.
  I see my friend from Wisconsin is on his feet and would like to 
engage in a colloquy. I had in mind asking him a few questions as well, 
so I will be happy to yield to him for a question.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I 
just want to go over a couple of points relating to the Brennan Center 
for Justice letter of September 22.
  First of all, the Senator from Kentucky made a statement a few days 
prior to the release of that letter on national television. He said 
something to the effect as follows: Russ does not have one single 
constitutional scholar who supports his position. So I can understand 
the Senator from Kentucky being a little tender about a letter signed 
by 126 constitutional scholars that says exactly what it says.
  I would first like to ask the Senator from Kentucky if he ever heard 
any of us, either at the news conference or otherwise, purport that 
that letter included references to the issue of issue advocacy versus 
express advocacy?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I did not. I want to commend the Senator from 
Wisconsin for bringing that up, because it proves precisely my point, 
that the constitutional scholars are not certifying to the 
constitutionality of the issue advocacy or independent expenditure 
provisions of the bill. I think the Senator from Wisconsin has made an 
appropriate correction.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is right, Mr. President, because this is nothing 
but a red herring. The Senator from Kentucky does not like what the 
letter says, so he is trying to pretend that we actually said it said 
something else, and then get me to say it did not say that.
  Let me ask the Senator from Kentucky whether he, in reviewing the 
letter, recognizes that there are two main points to the letter, one is 
the view of these 126 scholars that a ban on soft money is 
constitutional; and, second, that a system that would provide voluntary 
incentives to candidates who agree to some limits on their spending 
would also be constitutional?

  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Wisconsin, that is 
precisely what I was saying. That is what the constitutional scholars, 
in the letter released by the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from 
Wisconsin, were talking about. It's their view of what a court would 
likely rule in the case of soft money and in the spending limits 
proposals, since dropped, that would apply to individual campaigns. 
That was precisely the point the Senator from Kentucky was trying to 
make, that the constitutional scholars are not certifying that they 
believe that provisions of the bill related to issue advocacy or 
independent expenditure are constitutional.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course the Senator from Kentucky is correct. The 
very reason we would have asked for such a letter to be signed by 126 
constitutional scholars is that for years the Senator from Kentucky has 
said that it is unconstitutional to ban soft money, even though the 
Senator from Kentucky proposed a bill in the 103d Congress that would 
ban soft money himself. He has stood on the floor of the Senate 
repeatedly, year after year, and said that a system that would provide 
an incentive to a candidate to limit his or her spending is 
unconstitutional because, in his words, ``It would put a gun to the 
head of a candidate, in effect forcing him or her to do so.''
  So watch the shifting constitutional argument. First, the Senator 
from Kentucky focused his debate last year against our bill on the PAC 
ban, which is no longer in the bill. Then he focused on the soft money 
ban. Then he focused on the issue of whether or not voluntary 
incentives could be given. In each case, the Senator from Kentucky 
concluded emphatically, on the floor and off the floor, that it is 
plainly unconstitutional. He does not have a leg to stand on anymore; 
126 constitutional scholars have said to him: Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
  So now he is moving to another discussion. Now he is going to put up 
another figleaf in front of this obvious attempt to keep the current 
system in the form of a----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would caution the Senator from 
Wisconsin that this is supposed to be a civil debate. I don't know 
whether he is violating rule XIX or not, but I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have yielded temporarily to the Senator from 
Wisconsin. I would like to have a debate about this constitutional 
principle.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I recognize the comments of the Senator 
from Kentucky. Let me just go back to a question, in fairness. The fact 
is that the provisions that we have placed in the bill, the modified 
bill, with regard to the issue of candidate advocacy versus issue 
advocacy are not identical----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator asking a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am about to ask a question--are not identical to 
those in the bill last year. In fact, I would ask the Senator from 
Kentucky if he is aware that the provisions we have just put in the 
modification are different than any that we have introduced before?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say, Mr. President, that I am aware the bill 
has been evolving. I am aware issue advocacy is different now, in the 
revised bill, than it was originally.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Kentucky acknowledge that the 
notion of a bright-line test with regard to issue advocacy is not the 
same as some of the other approaches?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, regaining the floor, let me suggest to 
the Senator from Wisconsin that the bright-line test probably makes it 
even more unconstitutional. I think it is inconceivable that the courts 
would say that you can criticize a Member of Congress anytime you want 
to, except right before an election.
  Let me say with regard to this ongoing discussion of constitutional 
scholars that I don't know how many of the constitutional scholars in 
the letter

[[Page S10118]]

presented by the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin 
have actually practiced these cases in court. I don't know the answer 
to that. It could be that many of them have. But the American Civil 
Liberties Union, which was cocounsel to Senator Buckley in the 1996 
case and has handled a lot of this litigation over the years, believes 
that the provisions of the McCain-Feingold substitute with regard to 
issue advocacy is unconstitutional.
  The American Civil Liberties Union is America's expert on the first 
amendment. It is true that the Senator from Wisconsin has diligently 
searched for years and managed to come up with some folks who will sign 
a letter saying this is constitutional. I said last week I could 
probably find 126 people who say the Earth is flat. But, the experts on 
the first amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union, believe that 
these provisions are not constitutional.
  Let me just read from a letter earlier this year, to me from the 
ACLU, regarding independent expenditure provisions in McCain-Feingold 
at that time.

       The new restrictions on independent expenditures improperly 
     intrude upon that core area of electoral speech, and 
     impermissibly invade the absolutely protected area of issue 
     advocacy.

  Mr. President, the ACLU went on:

       Two basic truths have emerged with crystal clarity after 20 
     years of campaign finance decisions--[20 years]. First, 
     independent expenditures for express electoral advocacy by 
     citizens groups about political candidates lie at the very 
     core of the meaning and purpose of the first amendment. 
     Second, issue advocacy by citizen groups lies totally outside 
     the permissible area of Government regulation.
  This bill assaults both principles.
  So, Mr. President, I am not disputing for a moment that the Senators 
who are the principal sponsors of this bill have found some folks who 
went to law school who were certifying that they believe this bill is 
constitutional. But I am suggesting that the people who litigated in 
this area, the lawyers, the distinguished lawyers who have litigated in 
this area for the last 20 years, who were involved in the original 
case, the Buckley case, that went to the Supreme Court, believe that 
these provisions on independent expenditures and issue advocacy are 
fatally flawed.
  I rest my case. I guess we can all sort of pick our own expert and 
decide who we want to rely on, depending upon the outcome that we want 
to achieve. But I think most people would believe that the first 
amendment lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union know a little 
bit about this area of litigation.
  I want to take a few moments to pose a few questions to my friend 
from Wisconsin, if I may.
  (Mr. DeWINE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I may, I have a couple of questions 
relating to the letter itself I would like to ask, and then I will be 
happy to yield for those questions, if I could, just with regard to the 
comments the Senator was just making.
  If the Senator will yield for a question, does the Senator realize 
that the person who put the letter together, Mr. Burt Neuborne, New 
York University Law School, was the former executive director of the 
ACLU?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Right. Also Professor Neuborne believes that the 
Buckley case was a mistake. He has been very candid about that. He 
believes that Thurgood Marshall was wrong when he said spending is 
speech. So Professor Neuborne, I would say, has been very candid about 
his views. He has a view that is contrary to the state of the law.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Doesn't the ACLU also take the position that the 
Buckley case was wrong?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The ACLU didn't like every aspect of it. They didn't 
like the fact that the Court decided it was permissible to put a limit 
on contributions. The ACLU felt that even the contribution limit, Mr. 
President, was a violation of free speech. They didn't win that one, 
but they won the rest of the case.
  Thurgood Marshall said spending is speech, and all nine Supreme Court 
Justices said spending is speech. I heard the Democratic leader out 
here Friday talking about a 5-to-4 case. It wasn't a 5-to-4 case. It 
was 9 to 0 that spending is speech. My friend from Wisconsin wanted to 
ask a question or observe----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Kentucky consider 
Lawrence W. Knowles, University of Louisville School of Law, qualified 
to discuss these issues?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I don't know Larry Knowles, but a professor of mine at 
the University of Kentucky Law School I noticed was a signatory to your 
letter, I say to my friend from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCONNELL. One of my former professors is a signatory of your 
letter. I think we haven't persuaded him----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Can we safely assume the two signatories with a good 
Kentucky background know what they are talking about?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I don't know what they know about this kind of 
litigation and the first amendment, but I won't dispute the fact that 
126 people signed this letter. I hope the Senator from Wisconsin won't 
dispute that Professor Neuborne disagreed with the Buckley decision, 
thinks it was wrong and for 24 years has been trying to argue that 
somehow the Court ought to reconsider this and change its mind even 
while the Court has been going more and more in the direction of 
permissible political speech.
  So, Mr. President, I still have the floor, I believe, and if the 
Senator from Wisconsin is up for a few more questions, I would like to 
ask him a few.
  I gather that the Senator from Wisconsin said last Friday--I know the 
Senator from Arizona did, too--that they hoped to offer an amendment to 
restore the individual spending limits on campaigns, if they were given 
such an opportunity. Is that correct?

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me respond to that in a slightly different way. 
Another point I wanted to clear up in response to that question, the 
Senator from Kentucky is suggesting that there are no spending limits 
in our base bill. That is incorrect. Our bill, the modification that 
was just offered, does provide that a candidate who wants to get the 
coordinated party expenditure benefit from their party has to limit 
their personal wealth contribution to no more than $50,000.
  So the fact is that provision, which these 126 constitutional 
scholars have suggested is perfectly constitutional, is in our base 
bill. The Senator is, of course, correct, that we do intend to add--in 
fairness to his comment--we do intend to add an amendment that would go 
further, that would, in fact, bring back some of the other proposed 
voluntary limits that would then be coupled with what we hope would be 
an incentive for reduced cost for television time. We hope to add that 
to the bill, but the concept is already in the base bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I stand corrected, Mr. President. There is a partial 
spending limit in the remaining bill. In any event, I am sure I haven't 
mischaracterized the position of the Senator from Wisconsin. He likes 
spending limits. He thinks that too much money is being spent in 
American campaigns; is that correct?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It is not correct that I like mandatory spending 
limits, Mr. President. I believe that under the Buckley versus Valeo 
decision--which the Senator knows I accept because I oppose a 
constitutional amendment that would require mandatory spending limits--
I believe that under that decision, it is permissible and appropriate 
to offer voluntary spending limits, and that is the kind of spending 
limit that I would support. I would not support a constitutional 
amendment, for example, to require mandatory spending limits.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, Mr. President, the original McCain-Feingold bill 
seeks to, shall I say, entice people into limiting their spending, and 
the Senator has often said he thinks there is too much money in 
politics and we should be able to entice people into limiting their 
spending. So I would just like to ask the Senator how much is too much? 
How much spending is too much?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I don't believe it is my language that 
there is such a thing as too much money. It is all in context, and the 
context is this: If somebody chooses, as they may under their 
constitutional right, to spend as much as they want, I believe we 
should establish a system whereby a person who is challenging that 
person has a chance to at least get their message out.

[[Page S10119]]

  So I don't have any theoretical limit that I believe in. If Michael 
Huffington wants to spend $30 million in California, that's his right, 
but it is my belief that we ought to provide some kind of incentive to 
those who would voluntarily limit their spending so they could have a 
fair chance to get their message out.
  I don't accept the premise of the Senator's question, that I believe 
there is some sort of a magical number. What I want is some kind of 
fairness in the system, some kind of leveling the playing field so not 
just multimillionaires would get to participate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. In the McCain-Feingold bill, there is a State-by-State 
formula for how much one would be permitted to spend if he 
``voluntarily'' accepted the spending limit. Now, what would that add 
up to in the 1998 elections? Do you have a calculator there, or does 
your staff have a calculator to give us a sense--
  Mr. FEINGOLD. You are asking about the total amounts for all the 
States put together?
  Mr. McCONNELL. There is a formula in the McCain-Feingold bill, as I 
understand it, that specifies how much spending would be allowed in 
various States. Do you know what that would add up to in the 1998 
election?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course, Mr. President, that is an inaccurate 
statement of what the bill does. It does not provide limits. It says 
only that if a person agrees to a stable or certain figure, depending 
on the size of the State, that those individuals would get the benefits 
provided by the bill. There is no automatic limit. Anyone can go over 
the limit if they want to, if they are willing to forfeit the benefits.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an additional 
question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Utah for a question?
  Mr. BENNETT. I recall in Friday's debate when the Senator from 
Arizona laid down the three fundamental purposes of McCain-Feingold, 
and the second of those three was to lessen the amount of money in 
politics. So I think the question of the Senator from Kentucky is a 
legitimate one: How much do the sponsors of McCain-Feingold want to 
lessen the amount of money in politics?
  According to the Senator from Arizona, that is one of the three 
fundamental pillars of this, and I hope the two Senators will continue 
the colloquy until we get an answer to that question: How much do the 
sponsors of McCain-Feingold want to lessen the amount of money in 
politics?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Utah. Let me just read the 
formula that is in the McCain-Feingold bill. I say to my friend from 
Utah, that might be helpful in giving my colleague from Wisconsin an 
opportunity to answer the question, How much is too much?
  The formula, as I understand it, in the original bill is $400,000 
plus 30 cents times voting age population less than or equal to 4 
million plus 25 cents times the voting age population greater than 4 
million.
  So in the case, I say to my friends from Utah and Wisconsin--but 
there is one State that is different. In the case of New Jersey, where 
they have only one VHF station, the formula is different. It is 80 
cents and 70 cents instead of 30 cents and 25 cents. Moreover, the 
minimum general election limit is $950,000, maximum being $5,500,000. 
That is for any State, no matter how big. And then the primary is 67 
percent of the general limit, and the runoff limit is 20 percent of the 
general.
  I am a little confused here. I gather that means that you can spend 
more per voter in New Jersey than you can in Utah; is that right?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Is the question being posed to me?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, it is your bill. I want to ask you about it.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to respond to that question. First of 
all, of course, this provision is not what is before us at this point. 
Nevertheless, I do believe in the system of overall voluntary spending 
limits, and the real driving force behind that is a concern about 
television costs. Any modifications or changes in the formula that had 
to do with a State-by-State difference without a doubt had something to 
do with the question of what does it cost to run a television campaign 
in a U.S. Senate race.
  I find it slightly amusing that the Senators question me about 
language that my colleague from Arizona used about limiting spending in 
campaigns, when the Senator from Kentucky, in S. 7, 103d Congress, had 
a bill entitled ``To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
reduce special interest influence on elections, to increase competition 
in politics, to reduce campaign costs, and for other purposes.''
  The point is, actually all three of us agree that you should not 
mandatorily limit campaign spending.
  Mr. McCONNELL. But it is the hope of the Senator from Wisconsin that 
somebody would accept these ``voluntary'' spending limits.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course, it is my hope they would accept them, but 
only voluntarily, so that not a single person in this country is forced 
to give up their free speech rights. That is not a part of our bill. 
The whole premise of reducing the amount of money in politics is not to 
deny anyone their rights, but, in appropriate cases, to encourage 
people to limit their spending so we can have fair races, so we don't 
have a scenario like the one that we have now where a Senate race, on 
average, costs $4.5 million or $10 million or $15 million.
  I would be curious if either the Senator from Utah or the Senator 
from Kentucky believe there is any amount of money that is 
inappropriate in terms of a U.S. Senate race?
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I may regain my time, the answer is I don't think 
the Government should be determining how much speech there is in any 
Senate race, I don't care what the size of the State is.
  I see my friend from Utah standing up again. Here is an explanation 
that I think will help the Senator from Wisconsin. Obviously, he hopes 
that people will accept their spending limits and the provision in 
their measure that would make it pretty hard not to, because if you 
don't accept the spending limits, you have to pay way more for 
television than somebody who doesn't.
  It is my view the courts would strike that down as unconstitutional 
because they are punishing you if you choose to express yourself too 
much. You get punished because you have to pay more for your broadcast 
time.
  Clearly, the Senator from Wisconsin wants people to accept the 
spending limit, and I would argue the spending limit in the original 
McCain-Feingold is not voluntary at all because the Government 
basically has a gun to your head.
  If you do not accept it, it costs you a heck of a lot of money. It 
gets back to this formula we were just discussing. The measure's 
spending limits are based on a formula that takes each State's voting 
age population into account. The basic general election spending limit 
is $400,000, plus 30 percent per voter up to 4 million of the voting 
age population and 25 percent per voter in excess of 4 million of the 
voting age population.
  I say to my friend from Utah, it appears as if the voters in excess 
of 4 million do not get as much spent on them as the voters below 4 
million. So presumably you do not speak as much to the people over 4 
million as you do to the people under 4 million. But then the general 
election spending limit can be no lower than $950,000. So presumably if 
you are in a little State, it cannot go below $950,000 or more than 
$5.5 million in any State. That presumably would limit California to 
$5.5 million. Then the basic primary election spending is two-thirds of 
the general election spending limit, but not more than $2.75 million in 
any State.
  If I could read on just a minute before taking the question of the 
Senator from Utah.
  The proposed legislation creates some incredible anomalies that have 
been omitted from the public debate. Incredible? How else to describe a 
law, when figured on a per-voter basis, that would allow a Senatorial 
candidate in Wyoming to spend almost 11.5 times the amount that could 
be spent by a candidate in California?
  With a 22.8 million voting age population, the biggest of any State, 
California, under the McCain-Feingold scheme, gets the biggest spending 
limit. If figured on the same basis as other States, California 
spending would be $10.5 million; but, in fact, it is capped at $5.5 
million. But California is

[[Page S10120]]

the only State where maximum spending limits, $5.5 million per general 
and $2.75 million for a primary election would be applied; thus, 
California's total campaign spending is $8.25 million for the general 
election, which works out, Mr. President, to about 24.1 cents per 
voter.
  Not too far away from California, in Wyoming, the State with the 
least population where there are only 344,000 people of voting age, the 
spending limit would be $503,200 if it were not for the laws of minimum 
limit of $1.586 million, general election and primary election, 
$636,000. The general election spending limit works out to $2.74 per 
voter.
  Mr. President, over in California under the spending limits regime in 
the McCain-Feingold bill, which is not in the substitute but will be 
offered as an amendment if given the opportunity, a voter in California 
is treated to 24.1 cents in campaigns while Wyoming is $2.76 per voter.
  Putting this in a different perspective, the McCain-Feingold 
legislation allows senatorial candidates in California to engage in 
first amendment protective activity at a level of financial activity 
that is barely one-tenth of the amount that a candidate could spend in 
Wyoming. To achieve parity so that the voters in the two States receive 
the same level of general election campaigning from their U.S. Senate 
candidates would require California candidates to spend an amount that 
is 11.5 times greater than allowed in the McCain-Feingold bill, a 
whooping $63.25 million; or you could reduce the amount that could be 
spent in Wyoming to $82,600.
  Now, why do I bother to mention this Mr. President? This is truly a 
Rube Goldberg scheme. ``We are here from the Government to help you,'' 
and we have concocted this spending limit regime up here in the 
Government so that the voters in these various States will not be 
tainted by too much expression being directed at them in the course of 
their campaigns. But as often is the case when the Federal Government 
tries to micromanage something, particularly something so difficult as 
micromanaging political expression, you end up with a sort of absurd 
result.
  Mr. President, the reason I talk about these spending limits is that 
they are in the original McCain-Feingold bill. Senator McCain, Senator 
Feingold do intend--if they have the opportunity--to offer that 
amendment to give the Senate an opportunity to go on record as saying 
that California voters only get 24.1 cents spent on them while Wyoming 
voters get $2.76. This scheme is something that they want us to 
sanction.
  Mr. President, this is an extraordinarily difficult concept for 
people of average intelligence to understand. Besides the 
constitutionality problem, they are also saying that in order to speak 
more you have to pay more--and you do not get the broadcast discount--
or if you decide to speak too much, you pay more for your speech. It is 
just one of the many problems with the spending limits regime with 
which the Senate has been confronted not just in this debate, but at 
various times over the last decade.
  And I ask my friend from Utah, is a voter in Wyoming entitled to more 
of a campaign than a voter in California?
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend from 
Kentucky, I know a little bit about campaigns in Wyoming because a 
large portion of the Wyoming electorate is served out of the television 
market headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT. As a consequence, voters in 
Utah were treated to attack ads telling us how terrible Mr. Enzi was in 
the last campaign. We had no idea who he was. I did not meet him until 
he was sworn in here. But I had seen all of the attack ads that were 
put on through the Salt Lake City television stations attacking the 
senatorial candidate in Wyoming.
  By contrast, if I may, our friend from Delaware, Senator Biden, has 
told us that Delaware has no television outlets at all in the State. As 
a consequence, if he is going to run a television campaign in Delaware, 
he has to do all of his buying in Philadelphia, so that the voters of 
Pennsylvania get to hear all of the glories and beauties of Joe Biden, 
none of whom can vote for him because he cannot buy television time in 
Delaware.
  What the Senator from Kentucky has demonstrated is how incredibly 
difficult it is to craft legislation that approaches the ideal sought 
by the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin in a market-by-market, 
State-by-State, election-by-election circumstance. It is virtually 
impossible to do that. We ought to recognize that and defeat the whole 
thing out of hand.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would it not be appropriate to say, I say to my friend 
from Utah, that the Government has no business doing that anyway?
  Mr. BENNETT. Of course the Government has no business doing that. 
That is the point we made on Friday when we were having the debate. 
Even if we grant the argument raised by the Senator from Wisconsin and 
his 126 experts that it can be done in a way that is constitutional, we 
recognize that it cannot be done in a way that makes sense.
  It is possible to craft a system that meets the narrow requirements 
of the Constitution in terms of protecting free speech, but it is not 
possible to do one in a way that makes any logical sense at all.
  I had risen to ask my colleague this question about the example we 
have before us. We are being told this is constitutional because it is 
voluntary. And I suppose that is the reason these 126 scholars have 
signed the letter. As long as you agree in advance to give up your 
constitutional rights, then the Constitution will not defend you.
  The Senator from Kentucky has said it isn't really voluntary. There 
is a huge incentive which the Senator from Kentucky describes as a gun 
pointed at your head to see to it that you are voluntary. So it is not 
voluntary. This is the question I had in mind.
  We have an example before us of people giving up their constitutional 
rights in return for Federal dollars. There are some who are so unkind 
to call that a bribe. But in the Presidential system now, virtually 
every candidate for President accepts the bribe; that is, he or she 
accepts the Federal dollars in return for agreeing to limit their 
speech. The Senator from Wisconsin says, no, every American has a 
constitutional right not to accept that money and to go ahead on their 
own.
  Isn't it true that the only two candidates who have been able to run 
for President without accepting the Federal money and mount anything 
approaching a worthwhile campaign are Ross Perot and Steve Forbes, both 
of whom approach billionaire status? Is that a correct summary of what 
the Presidential system that is constitutional has brought us to?
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Utah is entirely correct. Even people 
like Ronald Reagan, who opposed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1974, always checked no on his tax return as a protest against using 
tax dollars for the Presidential campaign. He had no choice because the 
contribution limit on candidates for President was only $1,000. You 
simply could not raise enough to compete for President unless you 
accepted the bribe that the Government offered you to give you so much 
money to limit your speech. There was simply no choice. And that kind 
of choice, it seems to me, is similar to what we have here and is 
really quite unfortunate for candidates because it restricts their 
options.

  If I may just for a moment go back to the spending limit analogy 
while my friend from Utah is still up, another example would be to 
compare New Jersey to New York, two States right next to each other. In 
New Jersey they are able to spend more money on a candidate than in New 
York, even though New York has more than twice as many voting age 
residents as New Jersey. Two States right next to each other, people 
commuting back and forth to work all the time, and yet somebody in the 
Government determines that the voters of New Jersey are entitled to 
more communication than the voters in New York under the formula in the 
original McCain-Feingold bill.
  Does that strike the Senator from Utah as really very difficult to 
understand?
  Mr. BENNETT. As I said at the outset, it demonstrates just how 
ridiculous it is for the Federal Government to get into the business of 
determining who can spend what and for how much in a constitutional 
way. You end up so contorted and distorted in your attempt to get 
around the obvious constitutional ban on this kind of nonsense that you 
create a circumstance

[[Page S10121]]

that virtually no one can defend on practical grounds: More money going 
for a candidate in New Jersey than for a candidate in New York, 
different rules applying to a candidate in Delaware than apply to a 
candidate in Wyoming.
  All of this is voluntary, but it becomes voluntary because there is a 
huge bribe out there waiting for you if you agree to give up your 
constitutional rights. I think it is absurd.
  I was delighted over the weekend to read the comments of George Will, 
who said that this debate is one of the most fundamental we have had 
since the founding of the Republic. I had not thought to put McCain-
Feingold in the same fashion that George Will does, but he describes it 
as similar to the speech codes adopted in many of our campuses, the 
excesses of the 1950's in the days of Joseph McCarthy, the 1920's 
speech activity, the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he says all of those 
are less significant in their threat to a fundamental liberty than this 
one because they came and went in the frenzy of the day. This one would 
leave behind a huge Federal bureaucracy aimed at producing exactly the 
kind of results the Senator from Kentucky is talking about, laying out 
that this candidate in this State can spend this much, and as soon as 
he steps across the State line, if he decided to run in another State, 
then the rules would change, the limits would change, the circumstances 
would change.
  That kind of Federal bureaucracy intruding itself into the campaign 
even if it were through some tortuous method of gaining consent on the 
part of those involved, constitutionally it remains clearly violative 
of the spirit of the first amendment, if not the specific letter. I 
believe the courts would strike it down.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Virginia is on 
his feet. I just want to make one wrapup observation about what the 
Senator from Utah was just talking about.
  The George Will column to which he referred was in the Washington 
Post yesterday. And just to pick out some excerpts, Mr. Will said, 
``Nothing in American history * * * matches the menace to the First 
Amendment posed by campaign `reforms' * * *''
  Further, Mr. Will said, ``Thus is the First Amendment nibbled away, 
like an artichoke devoured leaf by leaf,'' which is what the Senator 
from Utah was talking about.
  And toward the end of the article he called this ``the most important 
[debate] in American history'' because really what we are talking about 
here is core political discussion in this country, as the Senator from 
Utah has pointed out.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that George Will's column, the 
headline of which says ``Here Come the Speech Police,'' 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, Sept. 28, 1997]

                      Here Come The Speech Police

                          (By George F. Will)

       Almost nothing that preoccupies Washington is as important 
     as Washington thinks almost all its preoccupations are. But 
     now Congress is considering some version of the McCain-
     Feingold bill, which raises ``regime-level'' questions. It 
     would continue the change for the worse of American 
     governance. And Washington's political class hopes the bill's 
     real importance will be underestimated.
       With a moralism disproportionate to the merits of their 
     cause, members of that class--including the exhorting, 
     collaborative media--are mounting an unprecedentedly sweeping 
     attack on freedom of expression. Nothing in American 
     history--not the left's recent campus ``speech codes,'' not 
     the right's depredations during 1950s McCarthyism or the 
     1920s ``red scare,'' not the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 
     1790s--matches the menance to the First Amendment posed by 
     campaign ``reforms'' advancing under the protective 
     coloration of political hygiene.
       Such earlier fevers were evanescent, leaving no 
     institutional embodiments when particular passions abated. 
     And they targeted speech of particular political content. 
     What today's campaign reformers desire is a steadily 
     thickening clot of laws and an enforcing bureaucracy to 
     control both the quantity and the content of all discourse 
     pertinent to politics. By the logic of their aims, reformers 
     cannot stop short of that. This is so, regardless of the 
     supposed modesty of the measure Congress is debating.
       Reformers first empowered government to regulate ``hard'' 
     money--that given to particular candidates. But there remains 
     the ``problem'' of ``soft'' money--that given to parties for 
     general political organizing and advocacy. Reformers call 
     this a ``loophole.'' Reformers use that word to stigmatize 
     any silence of the law that allows unregulated political 
     expression. So now reformers want to ban ``soft'' money. But 
     the political class will not stop there.
       Its patience is sorely tried by the insufferable public, 
     which persists in exercising its First Amendment right of 
     association to organize in groups as different as the Sierra 
     Club and the National Rifle Association. One reason people so 
     organize is to collectively exercise their First Amendment 
     right of free speech pertinent to politics. Therefore 
     reformers want to arm the speech police with additional 
     powers to ration the permissible amount of ``express 
     advocacy,'' meaning speech by independent groups that 
     advocates the election or defeat of an identifiable 
     candidate.
       But the political class will not stop there. Consider mere 
     issue advocacy--say, a television commercial endorsing 
     abortion rights, mentioning no candidate and not mentioning 
     voting but broadcast in the context of a campaign in which 
     two candidates differ about abortion rights. Such 
     communications can influence the thinking of voters. Can't 
     have that, other than on a short leash held by the 
     government's speech police. So restriction of hard money 
     begets restriction of soft, which begets regulation of issue 
     advocacy--effectively, of all civic discourse.
       The political class is not sliding reluctantly down a 
     slippery slope, it is eagerly skiiing down it, extending its 
     regulation of political speech in order to make its life less 
     stressful and more secure. Thus is the First Amendment 
     nibbled away, like an artichoke devoured leaf by leaf.
       This is an example of what has been called ``the Latin 
     Americanization'' of American law--the proliferation of 
     increasingly rococo laws in attempts to enforce fundamentally 
     flawed laws. Reformers produce such laws from the bleak, 
     paternalistic premise that unfettered participation in 
     politics by means of financial support of political speech is 
     a ``problem'' that must be ``solved.''
       One reason the media are complacent about such restrictions 
     on (others') political speech is that restrictions enhance 
     the power of the media as the filters of political speech, 
     and as unregulated participants in a shrunken national 
     conversation. Has the newspaper in which this column is 
     appearing ever editorialized to the effect that restrictions 
     on political money--restrictions on the ability to buy 
     broadcast time and print space and other things the Supreme 
     Court calls ``the indispensable conditions for meaningful 
     communications''--do not restrict speech? If this newspaper 
     ever does, ask the editors if they would accept revising the 
     First Amendment to read:
       ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the 
     press, but Congress can restrict the amount a newspaper may 
     spend on editorial writers, reporters and newsprint.''
       As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and 
     others filibuster to block enlargement of the federal speech-
     rationing machinery, theirs is arguably the most important 
     filibuster in American history. Its importance will be 
     attested by the obloquies they will receive from the herd of 
     independent minds eager to empower the political class to 
     extend controls over speech about itself.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield for a question to the Senator 
from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder at this point in time if I just 
might make some follow-on comments to my earlier observation. Would the 
Senator be agreeable?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, earlier I talked in support, the strongest 
support, of the distinguished majority leader's amendment. Mr. 
President, I rise today to address the issue of campaign finance 
reform. As chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, I 
have spent a great deal of time with these issues over the past 2 
years. I appreciate the effort by the majority leader to bring campaign 
finance reform to the floor for debate, and I welcome the opportunity 
to join in this important debate.

  The Rules Committee has held 10 hearings in 1996 and 1997 concerning 
campaign finance reform issues. Many of these hearings dealt with the 
specific issues contained in the legislation commonly known as McCain-
Feingold, such as soft money, free television time, regulation of issue 
advocacy, and spending caps. The committee has compiled a detailed 
record on these issues for the Senate. During these hearings, we have 
heard from many noted experts in this field, including many of the same 
witnesses who appeared before the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
last week.
  My view of how the campaign finance debate will evolve is as follows. 
Democrats argue that the Republicans must rely even more on 
contributions from

[[Page S10122]]

individuals--hard money--and less on large soft money contributions. 
Republicans argue that the Democrats, who have relied heavily on the 
involuntary confiscation of the dues of union members, must agree that 
union members must give their advance, written consent before a part of 
their paycheck should go to partisan political activities.
  I received a letter from President Clinton last Tuesday in support of 
McCain-Feingold. He added that ``any attempts to attach amendments that 
would make it unpalatable to one party or another are nothing less than 
attempts to defeat campaign finance reform.'' I understand that latest 
version of McCain-Feingold does not include a requirement that union 
members give prior, written consent before their dues could be used for 
partisan purposes. This Senator will support an amendment to add this 
requirement, and I say that if the Democrats decide to filibuster 
campaign finance legislation because it includes this provision, then 
it is they who are blocking true bipartisan reform, not the 
Republicans.
  In the Rules Committee we have held a series of hearings on these 
issues that are being discussed here today. I want to focus on one 
particular hearing where we allowed both sides to come in and discuss 
compulsory deduction by unions. And we held this hearing. We had as a 
witness David Stewart, a member of the Transport Workers Union of 
America, local 514, located in Tulsa, OK.
  I remember him very well. He was proudly in the hearing room in his 
basic working uniform. He testified, and I have extracted some of that 
testimony to read in this debate today, this very important debate. 
This is what this American worker said:

       * * * I really do not agree with some of the Agendas and 
     the Candidates that the union endorses. Yet, we are all 
     required to fund these agendas and campaigns just by virtue 
     of our membership in the Union.

  This is a union man, Mr. President.

       As I searched for relief from this unjust requirement, I 
     found out about the ``Beck Supreme Court Decision,'' which in 
     effect gives a Union Member the right to a refund of the Non-
     Bargaining expenditures of the Union. The problem is, I must 
     relinquish my Union Membership and the rights associated with 
     that Membership to seek this refund. It is absurd to require 
     me to fund the Contract Bargaining, Contract Enforcement and 
     Administration of the Local, yet require me to forfeit my 
     rights to a voice in these affairs, only because I oppose the 
     Political Expenditures of the Union. I am not opposed to my 
     requirement to belong to the Union. I still attend the Union 
     meetings and enjoy having a voice in the affairs of the Union 
     and my career, I am not willing to give up this activity to 
     receive the refund afforded me by the ``Beck Decision.''

  We also heard from Cindy Omlin, a former teacher from Washington 
State. She described the schemes by which her union illegally used her 
dues--that mandatory deduction--for political contribution. The unions 
got caught, but nonetheless they upped the amount of dues teachers were 
required to contribute for partisan activities. Our committee listened 
to these workers and they came forward at some risk to themselves to 
give this important testimony.

  At the appropriate time I hope to ask the sponsors of this 
legislation whether or not they have taken it upon themselves to go out 
and talk to the workers and find out exactly how they feel about this 
onerous requirement of mandatory deduction. I will await the 
opportunity to talk to one or more of the sponsors or both on this 
point when they have that availability.
  Now I have read that the new version of McCain-Feingold may include a 
provision to enforce the Beck decision and require posting of notices 
that employees can receive refunds. This idea, although certainly 
better than the status quo, is not nearly good enough.
  Effective enforcement of Beck is difficult at best. The posting of a 
small sign or a small note in a union magazine will not do. Many 
employees will never learn of their Beck rights, and unions will no 
doubt continue to set up substantial obstacles to exercising these 
rights. In our hearing, we heard how unions make the window for 
objecting very brief and it changes every year, with the notice often 
buried deep within lengthy union magazines.
  Moreover, single employees are very poorly equipped to challenge 
accountings provided by union officials as to the breakdown of 
chargeable and nonchargeable activities. Also, an employee wishing to 
appeal this determination would need to hire his or her own attorneys 
and accountants for an arbitration run under rules established by the 
union. The financial disclosure forms filed by unions with the Labor 
Department, the LM-2, are notoriously useless in actually assisting 
employees to determine what percentage of their dues go to political 
activities.
  All of these procedural hurdles are in addition to the stigmatization 
of objectors, officially called agency-fee payers. Often lists of 
objectors are published in union literature and cases of threatened 
violence are common.
  I believe the only solution, and one that is not contained in the 
McCain-Feingold legislation, is to require prior, written consent 
before dues are confiscated. I am a cosponsor of Senator Nickles' bill, 
the Paycheck Protection Act, which would rectify this egregious 
situation. Without this provision, we will not have fair campaign 
finance reform.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I want to thank the Senator from Virginia not only for 
the remarks he has made today but the way he has listened to all of 
those who have come forward at the Rules Committee over the period of 
his chairmanship. He and I, many times, were the only two there. He has 
been wonderful in giving an opportunity to a number of groups who, 
frankly, have had a difficult time giving testimony in the past, who 
typically have not been listened to. I think he has made a major 
contribution in providing some balance to this important constitutional 
debate.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. 
Indeed, we have not fully agreed on all provisions that are options 
throughout this whole realm of campaign finance, but fundamentally we 
certainly agree on the question of the mandatory deduction.
  We went to the difficulty of finding witnesses and brought them to 
the hearing room and listened to their testimony.
  It is ever so clear to this Senator, and I am sure the other members 
of the committee, that throughout America the workers want to be 
recognized for their ability to think for themselves and their ability 
to make decisions for themselves. This whole idea of mandatory 
deduction is against free will--I think, indeed, against the very 
essence of what freedom is all about.
  I commend my distinguished colleague from Kentucky. Let us fight on 
in the cause of freedom.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am happy to yield the floor. I see 
the Senator from Illinois is here desiring to speak.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Kentucky for 
yielding. I only have a short period of time here, I say for the 
information of my colleague from Maine, and I appreciate this chance to 
rise and speak on this issue.
  It has been said in debate that the columnist, George Will, has 
pronounced this as the most important debate in American history. I 
didn't want to miss it and that is why I came to the floor today. I 
will not question Mr. Will because he was reared and his early 
education took place in the State of Illinois, and somewhere or another 
he got off the course shortly afterwards, but at least we attribute his 
early training to Illinois' educational standards.
  Is this the most important debate in American history? It may be, 
because what is at stake in this debate is not the amount of money that 
is being spent in a campaign, it is really not about the conduct of 
campaigns, it really doesn't have much to do with political action 
committees or labor unions or corporations or associations. What is at 
stake in this debate is the future of this democracy.
  If that sounds hyperbolic, let me tell you why I say it. I am 
honestly, genuinely, personally concerned as a Member of this great 
institution, about the fact that the American people are losing 
interest in their Government. The clearest indication of that loss of 
interest is their participation in elections.
  Now, why is it at this moment in time when the United States of 
America is obviously one of the most attractive places in the world to 
live, where we have to almost construct a fence and a wall around our 
borders to keep people from other nations from coming

[[Page S10123]]

to the United States, why is it that at a time when our economy is 
booming, at a time when we are so proud of what we have achieved not 
only in this Nation but around the world, that the people we serve, the 
American voters, have decided they are not interested? And they have 
demonstrated that, unfortunately, in that quadrennial forum where we 
asked people to come forward and name the leader of this Nation.
  Let me show you what I am talking about. I think it is interesting in 
this debate about campaigns and money and voters to take a look at what 
has happened in the United States of America in the last 36 years. This 
bar graph shows the amount of money that has been spent on campaigns at 
all levels, Federal through local. If you look it was a rather meager 
sum, $175 million, in the earliest years, and then skyrocketed up to $4 
billion here in 1996.
  So to entice people to vote, to interest them in candidates and 
interest them in campaigns, we have raised money in record sums and 
spent it on television, radio, direct mail, bumper stickers, emery 
boards, pocket combs and everything we can dream of, to say to the 
voters, ``Look at me. Get interested. I'm running. I need your vote.'' 
Is it working? As we plow more money into this system, is it working? 
Well, the sad truth is, it is not.
  Look at this percentage of those who vote in Presidential elections: 
Starting in 1960, 63.1 percent of the American people said the Kennedy-
Nixon election is one that we consider critically important, our family 
is going to vote. Look what happened in this last election in November: 
49.1 percent of the American people turned out to vote. We spent record 
numbers, dramatically increasing the amount of money on political 
campaigns, and the voters voted with their feet and stayed home. Isn't 
it curious that the more money we plow into our campaign system the 
fewer voters turn out?
  Now let me just suggest something. If you happen to own a company 
selling a widget and say to your marketing department, ``We are going 
to double our advertising. Next quarter we want to see what happens to 
sales,'' and you gave them twice as much money for advertising your 
widget, and they came back after the quarter was finished and said, 
``We have the report.'' You said, ``What is it?'' ``Advertising went up 
100 percent.'' ``How about sales?'' ``Sales went down.'' What? 
Advertising went up and sales went down? Well, you could draw some 
conclusions. There was something wrong with the advertising or there 
may have been something wrong with the product. That is what this 
debate is about.

  There is not only something wrong with the advertising, it has become 
so negative, so nasty, so dirty, that people are disgusted with it. 
There is something wrong with the products. Candidates for the House 
and Senate are losing their reputation or seeing their integrity 
maligned because we spend so much time grubbing for money. People 
believe that we are captives of special interest groups. And because 
they are sick of the style of campaign and because they have little or 
no confidence in those of us who wage the campaigns, they stay home.
  The turnout for the Presidential election last November was the 
lowest percentage turnout in America for a Presidential election in 72 
years. Now if Jay Leno and David Letterman pronounced this election 
over in July, as they probably did, I don't think that explains it. I 
think there was something else at work here. The American voters are at 
best indifferent, and at worst, downright cynical about the system we 
use to elect people in the United States.
  Let me also show you something that makes the case even more. I guess 
some people would argue, well, back in 1960 there must have been a 
higher percentage of people who were registered to vote. Well, that was 
not the case. Our figures start on this chart in 1964, and there were 
64.6 percent of Americans were registered to vote; if you remember, 
63.1 percent of those turned out to vote.
  Now, we have increased the franchise by making it easier to register 
to vote. You can register when you go to get a new license for your car 
or driver's license renewal, that sort of thing. So, more and more 
Americans are getting registered to vote. There is more participation. 
I think that is a healthy thing. I backed motor-voter. We are now up to 
74.4 percent of eligible voters registered in America in the 1996 
election. You can be proud of that.
  People have said, ``Yes, I will sign the form. I'm willing to go out 
and put my name on the voter rolls'' knowing they may be called for 
jury duty or something else. They did it anyway. Then look what 
happened. Despite this dramatic increase in the people who are 
registering to vote, remember November 1996? Fewer than 50 percent of 
the American people then exercised their right to vote.

  I think that is a telling commentary on this debate. If you listen to 
the arguments of my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, and 
Senator Bennett from Utah, who was on the floor the other day, and 
Speaker Newt Gingrich and others, they have analyzed the situation and 
said, clearly, the major problem with the American political system is, 
in their words, ``We're just not spending enough money. We have to put 
more money in these campaigns. We have to get on television more and 
radio more, and mail more things to the American people. Then they will 
know we are out here.''
  Well, they know we are out here. They just aren't buying what we are 
selling. They are staying home. Those who argue that the best way to 
reform the system is to plow more money into the system have missed the 
point completely. Nine out of ten Americans--90 percent of them--
believe that we spend too much in political campaigns, not too little.
  Isn't it an oddity that we are at this point in our history where we 
are actually engaging in an argument as to whether or not a person's 
wealth should determine their ability to participate in a democracy? 
This is not a new debate. We have been through this one before. In the 
19th century, the debate was cast in a different tone. If you wanted to 
vote, would you have to be a property owner? That is an evidence of 
wealth and stability, and some of our Founding Fathers said, well, that 
is a good indicator, and we should not let people vote unless they own 
property, and the States can determine the qualifications of electors. 
Let them put that in as a qualification.
  We rejected that over 100 years ago and said that isn't what America 
is all about. Your participation with a vote should not have anything 
to do with whether you are wealthy or poor. If you are an American 
citizen, you are entitled to vote. Since the early part of this 
century, whether you are a man, a woman, black, white, or brown, 
whatever your ethnic heritage, whether you are poor as a church mouse 
or as rich as Donald Trump, you get the same one vote when you come to 
the polls.
  Listen to this debate today. The debate today says, let's change this 
system and say that if you are wealthy in America--let's say you are a 
middle-aged, crazy millionaire who decided he wants to be in the House 
or Senate or a Governor, then you go out and spend your money, exercise 
your constitutional right, show your freedom of speech to go forward 
and ask for votes. If you happen to have more money than the next guy, 
your likelihood of winning is that much better. What I just said is not 
breakthrough; this is established fact. Candidates with more money and 
political campaigns usually win. That is a fact of life.
  So my Republican friends who say, ``All this system needs is more 
money,'' are basically saying, ``If we can just get wealthier people 
interested in running for office or people who are drawing money in 
from wealthy interests, special interests, that is good for America, 
that is endorsement of our Bill of Rights, and that speaks well of our 
freedom of speech.''
  I don't buy that. I don't think the American people buy that.
  As amendments are produced on the floor during the course of this 
debate which try to enshrine wealth as the keystone for American 
citizenship, I will oppose them. I hope Members on both sides will join 
me. It is a sad state of affairs in America if we have reached the 
point where, in fact, a person's wealth is a determinant as to whether 
they can be a successful candidate or be directly involved in our 
political process. That is what this debate is all about. That is why 
it could be historic in nature.
  Let me address one particular example used in the debate Friday about 
a good friend of mine who passed away a little over a year ago. His 
name was

[[Page S10124]]

Mike Synar. Mike was a Congressman from Oklahoma. He was proud to 
characterize himself as an ``Okie from Muskogee.'' You have never met a 
political renegade like Mike Synar. I loved him. I loved his politics. 
He used to drive people crazy. He would vote on issues and know that, 
if he went home, people would be angry with him. He would get involved 
in issues that made everybody squirm and uneasy in their seats. That is 
just the way he was. He also decided to stack the deck against himself 
because he announced when he came to the House of Representatives, 
representing Muskogee, he wasn't going to take PAC money. Mike said, 
``I am going to take money from individuals, and I will rise or fall 
based on my friends supporting me, and so be it.'' He managed to 
survive for a number of years.

  Then came 1994. All of the special interest groups that had been 
opposing him in the Halls of Congress decided to team up against him 
back home. In 1992, they had spent $750,000 to defeat Mike Synar. Who 
were these people? The National Rifle Association, the tobacco lobby, 
the western grazing interests. They came in, and did they debate Mike 
Synar on gun control in his district? No. Did they debate him on 
tobacco regulation? No. Did they debate him on whether or not we are 
too generous in the subsidies to western grazing? No. They came in and 
literally plowed hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign 
against him with negative ads on a variety of other subjects--and it 
was perfectly legal. Mike escaped it in 1992, but not in 1994.
  The illustration on the floor made by one of my colleagues last 
Friday that somehow or other ``Mike Synar, with $325,000, could not 
defeat an opponent who only had $10,000 and, therefore, money is not 
the determinate in an election,'' really overlooked the obvious. Mike 
Synar's money alone wasn't at risk. It was the money of a lot of 
special interest groups. He was defeated. He worked very hard for 
campaign finance reform and a lot of other issues that I have the 
highest respect for.
  Let me just also say that I have heard a lot of argument from my 
colleagues on the Republican side that this debate is really about 
labor unions, and we have to get our hand on the fact that labor unions 
in the last election were so vocal and involved and spent so much 
money. Some estimate $35 million. That is an interesting premise for 
this debate because, if you look at the totals that were spent by labor 
and business, the business community dramatically outspent labor 
organizations in that campaign. Yet, many of the amendments which we 
will be considering have nothing to do with the business community 
being restricted, only labor unions.
  I think some of my colleagues should take care to watch out for what 
is characterized as poison pills, or those amendments that will be put 
in the bill in the hope of killing the bill. It is an old legislative 
ploy. Take an amendment adopted on the floor, which you are certain 
could never be part of the final legislation, show your heartfelt 
concern about campaign finance reform, knowing in your heart of hearts 
that it will go nowhere with a poison pill amendment. We are going to 
see a lot of these, I am afraid, during the course of this debate.
  Let me address an issue that I think is critically important--
television time. In the McCain-Feingold, as originally introduced, 
which I and 44 other Democratic Senators endorsed, which three of my 
Republican colleagues have joined in endorsing, including my colleague, 
the Senator from Maine, Senator Collins. I think the number may be up 
to four now, we have, in that original bill, provisions that would say 
to a candidate that we know what is costing money in campaigns. We know 
where you are putting your money.
  When I ran for the Senate in Illinois and raised literally millions 
of dollars sitting on a telephone day after day calling strangers and 
begging them to contribute, the money that was coming in was going 
right out the front door for television. That is where I spent my 
money. Most major State candidates do the same. My colleague, Bob 
Torricelli of New Jersey, spent 84 percent of all the money he raised 
on television. Think about that. Try to buy a 30-second TV ad in New 
York City that costs $100,000, and you will understand very quickly how 
that could happen. In Illinois, over 80 percent of our money went into 
raising money and spending it on television.

  I think it is a good illustration that if we don't address the reason 
campaigns are so expensive, we are not going to see any real reform. 
Now, the people who represent the television industry say you can't do 
that; you can't take away time that this station can sell to a private 
advertiser and give to it a political candidate. But they forgot 
something very basic. The people who own television stations and make a 
very handsome profit do it because they are using our airwaves--not the 
Senate's airwaves; the American people's airwaves. We own these 
airwaves. We license these companies, at no charge, to use our airwaves 
and make a profit. It is not unreasonable for us as a people to go back 
to these television stations and say we want to take a slight and tiny 
percentage of those airwaves and dedicate them to cleaning up the 
American election process, to make sure that the time is available for 
incumbents and challengers alike on a reduced level--or even free in 
some circumstances--so the voters can hear legitimate messages and we 
will clean up the message in the process. It won't be the drive-by 
shooting ads you see in campaigns. It will be informative. People will 
know where Durbin stands on Social Security and where his opponent 
stands on Social Security. Things like that. That is not unreasonable. 
For the stations to say, ``don't even touch it; we own the airwaves, 
not the American people,'' I think they need a reminder as to how this 
got started. They are licensed by this Government, representing the 
American people, to make their profits. Now the argument that we are 
going to take away reduced costs of TV time is troubling to me. If you 
don't reduce the cost of television, you will in fact continue to have 
political campaign costs skyrocketing. You will have men and women 
running for election and re-election to seats, spending the majority of 
their time raising money to pay for television.
  So I think the original McCain-Feingold provision is absolutely 
essential. I think we should continue on not only to eliminate soft 
money, not only to reduce the cost of television, but also to go after 
issue ads that are actually candidate ads. Political candidates and 
those who work around us watch television more closely than anybody, 
because we search that screen during a campaign cycle to find the 
tiniest of print on the bottom of the TV commercials, which identifies 
who paid for it.
  On the Saturday night before the election last November, bone weary, 
I pulled into my apartment in Chicago, and I was going to relax a 
little bit. It was in the closing days of the campaign. So I slumped 
down in a chair, grabbed the remote control to listen to Saturday Night 
Live. Somewhere between the news and Saturday Night Live, up pops four 
television commercials, one after the other, and every one of them 
blasting me. What a treat that was to sit in the chair and get pummeled 
by four different commercials.
  The most unique thing was that not a single one was paid for by my 
opponent, the Republican Party in Illinois, or the National Republican 
Party. They were paid for by committees and organizations that most 
people never heard of. These are organizations which mushroom up during 
campaigns, take some high-sounding name, collect millions of dollars, 
undisclosed and unreported, and run ads, the most negative ads on 
television, against politicians. That is an outrage. It is an outrage 
that I have to account for every dollar I raise and spend and I have to 
identify the television commercials that I put on, either comparing my 
record with my opponent or speaking about something I believe in, and 
these groups can literally run roughshod over the system, spending 
millions of dollars without any accountability.
  McCain-Feingold addresses that. Thank God it does. If we don't put an 
end to this outrage, most of these other reforms are meaningless. To 
eliminate soft money and to allow special interest groups, whether on 
the business or labor side, to continue to spend money unfettered in 
issue advocacy and the like is outrageous. The McCain-Feingold 
legislation is an idea whose time has come.

[[Page S10125]]

  I hope that a number of my colleagues will step forward, as my 
colleague, the Senator from Maine, has done already. We have 49 votes, 
ladies and gentlemen, for McCain-Feingold. We need one more. Every 
Democrat has signed onto this bipartisan legislation. We now have four 
Republican Senators. We need one more. Who will it be? Who will step 
forward and say, ``This is the most important debate in American 
history and I want to be on the right side of history''? I hope we can 
come up not only with that 50th vote, but with enough votes 
procedurally to keep this issue alive. The rules of the Senate, like 
cloture and filibuster and the like, allow people who in the name of 
good government, or whatever, can stop an issue in its tracks. I hope 
that doesn't happen. I hope we can debate this to its conclusion and 
have a real vote on real reform.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steve 
Diamond, from my staff, be accorded privileges of the floor for the 
duration of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to seize 
this opportunity to make much-needed changes in our campaign finance 
laws by supporting the modified version of the McCain-Feingold 
legislation. I am pleased, Mr. President, to be a cosponsor of this 
landmark bill.
  Shortly after becoming President of the United States, one of our 
former Presidents was asked what his biggest surprise was on assuming 
office. Without hesitation, he said it was his discovery that things 
were actually as bad as he had been saying they were during the 
campaign.
  Mr. President, during my Senate campaign, I told the people of Maine 
that our Nation's campaign finance system is broken. Since my election, 
I have spent a great deal of my time questioning witnesses at the 
hearings held by the Governmental Affairs Committee. Unlike the former 
President, what I have discovered is not that things are as bad as I 
had been saying they were; it is that they are much worse.
  The twin loopholes of soft money and bogus issue ads have virtually 
obliterated our campaign finance laws, leaving us with little more than 
a pile of legal rubble. We supposedly have restrictions on how much 
individuals can give to political parties; yet, Yogesh Gandhi is able 
to contribute $325,000 to the DNC to buy a picture with the President, 
and Roger Tamraz mockingly tells a committee of the U.S. Senate that 
next time he will spend $600,000, rather than $300,000, to buy access 
to the White House. We supposedly prohibit corporations and unions from 
spending money on political campaigns; yet, the AFL-CIO spends $800,000 
in Maine on so-called issue ads which anyone with an ounce of common 
sense recognized were designed to defeat a candidate for Congress.
  We in this body decry legal loopholes, but we have reserved the 
largest ones for ourselves. Indeed, these loopholes are more like black 
holes, and that sucking sound you hear during election years is the 
whoosh of six-figure soft money donations rushing into party coffers.
  Why should this matter, we are asked by those all too eager to equate 
freedom of speech with freedom to spend? It should matter because 
political equality is the essence of democracy, and an electoral system 
driven by big money is one lacking in political equality.
  Mr. President, this is an issue of great concern to the people of my 
home State. While there are differences in Maine on how the system 
should be reformed--I, for one, do not believe that meaningful change 
requires that we make taxpayers underwrite campaigns--there does seem 
to be a stronger consensus in Maine than elsewhere on the need for 
reform.

  If my colleagues will indulge me a bit of home State pride, I think 
the Maine perspective results from old fashioned Down East common 
sense. Maine people are able to see through the complexities of this 
debate. They focus on what is at heart a very simple and yet very 
profound problem. As long as we allow unlimited contributions--whether 
in the form of hard or soft money--we will not have political equality 
in this country.
  It is not simply the lack of a level playing field for those seeking 
public office. What is more important is the lack of a level playing 
field for those seeking access to their government.
  It strikes me that the Maine attitude may be shaped by the fact that 
many communities in my State still hold town meetings. I am not talking 
about the staged, televised town meeting which has become so 
fashionable of late. I am talking about a rough and tumble meeting held 
in the town office or the high school gym or the grange hall. Attend 
one of these sessions and you will observe an element of true 
democracy: People with more money do not get to speak longer and louder 
than people with less money. What is true at Maine town meetings is 
unfortunately not true in Washington.
  Mr. President, let me address a very disquieting aspect of the debate 
on the McCain-Feingold bill; namely, the misinformation that is being 
spread about what the bill would do. In that connection, I would 
emphasize that McCain-Feingold does not bar issue advocacy. I will say 
that again because the legislation's opponents persist in misstating 
this point--McCain-Feingold does not, and I emphasize not, bar issue 
advocacy.
  To explain this aspect of the bill in more detail, and to share with 
my colleagues an experience that contributed to my becoming a 
cosponsor, I need to go back to the 1996 race for Maine's First 
Congressional District in the House of Representatives. In the course 
of that election, the AFL-CIO spent $800,000 to defeat the Republican 
candidate. They did this by running a steady barrage of blatantly 
negative ads.
  Now why am I protesting a national union, using money from its 
general treasury to run a saturation campaign of negative ads that may 
well have decided a Maine congressional race? Whatever our objection to 
such ads, isn't that perfectly legal? The answer is, or at least is 
supposed to be, no. Current law prohibits a union, as well as 
a corporation, from spending money, other than through a PAC, to 
influence an election for a Federal office.

  That leads to another obvious question--if current law forbids unions 
from using non-PAC money to run ads to influence a Federal election, 
how was the AFL-CIO able to spend $800,000 to defeat a Republican 
congressional candidate in Maine? Mr. President, that question takes us 
to the heart of the problem and to the need for McCain-Feingold.
  Unfortunately, some courts have interpreted ``expressly advocating'' 
to require that the ad use words such as ``vote for'' or ``vote 
against'' or ``elect'' or ``defeat.'' If the ad avoids those magic 
words and makes at least a passing reference to an issue, as the AFL-
CIO did in Maine, those courts concluded that it does not expressly 
advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, and the union may run 
it.
  Mr. President, the situation I have described has led to the biggest 
sham in American politics. Nobody in Maine believed that the AFL-CIO's 
negative ads were for any purpose other than the defeat of a candidate. 
Indeed, at least one newspaper which endorsed the Democratic candidate 
blasted the union ads against his opponent. Ads of that nature make an 
absolute mockery out of the prohibition against unions and corporatings 
spending money on Federal elections.
  The ``express advocacy'' provision in McCain-Feingold is designed to 
do away with this sham. Contrary to what some have said, it would not 
affect independent ads financed other than by a union or corporation, 
except to enhance the reporting requirements, which everyone in this 
body purports to favor. It also would not stop unions and corporations 
from running true issue ads.
  Mr. President, I would say to my colleagues that if you believe, as I 
do, that it continues to represent sound public policy to prohibit 
unions from using their vast general funds to dictate the results of 
Federal elections, particularly in small States like Maine, then you 
should support McCain-Feingold.

[[Page S10126]]

  Mr. President, let me also take a minute to explain the bright line 
test for express advocacy that has been the subject of ill-informed 
criticism during this debate. What that test would provide is that any 
television ad that clearly identifies a candidate and that is run 
within 60 days of an election would be deemed express advocacy.
  I view the bright line test as a key provision of McCain-Feingold, 
and I support its inclusion for two reasons. First, the courts have 
said that for constitutional purposes, people must clearly know what 
they can and cannot do, something which the bright line test gives 
them.
  Second, and contrary to what some opponents of the bill have said, 
the bright line test lessens the power of the Federal Election 
Commission. By having a clear standard, rather than one which requires 
a case-by-case analysis, the regulatory agency has less discretion to 
determine what the law should be and when actions should be brought. 
Thus, those who have argued both against the test and against a greater 
role for the FEC are in reality arguing with themselves.
  Mr. President, this subject is more complex than any of us would 
like, but behind the complexity is a simple proposition. Current law 
has given rise to the widespread practice of running bogus issue ads, 
and that should not be allowed to continue. Those Members of this body 
who support the prohibition against unions and corporations using their 
vast resources to dictate the results of Federal elections should vote 
for McCain-Feingold. Those Members who do not support the prohibition 
should take the honest road and work for its repeal. The one 
unacceptable course is to perpetuate a sham that undermines the 
integrity of our election laws.
  I look forward to debating this issue in the days ahead.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me congratulate the Senators from 
Arizona, Wisconsin, Maine, and other Senators who have joined so 
strongly in this effort--an important bipartisan effort--to finally 
reform the campaign finance laws. The system is terribly broken. I 
think most of us know that, and I hope enough of us will get together 
to really reform it properly.
  The time has finally come for Congress to decide whether we are going 
to fix this system, which is in shambles, and fix the laws that are now 
doing so much damage to public confidence in our governmental 
operations. These laws are now so full of loopholes that what was 
intended to be limits on campaign contributions in effect are easily 
evaded. And if we are going to close those loopholes we must do it 
together. This will not happen if Democrats and Republicans do not come 
together. It is going to require that kind of a bipartisan effort if we 
are going to restore public confidence in this campaign finance system.
  For the past couple of months, members of the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee have sat through hours and days of hearings on the 
failings of our campaign finance laws. We have asked dozens of 
witnesses hundreds of questions on the problems of the 1996 elections.
  My constituents are asking me just one question. ``Are you going to 
do something about it?'' That is what they want to know. They have 
heard our questions. They have heard the answers. They know we have 
observed the witnesses. They have seen and heard the debate. And, of 
course, the majority who have not been able to watch the hearings 
personally know that the campaign finance system is a subject of great 
debate.
  Yet the question I get wherever I go is, ``Are you going to do 
something about it?'' It is a simple question. It is a direct question. 
My answer is, ``I hope so, and I am sure going to do everything I can 
to see that we finally do in fact close the loopholes that have made a 
shambles of the laws that are supposed to set limits on how much money 
could be contributed by individuals to our campaigns.''
  The Senate hearings have focused much of their time on allegations of 
illegal conduct in the 1996 elections. But the vast majority of what 
the public doesn't like is not what is illegal, although they surely 
don't like that. It is what is legal. Most of it involves the so-called 
soft money or unregulated money because both parties have gotten around 
the law of the 1970's by establishing a whole separate world of 
campaign finance. That is the world of so-called soft money--
contributions that are not technically covered by the limits under 
current law.
  In the 1996 election, the Republican Party raised more than $140 
million in soft money. The Democrats raised over $120 million.
  That is how we get to these enormous sums of money in the last 
campaign, like the $1.3 million to the Republican National Committee 
from just one company in 1996 and a $450,000 contribution from just one 
couple to the Democratic National Committee the same year.
  Once that soft money loophole was opened and once that loophole was 
viewed as being legal, the money chase was on, and that chase has been 
carried on by both parties. When you couple that with the high cost of 
television advertising, you have the money chase involving just about 
all candidates. The chase for money has led most of us in public office 
or seeking public office to push the envelope and to take the law to 
the limits in order to get the necessary contributions. The money chase 
pressures political supporters to cross lines that they should not in 
order to help their candidates get needed funds. The money chase in 
political campaigns is a serious disease and it has become chronic. 
Most of us have been affected by it. Most of us have spent too much 
time fundraising and in the process pushing the fundraising rules to 
their limits. We know in our hearts that the money chase is a 
bipartisan problem and that bipartisan reform is the right way to go.
  If the Senate hearings have exposed illegal practices that would 
otherwise go unpunished, that is useful. If the hearings have also 
exposed activities that are currently allowed but which should not be, 
and if that arouses public opinion so that Congress will end the money 
hunt, that would be a major contribution. But if those hearings leave 
no solid record of legislative reform behind, we will have done 
something far worse than missing an opportunity. We will be deepening 
public pessimism and thickening the public gloom about this democracy's 
ability to restore public confidence in the financing of our campaigns 
and our elections. And that is why I believe the enactment of major 
campaign finance reform is so critical. Existing law says that 
individuals cannot contribute more than $1,000 now to any candidate or 
political committee with respect to any election for Federal office. 
Existing law says that corporations and unions can't contribute at all 
to those candidates. And Presidential campaigns are supposed to be 
financed with public funds. That is the law on the books today. And yet 
we have all heard stories of contributions of hundreds of thousands of 
dollars from individuals, from corporations and from unions--Roger 
Tamraz giving $300,000 to Democrats. What happened to the $1,000 
contribution limit?
  Here is a Democratic National Committee document relative to DNC 
trustees. These are major contributors, I think $100,000, and they're 
offered various events to attend if they make that large contribution. 
What are the events? The events are two annual trustee events with the 
President in Washington. That is just an offer of access for 
contributions. But these are not the contributions that the law is 
supposed to limit to $1,000 for each candidates. These are $100,000 
contributions. These are the soft money contributions. And these are 
the connections to access. Both parties do it.
  Here is the 1997 RNC Annual Gala, May 13, 1997. Right in the middle 
of all of this angst, all of this concern about big money and access, 
it has this dinner. It is open, nothing hidden about this. Cochairman 
of the Republican National Committee Annual Gala, $250,000 fundraising 
goal.
  What do you do? You sell or purchase, sell or purchase, Team 100 
memberships or Republican Eagle memberships. That's $100,000 I believe 
for Team 100. And what do you get? You get, among other things, 
luncheon with the Republican Senate and House committee chairman of 
your choice. It is the open offer of access in exchange for a

[[Page S10127]]

contribution, and the contribution is soft money. It is not the $1,000 
contribution to come to a dinner. It is give or raise $250,000 and you 
get lunch with the committee chairman of your choice. It is like the 
Democratic National Committee offer, give $100,000 and you get two 
receptions with the President.
  Now, one of the ways we are going to stop this abhorrent offer of 
sale of access in exchange for contributions is if we get to the soft 
money loophole it is the most direct way to get to it. Here are some 
other examples, recent examples of soft money. This is, I believe, a 
Team 100 document, a Republican document called hot prospects. Who is 
the third prospect? Some retired inventor. And here is what the 
document says.

       We are working on getting him an appointment with Dick 
     Armey so we can get his other $50,000.

  These are documents which came up in our investigation, in our 
hearings. We can get his other $50,000 if we can get him an appointment 
with Dick Armey. The public sees that and they respond the way I 
respond. That is abhorrent. What are we doing, offering access in 
exchange for a contribution? And the amount of money here is abhorrent. 
``His other $50,000.'' That means he has already given $50,000. Here is 
a total of $100,000. What happened to the $1,000 limit?
  We thought there was a law. The problem is that in the race to 
compete and to win in our Federal elections, candidates and parties 
have found a way around the law. And that is the soft money loophole. 
Hard money, the contributions which are regulated by campaign finance 
laws, is, indeed, hard money. It is harder to come by. So soft money is 
easier to raise. You can get $100,000 or $500,000 from just one 
corporation or individual. You don't have to go to 500 different people 
and raise $1,000, and you don't have to go to 5,000 people and raise 
$100 the way you do with hard money. You can just find one person, one 
corporation wealthy enough or willing enough to pay a half-million 
dollars and then you accept that contribution.
  Now, there is another part of the current law which says if you spend 
money in an election in support of a candidate or opposed to a 
candidate, you have to spend money that is only raised the hard way, 
following the limit. But one of the greatest areas of abuse in the 1996 
election was the use of hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated, 
unlimited, and undisclosed money to broadcast so-called issue ads just 
before an election--ads that any reasonable viewer would interpret as 
attacking or supporting a particular candidate.
  Here is an example of one of these so-called issue ads. This was an 
ad that was run against Congressman Cal Dooley in California. This ad 
was paid for with unregulated, unlimited dollars. It read as follows:

       Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices for you and your 
     family.
       Cal Dooley said ``no'' to increased money for federal 
     prisons. Instead, Dooley gave money to lawyers. Lawyers that 
     used taxpayer's money to sue on behalf of prison inmates and 
     illegal aliens.
       Cal Dooley said ``no'' to increased money for drug 
     enforcement. Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical 
     lawyers who represented drug dealers.
       Is Cal Dooley making the right choices for you?

  That is a so-called issue ad, at least it was called, because it 
didn't use the magic words ``vote for,'' ``vote against,'' ``elect,'' 
``defeat.''
  And that is paid for with unlimited dollars. But here is the same ad 
with one of the magic words:

       Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices for you and your 
     family.
       Cal Dooley said ``no'' to increased money for Federal 
     prisons. Instead, Dooley gave the money to lawyers that used 
     taxpayer's money to sue on behalf of prison inmates and 
     illegal aliens.
       Cal Dooley said ``no'' to increased money for drug 
     enforcement. Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical 
     lawyers who represented drug dealers.
       Is Cal Dooley making the right choices for you?

  That is the exact same ad except in this version I have added the 
following words: ``Defeat Cal Dooley.''

  All of a sudden the same ad becomes an ad which under the current 
approach of some has to be paid for in hard dollars. If you put that ad 
on and then comply with the election limits, you could go to jail. But 
if you put the first ad on and just said, ``Is Cal Dooley making the 
right choices for you?'' You can put on millions of dollars of 
advertising. No one knows where it is coming from, no restrictions, the 
exact same ad with the same effect except for one word.
  Now, any viewer looking at that ad is going to say that both ads have 
the same effect. They are both attack ads. They are both attacking a 
candidate. And yet one of those ads, if paid for with dollars that are 
supposed to be limited but weren't, could actually put the person who 
put that ad on either in jail or given a fine. The other ad, unlimited 
soft money.
  In the real world, there is no difference between those ads. The 
Supreme Court has ruled that the second ad, with the word ``defeat,'' 
must be paid for with limited dollars. This is a candidate advocacy ad, 
and that is what the Supreme Court has ruled. It is said that we can 
require that ads which explicitly call for the election or defeat of a 
candidate must be paid for in limited dollars. But the first ad which I 
have put up is the functional equivalent of the second ad. It is the 
apparent equivalent of the second ad. It is the real world equivalent 
of the second ad.
  This bill, which has been introduced today, would treat these two ads 
the same legally because they have the same apparent effect, the same 
functional effect, the same real world effect, the same practical 
effect. There is no difference between those ads except for one word. 
And to our constituents there is no difference when they see those two 
ads.
  We believe that the Supreme Court, because we maintain a bright-line 
test, will permit this law to stand. That is our hope, and that is our 
belief. It is based on the real world, the real world of our 
constituents who, when they see those two ads I have just read, see and 
hear no difference between them because they know that the first ad is 
an ad that is attacking a candidate just the way the second ad does and 
there is no real world difference between those two ads.
  Now, we intended corporations and unions not be allowed to contribute 
to candidates. That is the intention of the current law. Corporations 
are not supposed to contribute except through political action 
committees. Unions are not supposed to contribute except through very 
limited means.
  How is it then that, for instance, corporations contribute millions 
of dollars? The same thing can be said for unions--millions of dollars 
to these campaigns which do not comply with the current law? Congress 
is permitted to restrict the contributions of corporations and unions. 
That was a decision in the Austin case where Justice Thurgood Marshall 
said that ``we, therefore, have recognized the compelling governmental 
interest in preventing corruption supports the restriction of the 
influence of political war chests funded through the corporate form.''
  Justice Marshall said, speaking for the Court, ``Regardless of 
whether this danger of financial quid pro quo corruption may be 
sufficient to justify a restriction on independent expenditures, 
Michigan's regulation,'' which was the regulation on corporate 
contributions at issue, ``aims at a different type of corruption in the 
political arena, the corrosive and distorting effects of immense 
aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the 
corporate form and have little or no correlation to the public support 
for the corporation's political ideas.''
  And then he went on:

       Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections when it 
     is deployed in the form of independent expenditures just as 
     it can when it assumes the guise of political contribution.

  We intended to restrict corporate contributions to candidates. We 
intended, in our law, to say that corporations cannot contribute to 
candidates at all except through the very strict rules for political 
action committees. Yet we have corporations and unions, both, 
contributing millions of dollars that effectively get involved in 
campaigns and effectively go to either help candidates or hurt 
candidates. It is that same soft money loophole that allows the 
frustration of congressional intent.
  Our intent was clear. The Supreme Court has held that our intent is 
legitimate; that where there is an express

[[Page S10128]]

advocacy in a campaign for the defeat or the election of a candidate, 
that we are right, we are permitted, it is allowed for Congress to 
restrict those kinds of contributions. That effort on the part of 
Congress over 20 years ago to restrict corporate and union 
contributions has also been frustrated by the soft money loophole. We 
are determined to close that loophole. We are also determined to make 
it very clear that advertisements, which are functionally the same, 
that have the exact same effect on the effort to defeat or elect a 
candidate, be treated the same. That is part of this bill, the so-
called independent expenditure part, or issue advocacy part. We simply 
are adopting another very bright bright-line test.
  The Supreme Court did not say it was the only bright-line test. The 
Supreme Court said that a bright-line test was necessary, relative to 
satisfactory compliance with the first amendment. And it gave an 
example of a bright-line test, an example which was realistic in the 
world of the 1970's. But another bright-line test is necessary now 
because the first test that we adopted, that the Supreme Court used as 
an example, has been evaded. And the rules that were permitted by the 
Supreme Court to apply, the law which the Supreme Court said was 
appropriate to enact relative to advocacy--to the election or defeat of 
a candidate--that has been frustrated, it has been evaded, and we are 
now simply trying to implement it in another way which is fully 
compliant, we believe, with the first amendment.
  There has been a new study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 
which estimates that during the 1996 election cycle, as much as $150 
million was spent on so-called issue ads by political parties and 
groups other than candidates. Their research shows that half of those 
ads favored Democrats and half favored Republicans. It found that 
nearly 90 percent mentioned a candidate by name and, compared to other 
types of political advertising, these so-called issue ads were the 
highest in pure attack.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Annenberg 
Center study be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Annenberg Public Policy Center Analysis of Broadcast Issue Advocacy 
                          Ads, September 1997

       A national survey of 1,026 registered voters commissioned 
     by the Annenberg Public Policy Center shortly after election 
     day showed that a majority of voters (57.6%) recalled seeing 
     an issue advertisement during the 1996 campaign. When 
     compared to other political communications, using data 
     collected from the same national survey viewership of issue 
     advertisements ranked below that of presidential candidate-
     sponsored advertising and debates. More voters recalled 
     seeing issue advertisements than recalled watching at least 
     one of the short speeches delivered by President Clinton and 
     Robert Dole using free air time donated by broadcast 
     networks.
       The Annenberg Public Policy Center has compiled an archive 
     of 107 issue advocacy advertisements that aired on television 
     or radio during the 1996 election cycle. These ads were 
     sponsored by 27 separate organizations. Data about the 
     content of these advertisements are summarized below. The 
     following figures are percentages of produced advertisements, 
     which do not take into account differential airing and reach 
     of the ads. In addition, although the Center's archive does 
     include independent expenditure advertisements aired by 
     parties and advocacy organizations, only the issue ads are 
     included in this analysis.
       As noted earlier, issue advertisements are those that do 
     not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. 
     If the ads do not call for viewers or listeners to cast a 
     vote in a particular manner, what action do they call for? In 
     many cases, the advertisement makes no call to action at all. 
     Our analysis shows that one-quarter of issue ads (25.2%) 
     contained no action step. Of those issue ads produced in 1996 
     that did solicit some actions on the part of the audience, 
     the greatest proportion asked voters to ``call'' a public 
     official or candidate (37.4%). Some asked individuals to 
     ``tell'' or ``let a public official know'' one's support for 
     or disapproval of particular policy positions (16.8%), while 
     others asked that a call be placed directly to the advocacy 
     organization sponsoring the ad (15.9%). A few of the 
     advertisements called for support or opposition to pending 
     legislation (4.7%).
       Despite the presence of clear calls to action, many 
     advertisements did not provide information, such as a phone 
     number or address, to enable the individual to carry out the 
     action. One in three (31.3%) issue ads that suggest action 
     did not provide sufficient actionable information.
       During the 1996 election cycle, it was the norm for issue 
     advertisements to refer to public officials or candidates for 
     office by name. Early nine in ten did so. It was also common 
     for television issue advertisements to picture officials and 
     candidates:
       Both ends of the political spectrum were represented in 
     issue advertising campaigns. Based on the number of 
     advertisements produced, ads generally supportive of 
     Democratic positions and those generally aligned with 
     Republican positions were evenly split. Each accounted for 
     48.6% of the total. A few advertisements (2.8%), on term 
     limits and flag burning, were not categorized as Democratic 
     or Republican.
       While issue advertising echoed many dominant campaign 
     themes, it also raised issues not addressed by the major 
     party presidential candidates. For instance, abortion, gay 
     rights, pension security, product liability reform, and term 
     limits were among the topics that appeared in issue advocacy 
     advertising, but were largely absent from the policy debate 
     among the presidential candidates.
       Medicare was the topic most frequently mentioned in the 
     issue advocacy advertising of 1996. One in four advocacy ads 
     (24.3%) mentioned the issue.
       Consistent with prior Annenberg Public Policy Center 
     research on the discourse of political campaigns, we divided 
     issue advertisements into their central arguments. Arguments 
     were categorized as advocacy (a case made only for the 
     position supported by the ad's sponsor), pure attack (a case 
     made only against the opposing position), and comparison (an 
     argument that pairs a case against the opposition with a case 
     for the sponsor's position). Comparison is considered 
     preferable to pure attack because it allows evaluation of 
     alternative positions. Pure attack contributes to the 
     negative tone of political campaigns.
       Compared to other discursive forms, including presidential 
     candidate ads, debates, free time speeches and news coverage 
     of the campaign (both television and print), issue 
     advertisements aired in 1996 were the highest in pure attack. 
     Two in five arguments in issue ads attacked.
       Arguments in issue ads were less likely to compare 
     positions than debates, free time speeches, and ads sponsored 
     by the presidential candidates.
       Because pure attack and comparison accounted for 81.3% of 
     the arguments, so-called ``advocacy ads'' rarely simply 
     advocated their own position. Pure advocacy appeared in fewer 
     than one in five of the ads (18.7%).

  Mr. LEVIN. So the result is now a vicious combination, outside of the 
limits of our campaign finance laws, of, one, huge amounts of money; 
two, funding the worst type of campaign attack ads. And the net result 
is that the exceptions to our campaign finance laws have swallowed the 
rules. The rules basically no longer exist. It is up to this body and 
to the House to restore limits--restore some fences around 
contributions so what we intended to do, and the portion of what we did 
that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Buckley case, can be 
operative in the real political world that we operate in.
  It is a daunting task to plug these loopholes, to make the law whole 
again--to make it whole, to make it effective. If we don't do this, if 
we do not act on a bipartisan basis and adopt real campaign reform, and 
if we do not make real what Congress intended to do 20 years ago, and 
which the Supreme Court has said we can do, where the advocacy of the 
election or defeat of a candidate is involved--we are allowed to act 
relative to campaign contributions. We know that. We were told that in 
Buckley. Providing our aim is at those contributions which go to the 
effort to elect or defeat a candidate, we are permitted to act 
providing we act in a way which is clear and has a bright line, and 
which is aimed at a problem, a societal problem which we identify. 
Clean elections are something that we are allowed to seek to achieve. 
We are allowed to seek to achieve the reduction of the impact of 
aggregated money by corporations and power by corporations and unions. 
That has been permitted by the Supreme Court. It is up to us, now, to 
fashion a bill which complies with those standards and we believe this 
bill does.
  If we do not do it, if we do not put a stop to the money chase and 
the attack ads that are overwhelming the system and disgusting the 
American people, we will let down our constituents. Marlin Fitzwater, 
who was the press secretary for President Bush, made this statement in 
April 1992. He made this statement following a dinner for President 
Bush, at which the major contributors, soft money contributors, were 
offered access, private receptions with the President in the White 
House. It was a very open offer of access in exchange for major 
contributions, contributions of soft money. This is what Marlin

[[Page S10129]]

Fitzwater said very openly and honestly in April 1992, following that 
dinner: ``It buys access to the system, yes. That's what the political 
parties and the political operation is all about.''
  He spoke the truth. He spoke the tragic truth that buying access to 
the system is what the political operation is all about and, too often, 
what the political parties are all about. We have to change that. We 
have to restore to the political process what the political parties and 
the political operations should be all about, which is listening to 
people, communicating with people, organizing people, grassroots 
effort--yes, raising contributions in small amounts, limited amounts as 
we intended to do in the 1970's when we passed that law. That is what 
the political operation and the political parties should be all about.
  But whether or not they are going to, again, be about that instead of 
about raising $50,000 and $100,000 and $250,000 and $1 million in soft 
money, which is spent in the functionally equivalent way--the same way, 
apparently, as the so-called hard money--whether we are going to be 
able to do that is going to be dependent on whether or not we can pull 
together Democrats and Republicans as Americans, realize that we have a 
sick system of campaign finance raising and money raising, and change 
it--close the loopholes, respond to the demand of the American people 
that the money chase and the excessive contributions and the attack ads 
end.
  In the next week or two, that is a decision we are going to make. I 
believe the majority of the Senate will support significant reforms and 
the President has said he will work for the passage of McCain-Feingold 
and will sign it with enthusiasm. The time for waiting while we 
document further campaign abuses that we all know exist is over. The 
time for ending those abuses is here.
  I want to close by again commending the sponsors of the bill for 
their steadfast efforts and their commitment to campaign finance 
reform. It is a privilege to be part of their cause.
  I ask unanimous consent that a number of documents be printed in the 
Record including the campaign television advertisements that were 
involved in the Cal Dooley campaign and in the Bill Yellowtail 
campaign. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record at this 
time. I yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Citizens for Reform Ad

       Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices for you and your 
     family.
       Cal Dooley said ``no'' to increased money for federal 
     prisons.
       Instead, Dooley gave the money to lawyers. Lawyers that 
     used taxpayers' money to sue on behalf of prison inmates and 
     illegal aliens.
       Cal Cooley said ``no'' to increased money for drug 
     enforcement.
       Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical lawyers who 
     represented drug dealers.
       Is Cal Dooley making the right choices for you?
                                                                    ____


                   Citizens for Reform Ad as Modified

       Congressman Cal Dooley makes choices for you and your 
     family.
       Cal Dooley said ``no'' to increased money for federal 
     prisons.
       Instead, Dooley gave the money to lawyers. Lawyers that 
     used taxpayers' money to sue on behalf of prison inmates and 
     illegal aliens.
       Cal Dooley said ``no'' to increased money for drug 
     enforcement.
       Instead, Dooley gave your money to radical lawyers who 
     represented drug dealers.
       Is Cal Dooley making the right choices for you?
       Defeat Cal Dooley.
                                                                    ____


                    Citizens for Reform (as Ad Ran)


           negative tv ad on wife beating and criminal record

       Who is Bill Yellowtail?
       He preaches family values, but he took a swing at his wife.
       Yellowtail's explanation?
       He only slapped her, but her nose was not broken.
       He talks law and order, but is himself a convicted 
     criminal.
       And though he talks about protecting children, Yellowtail 
     failed to make his own child support payments, then voted 
     against child support enforcement.
       Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him we don't approve of his 
     wrongful behavior.
                                                                    ____


              Citizens for Reform (With Changed Last Line)


           Negative TV Ad on Wife Beating and Criminal Record

       Who is Bill Yellowtail?
       He preaches family values, but he took a swing at his wife.
       Yellowtail's explanation?
       He only slapped her, but her nose was not broken.
       He talks law and order, but is himself a convicted 
     criminal.
       And though he talks about protecting children, Yellowtail 
     failed to make his own child support payments, then voted 
     against child support enforcement.
       Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him we don't approve of his 
     wrongful behavior.
       Vote Against Bill Yellowtail.
                                                                    ____


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE TRUSTEE--EVENTS & MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS


                                 events

       Two annual trustee events with the President in Washington, 
     DC.
       Two annual trustee events with the Vice President in 
     Washington, DC.
       Annual economic trade missions: Beginning in 1994, DNC 
     Trustees will be invited to join Party leadership as they 
     travel abroad to examine current and developing political and 
     economic matters in other countries.
       Two annual retreats/issue conferences: One will be held in 
     Washington and another at an executive conference center. 
     Both will offer Trustees the opportunity to interact with 
     leaders from Washington as well as participate in exclusive 
     issue briefings.
       Invitations to home town briefings: Chairman Wilhelm and 
     other senior Administration officials have plans to visit all 
     50 states. Whenever possible, impromptu briefings with local 
     Trustees will be placed on the schedule. You will get the 
     latest word from Washington on issues affecting the 
     communities where you live and work.
       Monthly policy briefings: Briefings are held monthly in 
     Washington with key administration officials and members of 
     Congress. Briefings cover such topics as health care reform, 
     welfare reform, and economic policy.
       VIP status: DNC trustees will get VIP status at the 1996 
     DNC Convention with tickets to restricted events, private 
     parties as well as pre- and post-convention celebrations.
       DNC staff contact: Trustees will have a DNC staff member 
     specifically assigned to them, ready to assist and respond to 
     requests for information.
                                                                    ____


 1997 RNC ANNUAL GALA, MAY 13, 1997, WASHINGTON HILTON, WASHINGTON, DC


                       GALA LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

       Cochairman--$250,000 fundraising goal: Sell or purchase 
     Team 100 memberships, Republican Eagles memberships or dinner 
     tables. Dais seating at the gala; breakfast and photo 
     opportunities with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and 
     Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on May 13, 1997; luncheon 
     with Republican Senate and House Leadership and the 
     Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your 
     choice; and private reception with Republican Governors prior 
     to the gala.
       Vice chairman--$100,000 fundraising goal: Sell or purchase 
     Team 100 memberships, Republican Eagles memberships or dinner 
     tables. Preferential seating at the gala dinner with the VIP 
     of your choice; breakfast and photo opportunities with Senate 
     Majority Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt 
     Gingrich on May 13, 1997; luncheon with Republican Senate and 
     House Leadership and the Republican Senate and House 
     Committee Chairmen of your choice; and private reception with 
     Republican Governors prior to the gala.
       Deputy chairman--$45,000 fundraising goal: Sell or purchase 
     three (3) dinner tables or three (3) Republican Eagles 
     memberships. Preferential seating at the gala dinner with the 
     VIP of your choice; luncheon with Republican Senate and House 
     Leadership and the Republican Senate and House Committee 
     Chairmen of your choice; and private reception with 
     Republican Governors prior to the gala.
       Dinner committee--$15,000 fundraising goal: Sell or 
     purchase one (1) dinner table. Preferential seating at the 
     gala dinner with the VIP of your choice; and VIP reception at 
     the gala with the Republican members of the Senate and House 
     Leadership.
       (Benefits pending final confirmation of the Members of 
     Congress schedules.)
                                                                    ____


                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Tim Barnes, Kelley Goodsell.
     From: Kevin Kellum.
     Re: Hot prospects.
       These prospects are not ``real hot'', but are very 
     realistic.
       Gino Palucci, Palucci Pizza. Eric Javits has spoken with 
     Gino who has committed to join Team 100. He asked me to call 
     Gino's money man in D.C. (Henry Cashen) who is in charge of 
     fascilitating these transactions. I have spoken with Henry 
     who said he would get back to me and have since placed a 
     couple of calls to his office with no response. I will call 
     him again next week.
       Ron Ricks, President, Southwest Airlines. Asst: Linda. Herb 
     Vest has spoken with Ron and said he committed to joining 
     Team 100, but since then Nancy has called and left a message 
     with no return call. I will call his office next week.
       Ole Nilssen (HOT), Retired inventor. We are working on 
     getting him an appointment with Dick Armey, so we can get his 
     other $50,000. We had a meeting set up for this week, but 
     Armey cancelled his Florida leg of his trip.


[[Page S10130]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think, with some research by some very 
excellent staff members, we may have a basis for an agreement here. I 
really believe we have a very strong chance, because I think we can 
use, to a large degree, as a basis for our negotiations, not so much 
the McCain-Feingold bill but the bill that was introduced as S. 7 by 
Senator Robert Dole and Senator McConnell on January 31, 1993.
  This was S. 7, remembering in those days on this side of the aisle 
the Republicans were in the minority, so the majority had the first 
five bills and the minority, the Republicans, had the next five. This 
is S. 7, so I don't know what 6 was, but this was the second one.
  I want to talk about this a little bit because I think it is 
important. This is a bill that Senator McConnell introduced and spoke 
on with Senator Dole. I think it is very important. The bill was 
introduced in the Senate on Thursday, January 21, 1993 by Senator 
Robert Dole. At the present time there are 24 cosponsors of the bill--
24 Republicans. Let me tell you the cosponsors of this bill. They were 
Burns, Chafee, Coverdell, Craig, D'Amato, Domenici, Durenberger, 
Gorton, Grassley, Gregg, Hatch, Hatfield, Kempthorne, Lott, Lugar, 
McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Roth, Simpson, 
Stevens, Thurmond.
  So, most of the present leadership of the Republican side was 
represented as cosponsors of this bill. Of course Senator Lott, Senator 
Coverdell, Senator Nickles, the whip, Senator Craig, and of course 
Senator McConnell.
  The bill says: Deal with campaign finance reform. Let me read very 
quickly from Senator McConnell's remarks.

       Mr. President, in 1992, voter turnout increased, electoral 
     competition increased, campaign spending increased. Most 
     objective observers of the political system . . ..
       Mr. President, Democratic campaign finance bills based on 
     spending limits and taxpayer financing do, indeed, constitute 
     change. They do not, however, reform. They do not improve the 
     electoral process.

  Quoting from Senator McConnell:

       The Democratic bills we have seen in the past were good 
     public relations . . .. Spending limits were totally 
     discredited in the presented system . . .. Mandatory spending 
     limits are unconstitutional . . .. Taxpayer funding of the 
     Congressional campaign system to provide inducements or 
     penalties is not palatable.

  Then he goes on and says:

       Republicans will not stand by while the first amendment is 
     sacrificed for a facade of reform. Campaign finance reform 
     need not be unconstitutional, partisan, bureaucratic or 
     taxpayer funded. The minority leader and I, joined by 
     Republican colleagues, have today introduced the 
     Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform Act, the most extensive 
     and effective reform bill before this Congress bar none. It 
     bans PAC's, the epitome of special interest influence and a 
     major incumbent protection tool. Our bill bans soft money, 
     all soft money, party, labor, and that spent by tax-exempt 
     organizations. It cuts campaign costs, provides seed money to 
     challengers paid for, not by taxpayers, but by the political 
     parties. It constricts the millionaires' loophole, [which, by 
     the way, happens to be a part of the revised package we have, 
     I am sure by coincidence] restricts and regulates independent 
     expenditures, fights election fraud, and restricts 
     gerrymandering.
       Real reform: In stark contrast to the Democrats' bill, the 
     Republican bill puts all the campaign money on top of the 
     table where voters can see it. Nothing would have a more 
     cleansing effect on the electoral process.

  Then:

       The text of the bill eliminates all special interest 
     political action committees, corporate, union, and trade 
     association, also bans all non-connected or ideological PAC's 
     and all leadership PAC's.
       Note, if a ban on non-connected PAC's is determine to be 
     unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the legislation will 
     subject nonconnected PAC's to a $1,000 per election 
     contribution limit.

  I could not agree more with Senator McConnell's position on that.
  Soft money ban: Bans all soft money from being used to influence a 
Federal election. Soft money is defined as the ``raising and spending 
of political money outside of the source restrictions, contribution 
limits and disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
and its regulations.''
  So we are in complete agreement with Senator McConnell on that.
  Establishes new rules for political party committees to ensure that 
soft money is not used to influence Federal elections, including the 
requirement that national, State, and local political parties establish 
a separate account for activities benefiting Federal candidates and a 
separate account for activities benefiting State candidates.
  Requirement of full disclosure of all accounts by any political party 
committee that maintains a Federal account, and the establishment of 
minimum percentages of Federal funds which must be used for any party 
building program, voter registration, get out the vote, absentee 
ballots, ballot security which benefits both Federal and State 
candidates.
  Exempts certain organizational activities, as ours does--research, 
get out the vote, voter registration--from coordinated or other 
limitations.
  Requires disclosures and allocation for these activities and retains 
the same coordinated expenditure limits for media expenditures.
  Maintains the limit on total contributions of Federal party accounts 
at $20,000; limits to $50,000 per calendar year the total amount of 
contributions an individual or other entity may make to national, 
State, or local party accounts combined.
  Labor and soft money employee protection: Codifies the Supreme Court 
decision in Beck versus Communications Workers of America and provides 
certain rights for employees who are union members.
  Soft money restrictions: Prohibits tax-exempt 501(c) organizations 
from engaging in any activity which attempts to influence a Federal 
election on behalf of a specific candidate for public office.
  Extends to all 501(c) organizations the current prohibition on 
campaign activity which applies to 501(c) charities.
  Restricts tax-exempt organizations from engaging in voter 
registration or get-out-the-vote activities which are not candidate-
specific if a candidate or Member of Congress solicits money for the 
organization.
  Restricts Federal activities by State PAC's created by Members of 
Congress.
  Reduces from $1,000 to $500 the maximum allowable contributions by 
individuals residing outside a candidate's State, an interesting take 
on the influence of outside money.
  Indexes the individual contribution limit, $1,000 per election for 
in-State contributions or $500 per election to out of State.
  Congressional candidates using Consumer Price Index, something that I 
think could be very well discussed.
  Prohibits bundling, which I think is a very laudable goal, and then 
it talks about independent expenditures.
  Requires all independently financed political communications to 
disclose the person or organization financing it. That is very 
interesting. I wonder how the Christian Coalition and the right to life 
and other organizations would feel about requiring all independently 
financed political communications to disclose the person or 
organization financing it. When Senator Feingold and I floated that 
proposal, it met with a pretty strong opposition from both sides. This 
is a proposal that, obviously, as I have said many times, Senator 
McConnell made around 4 years ago; requires that that disclosure be 
complete and conspicuous.

  Requires timely notice to all candidates of the communications 
placement and content.
  Defines independent expenditure to prohibit consultation with a 
candidate or his agents.
  Requires the FCC to hold a hearing within 3 days of any formal 
complaint of collusion between an independent expenditure committee and 
a candidate.
  I must say, Mr. President, if, in the last election campaign, that 
provision requiring the FCC to hold a hearing within 3 days of any 
formal complaint of collusion between an independent expenditure 
committee and a candidate had been the law of the land, they would have 
been holding hearings 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  Creates an expedited cause of action in Federal courts for a 
candidate seeking relief from expenditures which are not independent.
  Allows for a broadcast discount in the last 45 days before a primary 
and the last 60 days before a general election.
  Permits challenger seed money, which I think is a laudable goal, and

[[Page S10131]]

addresses a problem that we have had with giving a challenger a level 
playing field.
  Requires congressional candidates to declare upon filing for an 
election where they intend to spend alone over $250,000 in personal 
funds in a race and raises the individual contribution limit to $5,000 
per election, from $1,000 for all opponents of a candidate who declare 
such an intention.
  No limits would apply to individual contributions by party, et 
cetera.
  Then there is a very interesting one, franked mail. Prohibits franked 
mass mailings during the election year of a Member of Congress and 
requires more disclosure of the use of franked mail for unsolicited 
mailings.
  Our proposal, as we know, is to cut off the name and face being 
mentioned in drawing a bright line. I have 60 days. Senator McConnell's 
1993 proposal prohibited franked mass mailings during the entire 
election year.
  It goes into gerrymandering and goes into enhanced FEC enforcement. I 
heard my colleague from Utah complaining long and loud about any 
possibility of enhanced FEC enforcement. By the way, my colleague from 
Utah was not here in 1993, so I kind of doubt that he would have 
cosponsored this bill, as did 24 Republicans.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. I guess what I am saying is that we had a very good bill 
in 1993--a very good bill--and one that I was proud to cosponsor, along 
with Senator Dole and Senator McConnell and 24 of our Republican 
colleagues.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a 
clarification?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. BENNETT. I was here in 1993, and I think I probably did cosponsor 
that. The Senator is making a good case that I probably made a mistake.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you. I appreciate the correction from the Senator 
from Utah.
  That entire list of 24 Republican cosponsors of S. 7, as I mentioned, 
are Burns, Chafee, Coverdell, Craig, D'Amato, Domenici, Durenberger, 
Gorton, Grassley, Gregg, Hatch, Hatfield, Kempthorne, Lott, Lugar, 
McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Packwood, Roth, Simpson, 
Stevens, and Thurmond.
  Mr. President, I haven't had a chance to examine all the details of 
the proposal that Senator McConnell's and Senator Dole's S. 7 had, and 
I believe that there are probably some differences, but I will argue 
very strongly that we have the basis for negotiations and possible 
agreement based on S. 7.
  My understanding is that there is not the independent campaign bright 
line. That actually, as my colleagues know, was an idea that Mr. Norm 
Ornstein and Mr. Mann and Mr. Trevor Potter, Professor Potter, came up 
with as a way of trying to get about the issue of the independent 
campaigns which we all know are out of control and they are all 
negative campaigns.
  I was, frankly, encouraged to see that Senator McConnell had proposed 
such a comprehensive way of reforming the campaign system as far back 
as 1993, obviously displaying a degree of clairvoyance that I didn't 
have at the time. So I hope we can go back to that.
  Mr. President, I just want to end up--and I know Senator McConnell 
wants to respond to that--there is a book that Brooks Jackson wrote 
called ``Honest Graft: Big Money in the American Political Process.'' 
This book is somewhat dated. It was published in 1990. A lot of things 
have happened since then. Some things haven't happened. Some things 
haven't changed, they have just gotten worse.
  Let me quote from a chapter in his book, and I will be brief:

       Nearly everyone complains that something is wrong with the 
     American political system. Liberals see a Congress bought by 
     business interests, while PAC managers complain they are 
     being shaken down by money-hungry legislators. Lawmakers 
     detest the rising cost of campaigning, the inconvenience and 
     indignity of asking for money, and the criticism they endure 
     for accepting it. Democrats envy the Republican Party's 
     financial strength and decry the sinister influence of big 
     money and expensive political technology while trying to get 
     as much of both for themselves as possible. Republicans, 
     portrayed by the business PACs they nourished, seethe at 
     their inability to dislodge Democratic incumbents. Critics of 
     various leanings deplore lawmakers who use their office to 
     help themselves or moneyed benefactors. Liberal and 
     conservative commentators alike call the system ``corrupt.''
       The problem isn't corruption; it is more serious than that. 
     If unprincipled buying and selling of official favors was at 
     fault then the solution would be simple. Honest legislators 
     would refuse to participate, and prosecutors or voters would 
     deal with the rest. To be sure, corruption does exist; it is 
     hard to imagine any other community of 535 souls where 
     felonies are so often proven. But those illegalities are only 
     symptoms of the underlying sickness.
       The true predicament is that perverse incentives twist the 
     behavior of ordinary legislators. The system of money-based 
     elections and lobbying rewards those who cater to well-funded 
     interests, both by keeping them in office and by allowing men 
     like Ferdinand St. Germain to enrich themselves while they 
     serve. It also punishes those who challenge the status quo, 
     as D. G. Martin discovered. And it bends even the best of 
     intentions, like Tony Coelho's priestly instincts, toward the 
     courtship of moneyed cliques. As Coelho himself says, ``the 
     process buys you out.'' The system doesn't require bad 
     motives to produce bad Government.
       America is becoming a special-interest nation where money 
     is displacing votes. Congress commands less and less support 
     among the electorate as it panders increasingly to groups 
     with money, yet its members cling to office like barnacles on 
     a hull of a broken-down steamer.

  Mr. President, I would not use those words myself. I think they are 
strong words. I do respect Brooks Jackson a great deal. He is one of 
the foremost authorities on campaign finance reform. But if that was 
the case, if that was the view of one of the most respected 
commentators in 1990, can you imagine what the view of many of them are 
today?
  Again, I want to say that I hope we can sit down and have some 
serious negotiations. I would, to a large degree, move to S. 7 as a 
basis for a lot of those negotiations. Maybe we can get Senator Dole 
back, most respected by all of us, and see if Senator Dole--I believe 
he still supports many of those principles. We could all sit down 
together.
  If I can very seriously say, I hope that we can understand that what 
the American people want is not a filibuster and not a gridlock, not a 
filibuster by Republicans, not a filibuster by Democrats, but we have 
shown certainly this year what we are capable of doing when we sat down 
on both sides of the aisle and put the Nation on a path toward a 
balanced budget; when we sat down, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
trading off, as is necessary, to reach a goal of giving the American 
people their first tax cuts in 16 years.
  I believe we can do that if there is a willingness to do so, and I, 
for one, believe that the majority of my colleagues would agree that 
there are some things that are fundamentally wrong with this system. If 
the majority of my colleagues agree with that, then it seems to me we 
should be able to reach some kind of agreement on how we can reform 
that system.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am sure my good friend and colleague 
from Arizona will agree that politics is a team sport. In order to be 
effective, we have to have allies. The bill he went back 4 years to had 
24 cosponsors. I can assure my friend from Arizona, it had a good idea 
from all 24. Legislation is, someone said, sort of like making sausage: 
a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
  I confess to having joined in cosponsoring a bill with a whole lot of 
things that my friend from Arizona will surely remember that I have 
consistently argued against for 10 years. But the feeling was, and he 
remembers it because he cosponsored the bill, that we needed to have a 
Republican alternative. And in the spirit of being a part of the team, 
I put my name on a bill. I am sure the Senator from Arizona has never 
put his name on a bill with which he disagreed with any part. In fact, 
he said here today he is not entirely happy with the union provision in 
the bill that he is putting forward.
  The Senator from Kentucky may be guilty of many things, but I think 
in this debate rarely guilty of inconsistency and many of the things 
that the Senator from Arizona mentioned I personally argued against 
prior to coming up with this five-legged dog. Somebody said you might 
be able to make a five-legged dog, but nobody has ever seen one in 
nature. That is sort of what that bill was. So I confess to having 
signed on to a bill much of which I thought was probably not the right 
thing to do.

[[Page S10132]]

  But let me ask the Senator from Arizona--he said on Friday and again, 
I believe, today, any genuinely independent expenditure made to 
advocate any cause which does not expressly advocate the election or 
the defeat of a candidate is fully allowed. Is that the view of the 
Senator from Arizona?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is correct. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Arizona, under the Federal 
Election Campaign Act the term ``independent expenditure" is defined as 
follows:

       The term ``independent expenditure'' means an expenditure 
     by a person expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 
     clearly identified candidate which is made without 
     cooperation or consultation with any candidate or any 
     authorized committee or agent of such candidate and which is 
     not made in concert with or at the request or suggestion of 
     any candidate or any authorized committee or agent of such 
     candidate.

  I am wondering if the Senator from Arizona really meant what he said, 
because an ``independent expenditure'' under the Federal Election Act 
does by definition expressly advocate the election or defeat of a 
candidate.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Kentucky, we are changing the 
definition of ``express advocacy'' as well as the definition of 
``independent campaign.'' And we feel compelled to do so because we see 
that on both sides the campaigns are no more independent than I am 
qualified to be on the next trip to Mir.
  We are, on page 13 of the bill, under where it says ``Definitions * * 
* (17) Independent Expenditure--* * *. The term ``independent 
expenditure'' means an expenditure by a person--(i) for a communication 
that is express advocacy; and (ii) that is not provided in coordination 
with a candidate or a candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating 
with a candidate or a candidate's agent.''
  And then ``(b) Definition of Express Advocacy--Section 301,'' which 
the Senator from Kentucky just quoted from ``* * * is amended by adding 
at the end the following: `(20) Express Advocacy--(A) In general.--The 
term ``express advocacy'' means a communication that advocates the 
election or defeat of a candidate by--containing a phrase such as 
``vote for'', ``reelect'', ``support'', ``cast your ballot for'', 
``(name a candidate) for Congress'', ``name of candidate in 1997'', 
``vote against'', ``defeat'', ``reject'', or a campaign slogan or words 
that in context can have no reasonable meaning * * *' ''
  This is the important part--``can have no reasonable meaning other 
than to advocate the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly identified 
candidates; * * *''
  That is, so we are changing both. I say to my friend, I am changing 
both the definition of ``independent expenditure'' and the definition 
of ``express advocacy.'' We are doing so because there is clearly a 
huge problem in American politics today, which I am sure the Senator 
from Kentucky appreciates. There are no longer independent campaigns. 
There is nowhere in any dictionary in the world the word 
``independent'' that would fit these campaigns. They are part of 
campaigns. To my dismay, and I am sure to every Member of this body, 
they are negative. And they are negative to the degree where all of our 
approval ratings sink to an alltime low.
  So that is--I am sorry for the long response, but the Senator from 
Kentucky asked a very good question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Then the definition of what is ``reasonable'' would be 
determined by the Federal Election Commission; is that correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. And the courts, just as the previous ones were 
interpreted, and in the case of the Colorado decision, as the Senator 
from Kentucky well knows, opened up a massive loophole which was driven 
through with alacrity and speed. That is what we are trying to close 
here.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask my friend from Arizona, how would it work? The 
Federal Election Commission would either on its own initiative or as a 
result of receiving some complaints from someone intervene in what way 
to determine what is or is not ``reasonable"?
  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, as you know, any bright line would be that 
the candidate's name or face would not be mentioned, which is carrying 
what was, in my view, the original intent, which was obviously that 
they could not say ``vote for'' or ``cast your ballot for.''
  So I would be glad to discuss with the Senator from Kentucky exactly 
how we could define that in report language or other.
  But I want to return to the fundamental problem here with the Senator 
from Kentucky. I ask him, in return, does he believe that these so-
called independent campaigns are truly independent?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, if they are not, if it is an independent 
expenditure which is required under the law----
  Mr. McCAIN. I am talking about, are they really independent in what 
any of us would define as the word ``independent,'' or are they just 
additional methods to get around contribution limits in order to defeat 
another candidate? Which is it?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator talking about independent expenditures 
or express advocacy?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am talking about independent campaigns. I am talking 
about a problem. What drives independent campaigns, as the Senator from 
Kentucky well knows, is the definition of ``independent expenditure'' 
and ``express advocacy,'' which we are changing.
  I am asking the Senator from Kentucky again, does he believe that in 
the last campaign the attacks by labor, for example, in congressional 
district 6, where over $2 million was spent by labor, with Congressman 
J.D. Hayworth's face distorted on the screen, sometimes morphing into 
that of Newt Gingrich, does the Senator from Kentucky believe that that 
was an independent campaign against Congressman J.D. Hayworth?
  Mr. McCONNELL. What I believe it was is an engagement in issue 
advocacy.
  Mr. McCAIN. You really believe that was an issue advocacy ad when 
they said: Congressman J.D. Hayworth is an enemy of every man, woman 
and child in Arizona? Surely, the Senator from Kentucky does not 
believe that. Surely, the Senator from Kentucky does not believe that 
these independent ads, which are done by both sides, both Republican 
and Democrats, are no more than character attacks, destruction, but, 
more importantly, adjunct to political campaigns. Surely, the Senator 
from Kentucky cannot stand here on the floor of the Senate and say that 
those are independent campaigns by any reasonable definition.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Arizona, it really does not 
make any difference what the Senator from Kentucky says. The Supreme 
Court says----
  Mr. McCAIN. I think it has a lot to do with what the Senator from 
Kentucky believes. I think it has a lot to do with it, because if the 
Senator from Kentucky thinks that this is just basically an evasion of 
the law by getting around the law, which has contribution limits, then 
certainly it matters what the Senator from Kentucky believes.
  If the Senator from Kentucky believes that these are truly 
independent campaigns, set up and run and funded by individuals who 
just want to see their particular issues, whether it be pro-life or 
pro-choice or workers' right to strike or any of the others, then fine. 
But it is beyond me to believe that the Senator from Kentucky could 
have, having seen these ads--he is very deeply involved in the 
political process--that they are independent. They are not. They are 
appendices of the political campaigns. The tragedy of it is, 98 percent 
of them are attack ads, as the Senator well knows.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor.
  All I was trying to say to my friend from Arizona is that worth a 
good deal more than the opinion of the Senator from Kentucky is the 
opinion of the Supreme Court, which has said in order to avoid--and 
admittedly these groups want to criticize us. There is no question 
about it. They want to criticize us. They want to criticize us. And we 
hate it. They want to criticize us in proximity to the elections. 
Sometimes they criticize us earlier than that.
  But the Supreme Court has said that it is issue advocacy unless the 
words ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``support,'' ``cast your ballot,'' 
``Smith for Congress,''

[[Page S10133]]

``vote against,'' ``defeat,'' or ``reject''--or it lists the magic 
words here. It is not really vague. I think the reason the Court did 
this is because they want to encourage citizens to be free to be 
critical of us any time they want to.
  I would readily concede to my friend from Arizona we have gotten a 
lot more criticism in the last couple of years than we used to. I will 
also readily concede that having been the beneficiary, or victim, 
depending on your point of view, of some of that myself, I do not like 
it. But the Court, it seems to me, has made it rather clear that we do 
not have the right to keep these people, these groups, from expressing 
their views about our records at any point, whether it is in close 
proximity to the election or not.
  Now, an independent expenditure, as my friend from Arizona knows, is 
different. That is hard money. That is regulated by the FEC. In order 
to qualify as an independent expenditure, you must not consult with 
those whom you are seeking to aid or reject.
  Issue advocacy is a different animal. The Court has put that in a 
separate category. Admittedly, the distinctions are sometimes blurred. 
The Court anticipated in the Buckley case that many times the 
distinction would be blurred. But they erred on the side of more 
expression. They erred on the side of allowing more and more citizens, 
if they chose to, to criticize us at any point they wanted to.
  Now, what we all saw in 1996 was there was a lot of criticism, a lot 
of criticism by a lot of groups that a lot of people on my side of the 
aisle did not like. But I think there is not any chance whatsoever the 
Supreme Court is going to allow us by legislation to make it difficult 
for people to criticize us just because it may be in close proximity to 
an election.
  Therein lies the dilemma. My good friend from Arizona is trying hard 
to do that. I understand why he would like to do it. These campaigns 
are a source of great irritation to the people who run for public 
office. I understand that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I respond?
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is just my prediction--just as one Senator here 
having read these cases, it is my prediction that the courts will not 
allow us to in effect shut these folks up or to create a context in 
which their criticizing us is more difficult. That is just my opinion. 
But it is also the opinion of many, including the American Civil 
Liberties Union, who have looked at this particular area.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I respond to the Senator very quickly?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Sure.
  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, the Senator well knows better than I, 
footnote 52 is where the magic words are, which is a footnote on the 
decision. The interpretation of many of us is that the language in the 
body of the opinion indicates that Congress does have a role to play 
and can be involved in it.
  But that is a difference of opinion that the Senator from Kentucky 
and I have. That is why I think I would be willing to try to make a 
case on the floor of the Senate here of the constitutionality of our 
view of changing the definitions of ``independent expenditure'' and 
``express advocacy'' just as when we passed the line-item veto and 
there was significant constitutional question about the line-item veto 
by good and principled individuals of this body who said, ``Look. What 
you're doing here is unconstitutional; so, therefore, I'm voting 
against it.''
  I am saying that I believe there is sufficient good opinions by good 
and principled individuals that differ as to what the interpretation is 
and what Congress has the right to not do.
  May I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to have stricken from 
the Record the name of a Member of the other body, because I misspoke, 
and it is against the rules of the Senate to say the name of a Member 
of the other body. I ask unanimous consent that that reference be 
removed from the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I believe I have the floor. I had 
yielded to the Senator from Arizona for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. So if I could finish my answer. It is not so much that it 
aggravates me as to whether it is negative or not. Of course, it pains 
all of us when the approval rating of elected officials is so low. 
There was a Fox poll that said, ``I believe that my Member of Congress 
is:'' 36 percent said, ``someone I can trust,'' 44 percent said, ``a 
lying windbag.'' That bothers all of us. But that is not the 
fundamental problem here, I say to my friend from Kentucky, because you 
can do that with hard money. You should be able to do that with hard 
money, any kind of attack, any kind of thing you want to do.
  What we are objecting to is it being used for soft money and the fact 
that it is not independent, does not meet, by any objective measure, at 
least in my view, the definition of the word ``independent.''
  I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky still has the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. No, not right now.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, it is not at all clear that express 
advocacy has to be independent. But nevertheless, the Senator from 
Arizona is entirely correct that the words are in a footnote. There is 
no question that the words are in a footnote.
  On the other hand, there have been at least 15 cases in this field. 
This has been a field that has been very much litigated. The Federal 
Election Commission has been interested in going after issue advocacy 
groups for years. So there has been a lot of litigation on the issue 
that my friend from Arizona raises.
  He raises a good point, it is in a footnote. It is not like we 
haven't been there before. There have been 15 cases. The FEC has lost 
every single issue advocacy case seeking to do things similar--
similar--to what is sought to be done by legislation here.
  Recently in the Citizens Action Network case, not only did the fourth 
circuit rule against the Federal Election Commission trying to do what 
we are trying to do here, it ordered them to pay the legal fees of the 
group that they were out to quiet.
  So the only thing I say to my friend from Arizona, he is right, it is 
a footnote. On the other hand, this is something that the courts have 
had a good deal to say about, a good deal to say about, and there has 
been a lot of litigation on this whole question of trying to quiet the 
voices of those who would criticize us for our votes.
  I see my friend from Utah is on the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Was the Senator from Utah seeking to ask a question?
  Mr. BENNETT. I would like to obtain the floor in my own right at some 
point, but I make a comment to the Senator from Kentucky and ask him if 
he would like at this point with respect to the 126 scholars that have 
been mentioned up until now--I will wait until I have the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think this kind of debate we need to engage in. I think 
this is important. I think the Congressional Record needs to be made 
and I look forward to more of this kind of debate and discussion 
because this is really the heart of the matter. I thank the Senator 
from Kentucky for raising this particular issue because this seems to 
be one of the major, if not the major, areas that need to be discussed.
  Thank you.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I still have the floor.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona. I think this is the heart of 
the current version of McCain-Feingold, and certainly does need to be 
adequately vented.
  I see the Senator from Wisconsin was interested in getting into the 
discussion.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his courtesy and 
I will have a couple of brief questions for him on a very interesting 
discussion that the Senator from Arizona and Kentucky had.
  I ask the Senator from Kentucky if he voted for the Communications 
Decency Act, which was sent up to the Supreme Court?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Frankly, I don't remember. I am sure the Senator 
knows.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The answer is yes. I believe there were only 16 Members 
of

[[Page S10134]]

the Senate--I happened to be one--who did not think it was 
constitutional, who thought it was a violation of the first amendment 
to start censoring the Internet.
  Does the Senator recall how the Supreme Court disposed of the 
Communications Decency Act?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Why don't I let the Senator from Wisconsin tell us.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It was a unanimous decision, 9 to 0.
  The U.S. Senate, including yourself, voted overwhelmingly for 
something that in my view, was unconstitutional on its face.
  What was the downside of it? What happened? What happened was that 
the law was struck down, isn't that right?
  Mr. McCONNELL. My friend from Wisconsin, who is a distinguished 
lawyer and went to Harvard knows that pornography does not enjoy the 
same level of protection as political speech. The Supreme Court has 
always put political discourse in a special protected category. 
Pornography, by its very definition, has been excluded from first 
amendment protection.
  My guess is that in that particular piece of litigation we didn't 
have a very good idea how the Supreme Court was going to decide and the 
Senator from Wisconsin is probably going to say why not take a chance 
here and see if the Court will uphold these restrictions on express 
advocacy.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I assume the Senator has no doubt that this Supreme 
Court will strike down the provisions in our bill he is talking about, 
isn't that right?
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my hope, Madam President, that we won't give 
them an opportunity to do it.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand, but my question is, Don't you believe 
that this Court would strike down the provisions you criticize?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I believe the Supreme Court would not, in this 
highly protected area of political speech, allow the Congress to reduce 
the quality of criticism that can be leveled at us in proximity to an 
election.
  I think we are not flying entirely blind here, Madam President, 
because this whole delicate area of issue advocacy has benefited from a 
lot of litigation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. One other question, a point I am trying to make for the 
Record is I agree with the Senator from Kentucky that should we pass 
this legislation, this, of course, will go to the Supreme Court. I 
think it is very important that we acknowledge as we make this Record 
that they will review it, and that they will want to know exactly what 
our intentions were with regard to this legislation.
  I want to ask a question in terms of making this Record, following on 
the question of the Senator from Arizona. I will read the Senator from 
Kentucky an advertisement that supposedly was an issue advocacy ad, 
apparently legally treated that way, and ask him if he believes this is 
properly characterized as issue advocacy rather than express advocacy 
or campaign ad.
  The ad concerned a Winston Bryant. The announcement said, ``Senate 
candidate Winston Bryant's budget as attorney general increased 71 
percent. Bryant has taken taxpayer-funded junkets to the Virgin 
Islands, Alaska, and Arizona, and spent about $100,000 on new 
furniture. Unfortunately, as the State's top law enforcement official, 
he has never opposed the parole of any convicted criminal, even rapists 
and murderers; and almost 4,000 Arkansas prisoners have been sent back 
to prison for crimes committed while they were out on parole. Winston 
Bryant: government waste, political junkets, soft on crime. Call 
Winston Bryant and tell him to give the money back.

  Does the Senator from Kentucky consider that to be an issue ad within 
the Supreme Court definition, or does he think it is possible--
possible--that the U.S. Supreme Court just might find that to be a 
campaign ad?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, that ad sounds very similar to some 
newspaper editorials I have read during the end of campaigns and in 
editorial endorsements, another form of criticism that we typically 
find very offensive.
  My guess is, absent the words ``vote for,'' or ``vote against,'' the 
others that we went over in the Buckley case, the Court would in all 
likelihood say those voters are perfectly free to make candidate 
Winston Bryant very uncomfortable before his election.
  And I understand that the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from 
Arizona would like to change that standard and give the Supreme Court 
another chance to try to reach a different decision.
  Let me tell you why, Madam President, I think it is extremely 
unlikely that the Court would go in the direction that the Senator from 
Wisconsin would like it to go. Referring again to the American Civil 
Liberties Union, America's experts on the first amendment, dealing with 
the restrictions on independent expenditures and issue advocacy in the 
bill we are discussing.
  They say the new restrictions on independent expenditure are 
improperly intruding upon the core area of electoral speech and 
invading the absolutely protected area of issue advocacy--absolutely 
protected area of issue advocacy.
  The ACLU went on: Two basic truths have emerged with crystal clarity 
after 20 years of campaign finance decisions-- 20 years. This is not a 
new area of the law; 20 years of campaign finance decisions.
  First, independent expenditures for express electoral advocacy by 
citizen groups about political candidates lie at the very core of the 
meaning and purpose of the first amendment. This is not some peripheral 
area here--the very core of the first amendment.
  Second, issue advocacy by citizen groups lie totally outside the 
permissible area of Government regulation. So I say to my friend from 
Wisconsin, my prediction that no matter how much candidate Bryant may 
not have liked that criticism, my prediction that the Court is likely 
to uphold the ability of citizens to band together and engage in that 
criticism is based not on some kind of speculation but on 20 years of 
decisions in this field.
  So I guess my prediction, in answer to the question the Senator from 
Wisconsin asked, is that I don't think there is any chance the Court 
would allow the Congress to make it tougher for people to criticize us. 
There is absolutely no hint in 20 years of cases in this area that the 
Court is going to backtrack and give us the ability to quiet our 
critics. We would love to do this.
  One thing I am sure the Senator from Wisconsin and I agree on, we 
don't like this kind of thing. We really would prefer not to be 
criticized by either of these avenues, whether it is independent 
expenditures or whether it is express advocacy, we don't like it. I 
think we can stipulate that.
  However, the Court has been rather clear over 20 years that we are 
not going to be able to quiet these voices. So my prediction would be 
that they would not allow us to do it.

  There are others who want to speak. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his candid 
answers and say I have great confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court. They 
are perfectly capable of handling this provision. Our job is to pass a 
law so they can take it up and they can strike it down if they don't 
like it. That is the approach we take here when there is a good-faith 
disagreement about a constitutional provision. Surely there are good-
faith arguments on both sides, and the right body to resolve it is the 
Supreme Court.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, during the hearings we have held in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee there have been a number of headline-
grabbing witnesses who have appeared before us. Unfortunately, when we 
got to the phase of the hearings where we were discussing this issue, 
the television cameras all left the room and the press tables all 
became vacant.
  In that atmosphere I was able to say some things that I maybe 
wouldn't have otherwise said because I knew no one would say anything. 
It is a bit like the question, When a tree falls in the forest and 
nobody is there to hear it does it make any sound?
  But there was one witness that appeared who made a lot of sound and 
whose statements are so apropos I have taken the floor to read most of 
them into the Record. His full statement is available to anyone who 
wants to go into the committee. I will not take the

[[Page S10135]]

time to read the full statement here, but for the Senators who 
participated in this debate I think hearing some of the comments this 
man made will be particularly enlightening. I am speaking of Curtis 
Gans, the director of the Committee for the Study of the American 
Electorate. The advisory board of that committee includes people such 
as David Gergen, Peter Hart, Abigail McCarthy, Cyrus Vance, former 
Secretary of State, Ted Van Dyk, Anne Wexler, Richard Whalen, and a 
number of others whose names I don't recognize but I am sure are 
equally distinguished.
  Mr. Gans points out he has been the director of this nonpartisan 
nonprofit committee for 21 years, engaged in the issues surrounding low 
and declining voter participation. That is his area of expertise. He 
has published publications, organized commissions, testified before 
Congress, engaged in this activity for a long period of time.
  With my apologies for quoting so much, I will get into the details of 
Mr. Gans' testimony because, as I said, I think it is particularly 
enlightening.
  I am now quoting from Mr. Gans:

       Mr. Chairman, with all respect to this committee's good 
     work and the chairman's good intentions, I would like to 
     suggest a few verities: that campaign finance is the most 
     overblown issue in American politics, that the problems we 
     face today in campaign finance are the products of bad law 
     passed in 1971 and 1974 and the severability contained in 
     that law and not the result of the Buckley versus Valeo 
     decision; that there are serious problems in the present 
     methods of financing campaigns, but that they are built 
     into the incentive structure current law creates; that, in 
     attempting to remedy the existing problems deliberations 
     should be guided by the principle of ``Do No Harm,'' (that 
     we have already seen the unintended consequences of good 
     intentions) and that it should proceed incrementally and 
     with true bipartisanship; and that the case for such 
     incremental reform can be done without the gross 
     vilification of individual leaders or the system as a 
     whole which is both inaccurate and does a profound 
     disservice by undermining--perhaps more than the laws 
     themselves--public faith in the political process.

  Mr. Gans goes on in another place in his testimony:

       I think the American people have long known that people 
     give money for essentially four reasons:
       1. That they are friends with the candidate or 
     officeholder.
       2. That the candidate or officeholder has views congruent 
     to the giver on one or more key issues.
       3. That the opponent has views which are anathema on one or 
     more key issues.
       4. To gain access to the candidate/officeholder to express 
     one's interest and point of view.
       I don't believe that the American people think that 
     Representative . . .

  He names the Member of the other body.

     is a liberal because he gets liberal money, or that . . .

  He names another Member of the other body.

     is a conservative because he gets conservative money.
       I do believe they understand that access is different from 
     influence--even if money buys access. I think they know that 
     access to a leader comes from several different sources--
     personal friendship, long-time loyalty, fame, grassroots 
     citizens organization and money, and that money does not 
     speak with one voice. I think the American people know--as 
     their responses to surveys about their own Congresspersons 
     and Senators (the ones with whom they have had first-hand 
     experience)--that the overwhelming majority of leaders are 
     honorable leaders who arrive at public policy decisions on a 
     basis other than contributions. And that if there is cynicism 
     about the profession as a whole, it is not because of its 
     actions, but because they have been vilified by those who 
     seek reform.

  Later on in his statement, Mr. Gans gives what I find to be two 
fascinating questions:

       I am fond of asking the question: ``What do Social 
     Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent 
     Children, Federal aid to education, the Civil Rights Act, the 
     Voting Rights Act, the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
     Council on Environmental Quality have in common?''
       The answer is that they were all enacted and created when 
     individuals could give unlimited and undisclosed amounts of 
     money to candidates, often in unmarked paper bags, and when 
     the Republican party usually enjoyed a 3-1 spending advantage 
     over the Democrats. (As one staff member of this committee 
     has pointed out, it should also be noted that the Hatch and 
     Taft-Hartley Acts were also enacted in this period, lest the 
     Republicans think reform would be a good thing for their 
     policy ends.)
       What this incandescently shows us is that major public 
     policy is a matter of leadership and citizen consensus rather 
     than campaign cash.
  Mr. Gans goes on in his second question, equally compelling in my 
opinion:

       I am also fond of asking a second question, ``What do 
     Michael Huffington, Clayton Williams, Rudy Boschwitz, Mark 
     Dayton, Lew Lehrman, Jack Brooks, Guy VanderJagt, Steve 
     Forbes and, if anyone remembers, John Connally, have in 
     common?''
       The answer is that each and every one of them spent 
     millions of dollars of their own money, outspent their 
     opponents by as much as 5-1 and lost.

  When he gets to discussing our current problems, Mr. Gans has this to 
say.

       . . . campaign finance laws were enacted in 1971 and 1974, 
     whose only beneficially durable features were the mandating 
     of public disclosure of some of the money in politics, the 
     provision for partial public financing of campaigns and the 
     establishment of an agency, which for whatever its flaws, has 
     attempted to do a decent job of disclosure and tracking and 
     improving election law.

  Later, he says:

       That law were challenged and substantial parts of the law 
     were overturned in Buckley. The Supreme Court ruled, and I 
     believe rightly, not, as some would have us believe, that 
     ``money is speech,'' but rather that money is necessary for 
     speech to be heard. Accordingly, the Court ruled against 
     spending limits--as inhibiting speech and competition (about 
     which there is considerable evidence) unless such limits were 
     truly voluntary and until there were compensatory benefits to 
     insure that there would be a full and fair hearing of 
     campaign speech. It overturned restrictions on the use of 
     personal funds in campaigns. But it left stand, I think 
     wrongly, the $1,000 contribution limits (to meet the 
     ``appearance of corruption,'' and established a ``bright 
     line'' of ``express advocacy''--the specific advocacy to vote 
     for or against a particular candidate, so named, as the only 
     place in which the amount of money spent on such advocacy 
     could be regulated.

       Because the law law was written so that it was severable--
     that the provisions which were not struck down--would remain 
     in place, we emerged with an accident waiting to happen, a 
     partial law for which evasion would prove not only likely, 
     but perhaps necessary. We ended up with contribution limits 
     that were constraining and subject to strict disclosure, hard 
     money for both candidates and national parties which were 
     severely restricted and subject to disclosure both on the 
     contribution and expenditure level, soft money--to nonfederal 
     party accounts and to nonprofit groups--which were 
     unregulated and only partially disclosed. . . . The problems 
     with the resulting system became evidence early.

  Mr. Gans goes on to give us a personal example that I found 
fascinating. He says:

       (On the issue of venture capital, I can speak from some 
     experience. I provided the theory for and helped organize in 
     1967 something called ``the Dump Johnson Movement,'' and by 
     the accident of being one of two persons who knew who 
     populated that movement, I became staff director of Senator 
     Eugene McCarthy's 1968 Presidential campaign. When the 
     candidate announced on November 30, 1967, he was unknown to 
     57 percent of the American people; in early February, he 
     stood at 2 percent in the polls in New Hampshire, the 
     first primary, and there was near-universal opinion that 
     one could not beat a sitting President within his own 
     party. If we had had to live within the present 
     contribution limits, that campaign would never have 
     happened and the people of the United States would have 
     been denied the opportunity to express their opinion on 
     the war in Vietnam and Johnson's leadership within the 
     political process. There was neither the time to raise the 
     money or an adequately accessible number of small 
     contributors to make that effort possible. And we do not 
     today know how many other legitimate challengers have been 
     denied the opportunity since 1974 to compete because of a 
     lack of venture capital.)

  Now, apropos of this debate, Mr. Gans has some interesting things to 
say about that great bugaboo, soft money:

       Then, there is the question of ``soft money.'' I, along 
     with Dr. Herbert Alexander and Dr. Anthony Corrado, among 
     comparatively dispassionate and nonpartisan observers, have 
     long been a defender of soft money. I have done so because my 
     research shows that in competitive campaigns for the U.S. 
     Senate, nearly 60 percent . . . of the hard money campaign 
     budget goes to televised advertising, 30 percent usually is 
     expended on fundraising, and the balance on candidate travel 
     and staff. In this situation, soft money are the only funds 
     then and now available for activities involving people--
     grassroots campaigning, voter registration and education and 
     party development.
       But beginning in 1992, soft money has increasingly been 
     used for none of these. Instead, almost all of these 
     unregulated moneys have been poured into television 
     advertising, which is the antithesis of grassroots 
     organization and party development. They underline 
     participation and erode respect for either party. It is safe 
     to say that one reason the Democratic National Committee is 
     substantially in the business of refunding illegal 
     contributions is that they so denuded their

[[Page S10136]]

     staff during the campaign to put every last dollar into 
     advertising that there was no one left to exercise oversight.
       All of which is to suggest that--without the high-flown 
     rhetoric about corruption, elections being bought and public 
     policy being for sale--both supporters and critics of current 
     and choice reform proposals see some of the same problems.
       The question is what to do. And therein lies the rub.

  Mr. Gans says:

       I will leave to others the argument about the implication 
     of limits on the First Amendment guarantees of free speech. 
     While I agree with them, leaders like Senator Mitch 
     McConnell, Ira Glasser, Roy Schotland, among a host of 
     others, can carry this argument better than I. I would rather 
     deal in the world of practicality.

  He goes on to say:

       I think there are four verities which will, at least in my 
     limited lifetime and perhaps through the lifetime of my ten-
     year-old child, continue to hold:
       1. That because of the recent realignment in the South, the 
     Republican Party will continue to have, at the very minimum, 
     a cloture-proof minority. The impact of this on campaign 
     finance law is that campaigns will be run for the forseeable 
     future largely or totally on private money.

  I think his implication there is that he knows the Republican Party 
is opposed to public funding.

       2. That the Supreme Court is highly unlikely ever to rule 
     that an individual cannot spend whatever he or she wants of 
     his or her personal money on his or her campaign. Thus, we 
     will continue to have self-financed millionaires running for 
     office.
       3. That the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to rule that 
     like-minded people cannot band together, organize, 
     participate and contribute to campaigns. Thus, we will 
     continue to have political action committees.
       4. That the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to say that 
     groups and individuals independent of campaigns cannot 
     express their points of view on the issues and candidates up 
     for election. Thus, we will continue to have independent 
     expenditures.
       (Two things in this regard should be noted. The recent 
     statement by 126 legal scholars, organized by the Brennan 
     Center, was notably silent on these issues. Secondly, Mr. 
     James Bopp's excellent law review article which chronicles 
     various recent cases regarding independent expenditures shows 
     that, if anything, both the Court--in the Colorado case, and 
     the courts, in general, are likely to expand the ability of 
     both parties and independent groups to exercise their free 
     speech rights in the electoral context.)
       All of which suggests to me that no closed system can or, 
     from my point of view, should be created and that limits will 
     not work.
       Do we really want to continue the current low level of 
     contribution limits and continue to advantage millionaires 
     and those with large rolodexes of midlevel and large 
     contributors?
       Do we really want to abolish soft money if the net effect 
     will be simply to starve the political parties and drive 
     money toward independent expenditures?

  He says:

       In some mythical world it might be conceivable to create a 
     system of limits which would not have downside effects--that 
     would be high enough to insure competition, that would 
     provide for full accountability, and would provide varying 
     forms of compensation for the inequities that grants the 
     constitutional rights to such entities as millionaires and 
     independent expenditures may create.

  Madam President, I love this sentence. It summarizes better than 
anything I could say how I feel about the enforcement procedures that 
we are having discussion about here:

       But to administer such a program would likely take a 
     bureaucracy larger than the Department of Defense and a 
     litigation budget considerably in excess of the Department of 
     Justice and the tobacco companies combined.

  Well, what does Mr. Gans have to offer in the way of a solution? He 
says this toward the end of his testimony:

       I think at this time there is a possibility of real 
     bipartisan agreement on a number of modest, but not 
     unimportant steps.
       1. That we mandate full and timely disclosure of all 
     contributions and expenditures above a certain level and 
     within a certain timeframe--including the expenditures and 
     larger contributions to State parties and independent 
     expenditure groups.
       2. That we establish nationwide computerization of finance 
     records and mandate electronic filing and fast release of all 
     things mandated to be disclosed.
       3. That we define adequately what a foreign contribution 
     is, provide strict prohibition on such contribution and 
     provide teeth in the enforcement of this provision.
       4. That, at least within this mandate, we empower the 
     federal election commission and give it the resources to do 
     its job.
       5. That we indeed do something about soft money. But that 
     we need to think carefully about what we do. To abolish soft 
     money would send money into independent expenditures and, in 
     the absence of substantially raising the amount which can be 
     given in hard money, starve already atrophying parties.
       There is, to my mind, a better way. Which is that soft 
     money has been justified on the basis that it exists to 
     provide a source of funds for grassroots activity and party 
     building. Let us limit its use to that. Specifically, let us, 
     as we have not until now, recognize in law that such funds 
     exist, deny their use for broadcast advertising and overrule 
     the Federal Election Commission's decision that ``generic'' 
     advertising is not broadcast advertising as stated in 
     existing law. If we did that we would either reduce the 
     demand for soft money or there would be enormous amounts of 
     money moving in the right direction--in activities that 
     educate and engage the citizenry and strengthen and build 
     political institutions rather than in destroying the will to 
     vote.
       This would not solve all the problems contained within the 
     campaign finance conundrum, particularly with respect to 
     contribution limits, independent expenditures and the overall 
     and spiralling demand for money. But it would be a good 
     start. It would make the system profoundly more accountable, 
     and it would correct the worst abuses of soft money without 
     rendering the parties impotent.

  Finally, as he concludes, Mr. Gans summarizes this whole circumstance 
in language that is one of those phrases you say afterward, ``Gee, I 
wish I had written that.''
  This is his conclusion.

       The dialogue on campaign finance has generated a maximum 
     amount of heat and a minimum amount of light.
       Our political system has been called corrupt. Our Congress 
     bought. Our leaders cowardly. All in the name of attempting 
     to force through a particular set of ill-thought out 
     proposals for reform on a Congress which well understands 
     their weakness.
       Those responsible for this dialogue are Common Cause, 
     Public Citizen and their mouthpieces particularly on the 
     editorial boards of The Washington Post and New York Times. 
     And while both the latter are great newspapers with noble 
     journalistic traditions, with respect to this set of issues, 
     all should be ashamed.
       Not only because it is not true, but because they, by this 
     attitude, much more than the admittedly flawed system of 
     campaign finance, are deepening the cynicism of an already 
     increasingly cynical public.
       I know the overwhelming majority of our leaders are 
     honorable. I know many have demonstrated courage in their 
     lives and in their political conduct. I know that, despite 
     many flaws, this nation's political system is the greatest in 
     the world or at least among the greatest.
       It is time to stand up to the bullies and cool the 
     dialogue--to pinpoint our flaws precisely and address them, 
     but not to tear down the system most of us love and are 
     seeking to improve.

  As I said at the outset, Madam President, I apologize for quoting so 
much from one man's testimony. But I found it compelling. I find myself 
in agreement with almost all of it, if not all of it. I am particularly 
in agreement with his statements that our problems arise in large part 
because of the flaws in the current law, and the lack of severability 
that occurred when the law came before the Court, so that when the 
Court found portions of it unconstitutional they did not strike down 
the entire law. And we were left with, as Mr. Gans says, ``an accident 
waiting to happen.''
  I know in the context of this debate we cannot start with a clean 
sheet of paper and move in the direction that Mr. Gans outlined. But if 
in fact, as many are predicting, and as, frankly, I expect nothing 
comes of the present effort to enact McCain-Feingold, I hope that 
instead of walking away from it shaking our heads and pointing our 
fingers at each other that we take a clear look at Mr. Gans' approach, 
which would be to, as he quotes Abraham Lincoln, ``think anew and act 
anew,'' and say, We can solve this problem. We can solve it in a 
bipartisan manner. But we can do it in such a way that would not create 
all of the evils that his testimony so graphically describes.
  I thank my colleagues for their indulgence in allowing me to read so 
much.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I must say that it is interesting when 
we involve ourselves in aggressive and controversial debates that we 
find from time to time we disagree with colleagues for whom we have the 
greatest respect. That is certainly the case with me for the Senator 
from Utah. He is one of the best Members of the U.S. Senate, and I have 
been privileged to work with him on a lot of things. And, yet, I 
profoundly disagree with him on

[[Page S10137]]

this issue. I want to spend a bit of time explaining why that is the 
case.

  In September 1796, George Washington announced that he was retiring 
after some 45 years of service. I want to read just a paragraph from 
his Farewell Address, which is read each year here in this Chamber.
  George Washington wrote:

       This government, the offspring of our own choice, 
     uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and 
     mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in 
     the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, 
     and containing within itself a provision for its own 
     amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your 
     support.

  George Washington was right about that. I wonder today, as perhaps 
others have before me, why has the confidence and support of the 
American people in this institution receded? What is causing that?
  I happen to enjoy public policy. I rather like politics. I feel that 
it is an enormous privilege to serve here in the U.S. Senate. And, yet, 
I think the political system is a system that has become distorted in a 
caricature of itself. The question is, what can we do about that? What 
should we do about that? In answering that, we should probably answer, 
what is the problem? Answer the question, what is the problem? And then 
define, what is the solution?
  I have listened for the last hour and a half with great interest to 
my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, who I am sure will be back on the 
floor momentarily. He made references when the Senator from Arizona was 
speaking that no one can nor should be prevented from involving 
themselves in issue advocacy, et cetera. No one that I am aware of on 
the floor of the Senate has ever proposed such a position. No one that 
I am aware of is suggesting that anyone under any circumstances in this 
country can be prevented from speaking, or prevented from paying for a 
political message. No one has made that proposition.
  So, to the extent that it is being represented that is so, let us 
say, yes, that is the case. And let's move on to what we are debating, 
and not create a new debate.
  When the Lincoln and Douglas debates were well underway, at one 
point, I am told, President Lincoln was so frustrated because he 
couldn't get Mr. Douglas to understand his point. And finally he said 
to him in great frustration, ``Well, then tell me. How many legs does a 
horse have?''
  Douglas said, ``Why, four, of course.''
  Lincoln said, ``Well, now if you were to call a horse's tail a leg, 
how many legs would the horse have?''
  Douglas said, ``Why, five.''
  Lincoln said, ``See, that is where you are wrong. Simply calling it a 
leg doesn't make it a leg at all.''
  That is the point in this debate. One can take positions. But if they 
are not on point and totally relevant to what is being discussed, what 
is the value of the position?
  I want to describe that just a bit in terms of what I mean by that.
  The Senator from Wisconsin read an advertisement. I want to read it 
again because I think it is at the heart of this discussion, and it is 
at the heart of the mess that we find ourselves in in campaign finance 
reform. This was an ad in a Senate race down South. I will just add as 
an aside that both political parties did this. Independent groups did 
it. But here is an ad.

       Senate candidate Winston Bryant's budget as attorney 
     general increased 71 percent. Bryant has taken taxpayer-
     funded junkets to the Virgin Islands, Alaska and Arizona, and 
     spent $100,000 on new furniture. Unfortunately, as the 
     State's top law enforcement official, he has never opposed 
     the parole of any convicted criminal, even rapists and 
     murderers; and almost 4,000 Arkansas prisoners have been sent 
     back to prison for crimes committed while they were out on 
     parole. ``Winston Bryant: government waste, political 
     junkets, soft on crime. Call Winston Bryant and tell him to 
     give the money back.''

  Should there be some position that says they don't have any right to 
say this? No. Whoever did this has every right to put this on 
television, and did. Do they have a right to put this on TV with soft 
money so that those who contributed are never disclosed? Do they have a 
right to say this is not part of the political process; this is not 
part of the campaign; it is totally unrelated; this is an issue 
advocacy commercial? Does that pass anybody's laugh test? Not in a 
million years.
  That is why one Senator, when asked repeatedly by the Senator from 
Arizona, ``Do you really think these are independent; do you really 
believe these are independent expenditures?''--referencing a series of 
these kinds of things. It was never answered. I suspect the answer 
would be no.
  We all understand what is going on. The same people are involved. 
They hire common television producers to produce the commercials, and 
the same fundraising networks. But it has become a legal form of 
cheating. It has taken the old tax reform law and manipulated it and 
distorted it to the point that is no longer recognizable, and becomes 
what I think is a legal form of cheating. And I say that we ought to 
stop this. Stop it by saying You can't say it? No. You can say that. 
But if you want to get involved in this particular Senate campaign, 
then you must abide by the rules. You say it by hard dollars and 
disclose who donated the hard dollars.
  That is the point. It is not that they can't say it. It is that they 
are required to use the same hard dollars that the people involved in 
the race are using, and getting it from the same sources and disclosing 
who made the contribution.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. BENNETT. I hesitate to intrude when he is in full cry because I 
don't like to be intruded on when I am in a full cry. But I am 
emboldened by the kind of words that my colleague offered at the 
beginning.
  This is a personal observation. I agree with the Senator absolutely. 
That ad should be identified; that it was clearly part of the campaign. 
I am not any more fooled than anybody else. However, we are driven to 
that kind of chicanery by the present law.
  My solution--and I am speaking clearly just for myself and not for 
anybody else on this side--would be to repeal the present law and allow 
the campaigns to go back to a degree of honesty. I do say to the 
Senator: I believe that under the present ruling of the Court the 
statement by the Senator from Kentucky is correct. The Court would rule 
that since the magic words were not in that ad it would in fact not be 
considered a campaign ad under the legal definition.
  I agree with the Senator. The legal definition is artificial and 
improper.
  But I would solve it in ways other than passing the McCain-Feingold.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the contribution because the contribution 
made by the Senator from Utah is that this sort of thing is improper, 
and that it is chicanery.
  If that is the case--if in fact what I just described is improper and 
chicanery--then the question isn't whether there is a problem. The 
question is, What do we do about the problem?
  And there are some people, as the Senator from Utah especially knows, 
in this Chamber who would say, What problem? There is no problem. The 
only problem we have, they say, is there is not enough money in 
politics.
  I want to show my colleagues what is happening with campaign finance.
  This line, the red line, describes what is happening with funding for 
political campaigns in this country.
  I assume we can find people who will come to the floor and will wave 
their arms, and say on this floor and on the floor on the other side of 
this building, Well, the American people spend x hundreds of millions 
of dollars on Rolaids, they spend x hundreds of millions of dollars on 
Preparation H, and Oh Henry candy bars and, therefore--what? Therefore, 
what? It is totally irrelevant.
  The point is what is happening to campaign financing is it is 
mushrooming and escalating out of control. Is there a problem? Or is it 
just fine?
  In the paper today there is a statement by one of the leaders of the 
other body saying there is not enough money in politics; we need more 
money in politics. In fact, those who debate this issue saying there is 
too much money in politics are wrong. We need more money in politics, 
they say.
  I could not disagree more. You see what is happening. There is too 
much money in politics. Too much money. In State after State after 
State, all of these campaigns are mushrooming out

[[Page S10138]]

of control, and it is not just the campaigns; it is the independent 
expenditures and all the groups weighing in with chicanery and with 
improper, in my judgment, spending, packaging up things saying, by the 
way, this is independent, this is express advocacy, this is issue 
advertising. And all of us know that you cannot say that any longer 
with a straight face. It is all connected. It is all part of the same 
campaign. It becomes legal cheating. If we do not have the courage to 
stand up when we see this proliferation of legal cheating going on and 
saying, if that's the way the law is going to be interpreted and if, 
after pulling the teeth of the FEC, we complain they can't chew, if we 
are left in that position, then let us at least change the campaign 
finance law to know what we should do in this country and take at least 
some of the influence of money out of campaigns.
  Now, there is a proposal that is being debated in the Senate called 
the McCain-Feingold proposal. I don't think it is perfect. If I had 
written it, I would have written it differently. I cosponsored it, but 
I would have written it differently. But it is a proposal that deals 
with a whole range of things, and it needs to deal with some more. I 
hope that we will add to it an amendment to restore a portion that was 
not included when it was brought to the floor of the Senate but which 
was included when it was written. That provision is spending limits.
  Now, I want to deal just a bit with this question of spending limits 
and free speech. I noticed this weekend some of the columnists talked 
about the speech patrol and the infringement of free speech, and so on.
  Spending limits, which is not now in this bill, which I think should 
be--and I hope there will be an amendment we can vote on to restore 
spending limits--is an attempt to say let's establish a set of rules by 
which campaigns are waged and let's try to see if we can, if not 
establish enforceable spending limits, at least establish voluntary 
spending limits with sufficient incentive that most campaigns would 
abide by voluntary limits. The limit might be $1.5 million in one 
State, $3 million in another, less than that in a third State, in which 
both candidates agree here is a practical limit on spending.
  As I said, there are lots of ways to do that. The Supreme Court has 
already ruled by a one-vote margin that enforceable spending limits is 
not appropriate; it is unconstitutional. I think the Supreme Court 
ought to be asked to rule again on another case because, if it is that 
close, I think you can make the case they might rule differently in 
other circumstances. Notwithstanding that, I think we ought to try to 
work to achieve some approach by which we are able to get spending 
limits in campaigns.
  The problem is campaigns cost too much. That's why money has such a 
corrosive influence in politics. Campaigns cost too much. How do you 
get to the solution of that? Well, you try to establish some spending 
limits, some spending limits that are practical, that you can make 
stick.
  John F. Kennedy used to say that every mother kind of hoped her child 
might grow up to be President as long as they didn't have to be active 
in politics. I suppose he was musing about how unpopular the process of 
politics is. I am not someone who believes that politics is something 
that is underhanded or dirty. I think politics is noble and honorable. 
I am involved in it because I enjoy the political process. But I do not 
enjoy what is going on with respect to campaign finance. I think this 
system is broken. No one in this Chamber can look at this system and 
with a straight face say, yes, this system sure does serve America 
well.
  This system does not serve this country well. This system is a 
disservice to the country. Now, do we fix it by suggesting, as one 
Senator today has implied, that we prevent this group or that group 
from being able to speak in the political system? No. No one has ever 
recommended that--no one. So if you want to have that debate, have that 
debate alone. You can always win a debate that no one else is involved 
with. I say good for you; you just won a debate that I was advocating.
  We are not suggesting, none of us, that we would infringe on the 
right of any group to say anything at any time. I am saying, however, 
that when you take a look at advertisements like the one I described 
and read in the Chamber, as did Senator Feingold, and understand that 
this is a pole vault over the legal definition and becomes on its face 
a farce and an attempt to undermine the process, if we are not willing 
to decide to correct this, then there is no hope for us to deal with 
the issue of campaign financing.
  We have a bill in the Chamber that is called a reform bill. It is 
cosponsored by Senator McCain from Arizona and Senator Feingold from 
Wisconsin. Both of them are Senators for whom I have a great deal of 
respect. I do not agree with them on everything either, but they 
brought a reform to the floor of the Senate. It is interesting; at 
least for a half-hour or so today I heard a description of this bill 
that doesn't match the bill. The description was that somehow Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold want to prohibit criticism of the Congress. 
So I felt, well, maybe I may have missed something here. Maybe they 
have introduced a bill that I hadn't read previously.
  But then I realized that is simply taking the debate and moving it 
over here to create an issue that does not exist because one is 
uncomfortable debating the issue of McCain-Feingold.
  No one is suggesting there would be any manner that one could devise 
in McCain-Feingoldo prohibit criticism of the U.S. Congress. Lord, read 
a couple hundred years of history and discover about a Congress that's 
been criticized. No one is suggesting that you could not do anything 
that constitutionally prohibits criticism of the Congress. We have 
generous criticism of the Congress, always will. The issue that Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold address is not criticism of the Congress. 
It is the corrosive influence of money in campaigns. And ads like this 
sponsored and run by organizations whose funding is secret, undisclosed 
to anyone in this country, collected in soft money increments perhaps 
of $20,000, $50,000, maybe $100,000, could be $1 million. We have seen 
1 million chunks of money go in soft money, undisclosed secret money, 
through organizations used as express advertising or express advocacy 
rather than declare they are not part of the campaign. What a bunch of 
rubbish. It does not pass any laugh test in any cafe in this country, 
and that is why we must be serious about trying to find a way to 
thoughtfully reform this system.
  I would like to just mention two additional items before I close. One 
of the concerns I have about our political system is so much of the 
advertising is negative. There is nothing you can do about that; I 
understand that. We cannot prohibit this kind of advertisement. We can 
say, if you are going to put this kind of advertisement on the air, you 
have to play by the rules and get hard money and disclose the donors.
  There is nothing wrong with that. But we cannot prohibit any 
advertisement. So much of it now is negative and so much of it is a 30-
second little political explosion that goes on across our country where 
candidates are not even hardly named, at least with respect to the 
person's campaign, in financing the 30-second ad. It is a nameless, 
faceless, little bomb directed to destroy, tar or feather some other 
candidate.
  One of the small amendments that I intend to offer is the following. 
We now require in Federal law that television stations provide the 
lowest cost for television commercials during certain periods of the 
year. In other words, the lowest part of their rate card must be 
offered to campaigns for those political commercials. I am going to 
propose that the lowest cost on their rate card be provided candidates 
whose commercials are at least 1 minute in length and on which the 
candidate appears 75 percent of the time. I am not suggesting you 
cannot continue the 30-second slash-and-tear ads. Everybody can do 
that. Why should we reward those advertisements with the bottom of the 
rate card? Why don't we as a matter of law say we will provide and 
require the lowest rate be offered to those commercials that are at 
least 1 minute in length and on which at least 75 percent of the time 
the candidate appears in the commercial.

  Well, we will have a debate about that. I suppose some will say, 
well, that is interference. We interfere already by saying you must 
charge the

[[Page S10139]]

lowest rate that a television station offers for advertising for a 
political campaign during certain portions of the year. Perhaps we 
could do so providing an incentive that the campaign commercials be 
somewhat instructive and somewhat related to the candidate who is 
actually paying for the campaign commercial.
  There are several kinds of air pollution in this country, one of 
which is political air pollution, and if we can do anything to in any 
small, measurable way, provide a little more thoughtful approach to 
campaign advertising through an incentive, then I would like to see us 
do it. I expect, however, that when and if I am able to offer this 
amendment, some will suggest it is some sort of colossal interference. 
I think not. I think it is a sensible, thoughtful way to address that 
issue.
  Finally, if the problem is there is too much money in politics and 
the solution is to reform our campaign financing system in one way or 
another, then how will we reform our system? Well, we reform it by 
bringing a bill to the floor and passing it, doing the same in the 
House, going to conference, agreeing in conference and getting a bill 
to the President he can sign.
  Now, is that likely? What is likely to be the future of campaign 
finance reform? I applaud Senator Lott for bringing it to the floor of 
the Senate for a debate. Giving us the opportunity to discuss this 
issue is important. But it is the starting line, not the finish line. 
The finish line for Congress will be when we have, on a bipartisan 
basis hopefully, achieved an agreement on a campaign finance reform 
package that will give the American people some basic confidence that 
what we are holding are elections not auctions; some basic confidence 
that we will step away from this exponential increase in spending on 
political campaigns.
  Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have taken a first long jump here 
to get this legislation to the floor of the Senate, and I hope that in 
the coming few days we can open up the process and allow some 
amendments and have a vote.
  I noticed today, when the Senate opened for business, amendments were 
offered in a very careful way. In fact, it took, I believe, six 
different amendments today in a series of maneuvers to fill the tree 
which, for those who don't know about our parliamentary situation, 
means that no one else is allowed to do anything at this point because 
the parliamentary tree is full. Amendments are not allowed. So we have 
had a maneuver that was accomplished today to fill the tree.
  So we will see where all that leads. Every time somebody does that--
and both sides have done it about a handful of occasions--every time 
someone has done it, they have done it to prevent someone else from 
doing something later. I hope that is not the case. I hope we can shake 
this tree a bit and shake it sufficiently so that we can offer some 
amendments and reach a conclusion on campaign finance reform that is 
good for this country and restores some confidence in the American 
people that we are moving in the right direction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLARD). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  This, as the tone of the debate indicates, is a critically important 
debate with consequences that go well beyond the subject at hand, 
campaign finance reform, because the infusion of massive amounts of 
money into our political process affects so many other areas in which 
we are supposed to govern and to legislate, and it is why this 
appropriately becomes a priority topic.
  As I hear the seriousness of the debate in the Chamber, I must share 
my own disappointment that there is murmuring outside the Chamber that 
nothing is going to happen this year, that there is not going to be any 
campaign finance reform legislation adopted, that this is just a lot of 
sound and fury which, as the bard reminded us, will signify nothing.
  Well, that would be an infuriating tragedy, an outrageous, in my 
opinion, abdication of our responsibility, a shocking refusal to face 
the facts that have come out at the hearings of the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee, on which I am privileged to serve. That committee's 
hearings show that ours is a system in crisis, and it is a crisis that 
affects so many aspects of our Government.
  I hope these murmurings are wrong, and I hope that the debate we have 
begun in the Chamber will signify more than noise; it will signify the 
beginning of a genuine effort to change the laws, to go back in some 
ways to where we were after the last great campaign finance scandal, 
which was the Watergate scandal, to go back to the laws adopted after 
that scandal which set limits not only on contributions but on spending 
in a campaign.
  In my capacity as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I 
have had what might be called a front-and-center view of the 
extraordinary failures of the status quo campaign finance system, 
failures that routinely stem from the corrupting influence of big money 
in politics. As if peeling back the layers of an onion, in this case a 
spoiled onion, our investigation slowly revealed story after story of 
unseemly and negligent behavior that all too often seemed to cross over 
the line into lawlessness.
  I know the Governmental Affairs Committee's hearings were 
controversial. Sometimes they were criticized for being partisan. In 
fact, sometimes they were too partisan. But the fact is, though they 
were not always orderly and they weren't always neat and they weren't 
always pretty, they told a story. They told a story of a system gone 
out of control and the consequences it has had on our great democracy.
  There was the international entrepreneur who never registered to vote 
because he thought his money was more influential than his franchise. 
The sad fact is, he was right.
  There was the story of the White House official who advised a 
potential contributor, whom he had never met, whom he had just talked 
to over the phone, about how to effectively skirt tax liabilities on a 
proposed donation of somewhere between $1 million and $5 million.
  There was the Republican Party research institute that defaulted on a 
loan from a Hong Kong businessman and then swindled him out of the 
interest he had earned on his own money, which was deposited as 
collateral for the loan; and the party chairman, Democratic Party 
chairman, who allegedly called on the CIA--although there is doubt on 
this, conflicting testimony, but an allegation that the chairman called 
on the CIA to help burnish the image of a questionable contributor.
  In no uncertain terms, as far as I am concerned, people with fat 
wallets bought access at the highest levels of our Government, 
executive and congressional, and some Government leaders were perfectly 
willing to auction off their clout.
  As California entrepreneur and major Democratic donor Johnny Chung 
observed, ``The White House is a subway: You have to put in coins to 
open the gates.''
  Clearly, the two parties, in their mad scramble for money, 
shamelessly exploited during the 1996 election cycle well-intentioned 
campaign finance laws to the point of rendering them meaningless. In 
the end, their debased standards of the pressure-cooker world of high-
stakes election campaigns mocked one of the basic principles of our 
democracy, the principle that all citizens have an equal vote, an equal 
voice in the governance of their country, an equal opportunity to 
influence its policies.
  Now we have an unfettered political fundraising system that neither 
serves the public interest nor deserves the public trust. No wonder the 
American people look on politics with a jaundiced eye. No wonder more 
and more of them have concluded their vote doesn't count, so they don't 
vote. I saw a survey awhile ago of 165 countries in the world today who 
conduct elections. The United States of America is 139th in terms of 
those of voting age who actually vote. Our proud democracy--we are 
proud to call it the greatest democracy in the world--we are 139th 
among the countries of the world in the percentage of our population 
that can vote that actually does vote. Don't you think part of that has 
to do with the conclusion that millions of our fellow Americans have 
made that their vote doesn't count, not if they don't have money?

[[Page S10140]]

  The proposal offered by Senators McCain and Feingold is, in my 
opinion, our best hope for changing this unacceptable status quo and 
for reviving public faith in our Government.
  The key to real reform, I conclude after sitting through the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee hearings, is less big money and less 
special interest money in the election process. That is exactly what 
the McCain-Feingold bill would do. The central provision of this bill 
is a ban on soft money; that is, a ban on unlimited contributions to 
the two national parties from corporations, unions, and wealthy 
individuals.
  It is hard to believe, but it actually was 1907 when a law was passed 
by this Congress that made it illegal for corporations to contribute to 
political campaigns. In the 1940's a similar law was passed regarding 
labor unions. How is it that in the 1996 election corporations and 
labor unions contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars individually, 
millions in some cases? It is because of this so-called soft money, 
this little opening that was created in a vaguely worded law that was 
then interpreted by the Federal Election Commission to allow people to 
give unlimited amounts of money to parties to help voter registration, 
get out the vote, that turned into a loophole large enough for a fleet 
of trucks--not Mack trucks but Brinks trucks--to go driving through.
  The explosive growth of soft money and the way it is spent 
represents, in my opinion, the most egregious abuse of our campaign 
finance laws today. Most of the controversial donations from the 1996 
campaigns were soft-money contributions. Most of the foreign money 
contributions that we took evidence on at the governmental Affairs 
Committee hearings were soft-money contributions.
  Soft money has played a role in Federal elections since 1980, the 
year after Congress tried, the way I mentioned, to enhance the role of 
national parties. But in 1996 it exploded--$272 million that we know of 
spent by both national parties in soft money in 1996, 13 times the 
amount spent in 1984, an increase that has dramatically changed the 
landscape of campaign fundraising and of American democracy. By the 
November 1996 elections, the soft-money loophole had become a cash 
bonanza for the two parties, an irresistible opportunity to raise and 
spend money, each driving the other to keep up, and the easiest way to 
do it was to raise big money. It became, for that reason, the most 
expedient way for an elite class of contributors to buy access; 
frankly, for an elite class of contributors to be exploited, in some 
sense coerced, by the political class into giving contributions of 
unprecedented size.
  The quintessential example of trading money for access was the 
brutally honest and now legendary Roger Tamraz. An international 
banker-businessman, Tamraz donated $300,000 to the Democratic Party 
because he wanted to talk to President Clinton and other high officials 
of our Government about his plans to finance an oil pipeline through 
the former Soviet Union. The National Security Council warned against 
admitting Tamraz to the White House. They had already decided, in the 
due and diligent exercise of Governmental decisionmaking, that his 
proposal was not the right proposal for a pipeline in that particular 
part of the world. They understood that he was falsely claiming White 
House support for his projects. They warned that, if high officials of 
our Government gave him even a meeting, even were seen close to him, he 
would trade on that proximity in the area of the world in which he was 
doing business.
  But Tamraz was nothing if not persistent. He said to us at one point 
that, ``I'm the kind of person, if I can't find my way through a door, 
I'll go through a window. And if that window is closed, I'll go through 
another window until I get in.'' He went so far as to enlist a buddy at 
the CIA to lobby the administration on his behalf. But what he really 
did was kept going to the window with his checkbook. Eventually, he was 
invited to six different social gatherings.
  The very troubling clincher is this. When I asked Tamraz when, not 
whether he registered to vote--because I then was going to ask him what 
party he was in, trying to prove the fact that parties didn't matter to 
him, ideology didn't matter to him, he was just buying access, he was 
trying to influence our Government with bucks--when I asked him when he 
registered to vote he shocked me by saying he wasn't registered to 
vote. When you think about it, in his world, the world that soft money 
invites, there is no need to register to vote. His money was more 
important and bought more access than any vote could. It was as if he 
was saying: Oh, voting is a nostalgic exercise for those millions of 
people out there who don't have influence--most Americans. They are the 
ones who can take the time to register and vote. I buy my way, in 
America, to the highest levels of power. So Mr. Tamraz seemed to be 
saying.
  The right to vote, which was central to the creation of our country, 
the right to vote, for which our founders and succeeding generations of 
Americans have fought and died, didn't matter to Tamraz. He figured it 
out--$300,000 bought him a lot more access in this democracy than 
anybody who just votes had. This standard is so well embedded in our 
political system that when I asked him whether he got his money's 
worth, even though he never actually won White House support for his 
pipeline nor got a separate private meeting with the President, Tamraz 
said next time he'd double that donation to $600,000.
  I am not naive. People have always tried to do what Roger Tamraz did. 
As long as there have been governments, as long as there have been 
people with any power in any human society, people have tried to seek 
favor by conveying items of worth, and they will continue to do so. 
But, when soft money contributions open the door to unlimited 
contributions, when the competitive pressure of our political campaigns 
raises leads to spending without limits, the temptations will be that 
much greater for the influence peddlers and purchasers, for the 
hustlers to try to buy something big. Frankly, the temptation will be 
that much greater and, ultimately, for many, irresistible, for those in 
power to sell what the influence purchasers are trying to buy. That is 
why, in short, we have to ban soft money.
  The attempt to influence Government with purchases is nothing new. 
Look in the Bible. There is a prohibition there against judges or other 
leaders accepting gifts from anyone who comes before them for judgment, 
anyone who is affected by their leadership.
  The wisdom there was based on an understanding of human nature and 
the need for those in government to set limits to protect themselves 
and those they governed. People in government who exercise power are, 
after all is said and done, beneath their titles, no matter how high 
they are, just human beings with the same frailties as everyone else. 
Put them in the public competitive reality of a political campaign, and 
too many will not be able to say no, particularly while they see their 
opponents saying yes.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee's hearings have built significant 
support for banning soft money. Just last week, John Sweeney, the 
president of the AFL-CIO--his organization, in fact, contributed 
millions in soft money, almost all of it to the Democratic Party in the 
1996 cycle--said, soft money donations are ``polluting our political 
system.''
  Last week, a group of business leaders made essentially the same 
statement demanding a ban. Chief executives at Monsanto, General 
Motors, and Allied Signal have already dropped out of the soft money 
game. Why? They said it is impossible to track contributions to gauge 
their success. In other words, the payoff for five- or six- or seven-
figure contributions is simply not worth the expense.
  I will tell you something else they didn't say. Members of the Senate 
may have heard, as I have, from people who were solicited for soft 
money contributions, large contributions. They felt coerced. They felt 
it hard to say no. Think about it, if you are the executive of a 
business and you have a lot of contact with the Government and are 
regulated by the Government, if you are the executive of a business 
that has matters before Congress and a high official in the executive 
branch or the legislative branch calls you and asks for a large soft 
money contribution, it is hard to say no.
  If we are successful only in banning soft money, however, as 
important as

[[Page S10141]]

that is, our work will still be incomplete. Although I must say, if we 
could just ban soft money, I think we will have achieved enormously 
significant reform.
  But in the best of all worlds, it is not enough, and in the best of 
all bills, the McCain-Feingold bill, they don't stop at banning soft 
money. It is important to go on. Money is like water, it flows to the 
weakest point. Just as water spills through an unplugged gap in the 
dike, once one hole is filled, it will find the next hole, or it will 
find the weakest point in the dike to make a hole. Political money 
seeks unregulated gaps in our election laws.
  I do not say this simply as a matter of physics or theory. I say 
this, again, as a result of what we heard in the hearings before our 
committee. Money blocked by contribution limits to candidates flows 
instead into unlimited soft money contributions to parties. Money 
blocked by a soft money ban will be diverted in increasingly large 
amounts to unregulated issue ads.
  Issue ads are paid for by soft money raised by independent advocacy 
groups and parties. They are supposed to be about specific policy 
issues, not specific candidates. That is why unlimited amounts of money 
may be spent. But issue ads, as we heard discussed on this floor in the 
2 days of this debate, have actually become stealth candidate ads.
  Widespread abuse in the last election saw these ads hiding behind the 
veil of issue advocacy, even as they promoted or attacked individual 
candidates.
  A study by the nonpartisan independent Annenberg Public Policy Center 
found that 87 percent of the so-called issue advertisements broadcast 
in 1996 mentioned a candidate by name--87 percent mentioned a 
candidate. Almost 60 percent showed the likeness of a candidate.
  The Annenberg study further found that more than 40 percent of the 
1996 ads plainly attacked candidates, not issues. One of the witnesses 
before our committee said last week that by his review of the ads, the 
issue ads were actually more negative to candidates than the candidate 
ads were. Some ads don't bother with issues at all.

  One of these ads, run by opponents of a congressional candidate in 
Montana, simply used the air time to rehash the candidate's marital 
problems. Ads broadcast by the Democratic and Republican parties 
ostensibly on the issues in the 1996 Presidential campaign were little 
more than biography spots at best, promoting the election of President 
Clinton or of our former leader, Bob Dole.
  Issue ad sponsors, like the AFL-CIO or the National Rifle 
Association, are under no obligation to disclose the money they spend 
when they do issue ads. But when the ad zeros in on specific 
candidates, as we all know was the case and as the Annenberg study so 
brilliantly documents, clearly there is at least a violation of the 
spirit of the Federal spending limits. It is an end run on what the law 
says can be spent on a campaign.
  No one can be held accountable for the false or misleading 
information those ads might convey, because the public doesn't know who 
paid for the ads. And yet in the 1996 election cycle, advocacy groups 
and the two parties spent more than $135 million on issue ads. That is 
about one-third of the $400 million that was spent on broadcast 
advertising by all Federal candidates last year.
  Kathleen Hall Jameison, director of the Annenberg center, concluded 
that issue ads ``set an agenda different from that of either candidate 
and, in some cases, drown out the voices of these who are actually 
running for office.''
  We run the risk here, Mr. President, of the candidates becoming bit 
players in a contest that occurs at a higher level between dueling 
interest groups spending millions of dollars running issue ads with 
soft money.
  McCain-Feingold appropriately proposes a more precise distinction 
between ads supporting or opposing an issue versus those supporting or 
opposing a candidate. I am convinced, based on my own reading of the 
Supreme Court decisions, that that provision will withstand the 
constitutional test.
  The soft money ban and the crackdown on illegal issue ads, which I 
have spoken to, are two of the most critically important and 
politically realistic reforms that we can hope to make. I say 
politically realistic in the sense of being related to the political 
reality that we all have experienced in campaigns, and it was vividly 
documented in the hearings that the committee held.
  Other provisions in the McCain-Feingold bill--strengthening 
disclosure requirements, outlawing the solicitation of campaign 
donations in Federal buildings and limiting the amount of personal 
money that candidates may contribute to their own campaign--will also 
help bring our fundraising system back under control.
  But, Mr. President, I regret that the bill has been stripped of the 
voluntary spending limits in it, because I believe that ultimately the 
best way to end corruption or the appearance of corruption in campaigns 
is to impose spending limits on campaigns.
  I know that there is a disagreement among Members on whether that 
would be constitutional. Under the Buckley versus Valeo decision, 
mandatory spending limits would not be constitutional. If I had my 
druthers, as Li'l Abner used to say, personally I would like to see 
that 1976 Supreme Court decision overturned, because I think the 
central principle established by that case, that money equals speech, 
is not right, and, even if it had some validity in theory in 1976, it 
no longer reflects the reality of the last 20 years of campaign raising 
and spending.
  Money doesn't equal speech. How can speech be free if it costs money? 
How can speech be free if you have to spend money to get it or, as I 
believe my friend and colleague from Georgia, Senator Cleland, who is 
on the floor, said in our committee--and I paraphrase knowing I will 
not achieve the pungency that he did--if money equals speech, if you 
have to have big bucks to have speech, that means the people who don't 
have big bucks aren't going to have any speech. Is that what the 
Framers of the Constitution intended when they adopted the first 
amendment? I can't believe that they did.
  Several times in the history of the Supreme Court, the Justices have 
applied principles of law that did damage to our country and that 
experience ultimately proved were not realistic. That most tellingly 
was the case when the Court upheld segregation laws on a theoretical 
basis of equal protection when the reality of equal protection was not 
there.
  It took until 1954 when a massive amount of evidence was brought 
before the Supreme Court to show that separate but equal was in fact 
not equal--only then did the Court strike down those discriminatory 
laws. In another way, this was true with some of the labor laws adopted 
in the earlier part of this century.
  Minimum wage laws were originally struck down as violations of 
employee's rights to contract until a case was built by advocates for 
those laws which showed that the right to contract, though noble in 
theory, was not real when you had two unequal parties negotiating the 
contract. So the Supreme Court reversed itself, and upheld the minimum 
wage laws and maximum hour laws to protect working people from being 
exploited.
  Respectfully, I think the same scenario is true with regard to the 
interpretation of the first amendment rendered by the Supreme Court of 
1976 in Buckley. Let me just point out for the record, which a lot of 
folks forget--I forgot myself before I went back and read the Buckley 
decision--that the post-Watergate reforms, the 1974 Federal Election 
Campaign Act didn't just say that Mr. Buckley, who was a part-time 
resident of my State and truly one of the Lord's noble people, could 
spend his own money and not being restricted from doing so by the law, 
but the Buckley decision struck down the preexisting limits on what 
Members of Congress could spend in their campaigns--the 1974 act 
actually had limits that Members of both the Senate and the House could 
spend on their campaigns based on a certain amount per voter in the 
State--the Court struck that down on the theory that that was an 
element of free speech.
  But what is the reality? The reality is that the unlimited spending 
that has occurred has distorted and constricted free speech. It has 
limited the free speech of those who don't have the money. It has 
undercut the other fundamental bedrock principle of our Government that 
everybody should have equal access to Government. All people

[[Page S10142]]

are created equal, all created in God's image. Our rights were given to 
us not by Congress, but by our Creator, as it says in the first 
paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. That principle clearly 
has been compromised by the enormous sums of money people are spending 
in political campaigns today.
  I must also say that the testimony we heard, and I understand we 
didn't hear exactly a random sample of contributors of big soft money 
contributions, but it seemed to me, at least, that those generous 
contributions were not political speech in the way we normally 
contemplate.
  Roger Tamraz did not give $300,000 because he had a particular 
feeling that he wanted to express about an ideology, a candidate or a 
party. He was buying access. He was trying to make money. It was clear 
that he was willing to spend $300,000, $600,000 because he would have 
made hundreds of millions of dollars if his pipeline proposal had been 
adopted.
  Johnny Chung, Yogesh Ghandi, the whole range of people who were 
buying access through soft money, they were not interested in political 
speech as we know it, the kind of political speech that the Founders of 
our country established in our formative documents.
  They were buying a picture with the President to take back home, as 
one said, ``to put powder on my face so I would look better so I could 
convert that into business.'' They were looking to do business. They 
were looking to influence Government to make them richer. That is not 
political speech in the traditional way in which it has been known. 
They were advancing their interests.
  White House coffees, photo-ops with the President, breakfasts, 
lunches, dinners with Members of Congress--these are the things that 
top-dollar contributors enjoy. These are the things that are protected 
by the Buckley decision. These are things that we do not normally 
consider to be speech in the fullest sense of our democracy.
  Jefferson, I think, would be surprised--Madison, Hamilton, Adams, no 
matter which side they were on, in the early debates of our country's 
history, they would be surprised to see that it is the rights of Roger 
Tamraz and Johnny Chung that we are now using the first amendment to 
protect. The Supreme Court adopted that theory in 1976, but now we have 
the facts. And with the facts, I hope someday we can reverse this 
decision.
  I know that more than 20 State attorneys general of both parties have 
formed a task force to see if they can find a case to take back to the 
Supreme Court to relitigate the Buckley decision, because the fact is 
that you cannot really have contribution limits without spending limits 
that are effective.
  When candidates and parties are free to spend as much money as they 
want, they will. That is what the record shows. They will find ways to 
raise that money in larger and larger amounts even if it means ignoring 
the results and breaking the law because the stakes are enormous. Those 
who continue to argue for the Buckley decision are just not considering 
the realities of what has happened under that decision. And those 
realities are based on the realities of human nature and the give-and-
take of today's real political world.
  Despite all of that, we have to legislate within the Buckley 
decision. We have to recognize that reality. Within that decision, I 
think the McCain-Feingold proposal, by banning soft money and 
regulating issue ads, does as much as we can possibly do and does a lot 
to put us back on course to protect the equal access to and founding 
principles of our Government.
  If we do not adopt something like this, I hesitate to think about 
what the future is going to look like. Despite all the congressional 
hearings, all the special investigations, all of the concern about 
foreign money and big money in the 1996 campaign, the fact is that 
while all this attention has been given, Federal Election Commission 
records show that the two parties have actually raised $34 million in 
soft money in the first half of this year, which is not less than the 
last comparable period, it is 2\1/2\ times the $13 million raised in 
the 6 months after the last election.
  These numbers are going to continue to escalate, Mr. President, 
unless we find the courage to rein in the system, to rein in ourselves. 
If we face the 2000 Presidential election without any change in the 
law, I am afraid it is going to be the biggest auction in American 
history.
  What is going to be for sale is our Government. And what is going to 
be lost is the people's faith in public service, which will erode at 
ever-alarming rates unless we give them, by our actions, reason to 
respect the political system. Our own integrity, human as we are, full 
of frailties as we are, our own integrity will continue to be 
threatened by the pressure to spend big money in an unlimited system 
and the need, therefore, to raise it.
  Mr. President, the people are watching. They are skeptical. We can 
control temptations that inevitably arise when gigantic amounts of 
money are available for political campaigns. Millions of them have, in 
fact, given up on us and our system, bringing our great democracy I am 
afraid to one of the lowest points in its proud history.
  We have it within our capacity to change all this, to work together 
across party lines to reform the status quo of the campaign finance 
system, to return our politics to a higher ground and revive our 
citizens' trust in their Government by adopting genuine campaign 
finance reform like that included in the McCain-Feingold bill.
  The question remains, and it will echo throughout the debate this 
week and next, will we do it? Will we seize the moment or will this 
debate ultimately be just a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately 
produce nothing?
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak on campaign reform, but I 
also see my colleague from Georgia is here. I have kind of come in two 
or three times to speak thinking maybe we are going to alternate. I do 
not want to impugn on his time.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague from Georgia. It is a pleasure to 
serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee with him. He is one of the 
members, as well as the Senator from Connecticut, who spends a lot of 
time on the committee and does a very good job, I will say, in really 
trying to find out what has happened and what the facts are.
  Mr. President, just a few general comments on campaign reform. 
Everybody says, ``Well, now we change the law. It's vitally important 
for us to change the law.'' I think it is more important, and maybe the 
best campaign reform that we could have would be enforcement of the 
existing law.
  Why in the world, if the statutes are very clear on the books--and 
some people say they are ambiguous; I think I will show in a moment 
they are not that ambiguous--why in the world should we be worried 
about changing the law if we are not going to enforce the law as it is 
written?
  We have numerous cases that, I believe clearly, laws were broken, and 
in some cases flagrantly broken, and yet we have seen almost no 
enforcement from this administration, and yet they are out there 
beating the drum, saying, ``Change the law. Change the law.'' It 
reminds me of something like somebody has been robbing banks and says, 
``Oh, yes, let's have a tougher law against bank robbing. Oh, yeah, 
I've been doing it a long time. Oh, yeah, if I get caught, I'll send 
the money back.'' I don't think that is good enough.
  As a matter of fact, this administration has been caught with their 
hand in the cookie jar for millions of dollars. They have sent millions 
of dollars back, and they say, ``Well, that's OK.'' Well, I do not 
think that is OK.
  If the law has been broken, it should be enforced. If we would 
enforce the law, if we would actually indict people, if we would arrest 
people, if we would seek their participation and comments before a 
grand jury, I think that would do more for campaign reform than any of 
the bills that we have before us.
  And we have a lot of bills, good bills I will say, Democrat bills, 
Republican bills. Before we do that, we have several statutes that are 
on the books that ought to be enforced. Frankly, they have not been 
enforced. You

[[Page S10143]]

might say, ``Well, give me an example.''
  One that has been kind of famous is 18 United States Code 607: 
prohibits soliciting and receiving contributions in Government 
building.
  I know we heard from Mr. Sandler, who is general counsel for the 
Democratic National Committee say--well, he interprets that to mean 
that you can be in a Federal building, you can make all the phone calls 
you want on hard money, soft money, as long as you are calling somebody 
that does not happen to be a Federal employee in a Federal building, 
that you can do it.
  That is an absurd reading of the statute. I do not see how an 
intelligent person can read the statute and come to that conclusion, 
but that is the Democratic National Committee's general counsel, that 
was his general summary. It seems to be the advice that the Vice 
President has followed, to say he has broken no law.
  But the law is very clear. It says it should be unlawful for any 
person to solicit or receive campaign contributions in a Federal 
building, period. If you look further, the definition of 
``contribution,'' is ``money received to influence an election.'' So I 
think they have broken the law.
  Maybe we will just ignore the law and say there is no controlling 
legal authority because that law has not been enforced. But my guess is 
no other administration in history has ever broken the law like this 
administration, never abused the law, never pushed the envelope. I 
think they pushed well beyond the envelope. I do not think it is into 
the gray area. I do not think it is a couple cases where somebody 
called you back and, ``Well, yes, we'd like for you to host 
something.'' I think this was systematic, flagrant--``Let's raise a lot 
of money.'' I believe very much that the President and the Vice 
President were involved in it. The President had a memo that said, 
``Start the overnighters at $50,000 and $100,000.'' I happen to think 
that is the silver bullet people are talking about.
  The President of the United States said, ``Let's start the coffees.'' 
He is talking about raising money. They had 103 coffees. They raised 
$26.4 million. In the President's own handwriting he said, ``Start 
them.'' Guess what, they started right after he said, ``Start them.'' 
``Start the overnighters''--they started the overnighters. They had 
hundreds of people spending the night, hundreds of people spending the 
night in the White House, more than any other administration, a volume 
that they have never seen before. And a whole lot of them were 
contributing $100,000. We had the FBI testify that 51 averaged over 
$107,000 each to spend the night in the White House. I happen to think 
that is a flagrant violation of the current law, the law as it is 
written right now.
  We could just go on and on.
  And 18 United States Code 600: prohibits promising any Government 
benefit in return for political support. Johnny Chung is reported to 
have donated $25,000 to Ms. O'Leary's favorite charity at her direction 
in order for Mr. Chung to obtain a meeting with several Chinese 
businessmen. He contributed the money. He got the meeting. Ms. 
O'Leary's charity got the $25,000. He also donated more than $360,000 
to the DNC from 1994 to 1996.
  And 2 United States Code 441(e): prohibits a foreign national from 
making a political contribution either directly or through another 
person. Also prohibits anyone from accepting such contributions.
  Pauline Kanchanalak contributed $135,000 which the DNC had to return 
when it was revealed the contribution was actually from her mother-in-
law. She visited the White House 26 times, she testified. Yet, has she 
been before a grand jury? Has this administration done anything to 
compel her testimony for laundering funds? I do not think so.
  Charlie Trie contributed $789,000 to the President's legal defense 
fund which we heard testimony that some of the checks were laundered 
through a Taiwan-based religious sect, Suma Ching Hai. He also received 
a steady stream of wire transfers from foreign sources from 1994 to 
1996, totally $1.4 million, some of which came from Mr. Wu, his Macao-
based business partner.
  Some people said, ``Well, we haven't seen any foreign money.'' They 
have not had their eyes opened.
  Mr. Trie had a lot of foreign money, $1.4 million, wired in, and he 
had great access. This is a person who is a Little Rock restaurant 
businessman. And all of a sudden he is spending millions of dollars, 
had unbelievable access to the White House. He visited the White House 
at least 37 times. He received a Presidential appointment to a foreign 
policy commission, one that the President had to expand the number of 
commissioners so he could serve on it.
  John Huang directed a $50,000 contribution to the DNC through Hip 
Hing Holdings which was reimbursed from Lippo's Indonesian 
headquarters. John Huang and a DNC fundraiser, Maria Hsia ``Shaw,'' 
collected $100,000 to $140,000 from Vice President Gore's Buddhist 
Temple fundraiser of which half had to be ordered returned from foreign 
sources. A lot of that money was laundered as we found out through 
testimony. It happens to be illegal.
  United States Code 201: prohibits any Federal official from receiving 
any benefit in return for official action. Johnny Chung brought in six 
Chinese officials to hear the President's radio address and gave the 
First Lady's chief of staff a $50,000 check in the same week that he 
was able to get them in. In exchange for $50,000, they were able to 
attend the radio address. That happens to be illegal. Has Mr. Chung 
been indicted? Has he been brought before a grand jury? Has he 
testified before the Senate committee? No. Mr. Chung made a statement, 
``I see the White House like a subway; you have to put in the coins to 
open the gates.''

  I could go on and talk about Charlie Trie getting a Chinese arms 
dealer into a White House coffee with President Clinton. Only 4 days 
before the coffee, it is reported, Mr. Huang's arms trading company 
received special permission to import 100,000 special assault weapons, 
although there was a ban on the importation of these assault weapons.
  United States Code 7201 prohibits evasion of income tax; United 
States Code 371 prohibits conspiracy to defraud the United States. The 
Buddhist temple is a tax-exempt organization. They made contributions 
to Vice President Gore, they made contributions to other colleagues in 
this body, they made contributions at the DNC with tax-exempt dollars. 
People were getting tax deductions, writing checks to the Buddhist 
temple, and the Buddhist temple wrote political checks. Everybody else 
in the country who writes political checks has to do it with after-tax 
dollars. In this case, people got a tax deduction for contributing to a 
Buddhist temple, and it was the Buddhist temple who was making 
contributions.
  That is wrong. That is against the law. That is against the IRS Code. 
I just quoted the IRS Code. Who has been indicted on that? This is an 
egregious violation of the law. It has happened time and time again.
  My point is we need campaign reform. In my opinion, one of the best 
steps we could take toward campaign reform would be to enforce the 
existing law. Maybe we should enforce the existing law and find out 
where its shortcomings might be before we try to expand the law or 
redefine the law or change the law.
  Now, Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments concerning 
the legislation that we have before the Senate, the so-called McCain-
Feingold legislation. First, let me compliment the authors of the 
legislation because I think they made some steps in the right 
direction. They have improved it and taken off, as I can see, the 
spending caps. They have taken off the ban which, incidentally, I think 
is clearly unconstitutional. They have taken off the ban on PAC's, 
political action committees. Those are steps in the right direction.
  They did a couple of things, though, that need to be improved upon, 
one of which is they said, well, we are going to codify Beck. We are 
going to make sure union members can get their money back. That is the 
language I have heard bandied about on the floor. Mr. President, that 
is not good enough.
  I firmly believe we should make sure that all Americans have 
voluntary contributions to campaigns. No Americans should be compelled 
to contribute to a campaign, whether they work for a business, whether 
they are a member of the union, or whether they are not a member. Some 
say that is an antiunion provision, a killer amendment. I beg to 
differ. If we are going to pass campaign

[[Page S10144]]

reform this year, we will pass a provision that makes campaign 
contributions voluntary for all Americans.
  I feel very, very strongly about this. You might say, where did this 
come from? It came from a town meeting I had in Collinsville, OK, when 
an employee of American Airlines held his hand up, and one of the first 
questions he asked was, ``Senator Nickles, I really don't like my money 
being taken away from me on a monthly basis without consent to be used 
to elect people and support issues I don't agree with. That is not 
America. That is not right.'' The company the person worked for 
happened to be American Airlines. He happened to be what some 
people call a blue-collar, middle-income American. He is a great 
American. He is a union guy. He is prounion. He just wants to have a 
voice on whether or not he is going to contribute to a political party 
or not.

  I happen to agree with that. I happen to be a Republican, but I don't 
want anybody taking my money to spend it for political purposes without 
my consent. It would be over my body. I don't think anybody should be 
compelled to contribute to a different campaign or to a campaign they 
don't agree with. If you are going to have compulsory campaign 
contributions, you have lost real freedom, you have lost your political 
freedom. To say, ``We will give you information on how you can get a 
refund,'' is not satisfactory. That is after the fact. That is after 
your money has already been taken away from you, spent in a way you 
didn't like, and, ``Oh, yes, you can file for a refund. Incidentally, 
you have to go through a lot of trouble if you file.''
  Guess what? You can't be a member of the union. Under the Beck 
language we have in the McCain bill and under the language that is 
currently out, if you get a refund, you have to be basically a nonunion 
member. You can't vote in union elections. You can't decide who would 
be president of that union. You can't have any impact on the collective 
bargaining strategy. Maybe you want to be a member of the union. Maybe 
it is the thing to do, but you disagree with the union's political 
agenda. Right now you don't have a choice. You can't have both. You 
can't be in the union and say, ``No, I don't want my money going to 
elect liberal Democrats or to elect people who have a social agenda 
that I disagree with.'' You don't have that option under current law.
  We will change that. If we are going to have campaign reform this 
year, we will have the underlining promise that all campaign 
contributions will be voluntary, period. Every employee that works for 
any company should know his campaign contributions will be voluntary. 
If he doesn't want to make them, he doesn't have to make them, period, 
whether they are a member of the union, not a member of the union, 
whether they work for a company that doesn't have a union, they should 
all know, nobody should be compelled to contribute to a political 
campaign against their will. Nobody.
  So that is one of the amendments we have up here. I don't look at it 
as a killer amendment. I tell my colleagues I am willing to negotiate. 
I heard Senator McCain say he is willing to negotiate. I am willing to 
negotiate. Senator Lott asked me to see if we couldn't work out a 
bipartisan bill. I am willing to work with my colleagues.
  I mentioned earlier, I think the McCain-Feingold bill took some steps 
in the right direction. I think it maybe has a couple of steps further 
to go. This is one of them. This is one of them. If we are going to 
have campaign reform, in this Senator's opinion, it will have to start 
with the premise that all campaign contributions will be voluntary; 
make sure that no one is compelled.
  Then what else can we do? We can do a lot of things. Some say ban 
soft money, others have proposals to limit soft money. Some say allow 
individuals to do more. Some people have ideas requiring that a certain 
percentage has to be raised within an individual's home State or 
district. I think all those things are legitimate for discussion. Let's 
put them all on the table. Some people have a proposal that says you 
can't contribute to campaigns unless you can legally vote. I think that 
is a good proposal. Other people want to have free TV time. I don't 
happen to agree with that. Some people want to have subsidized TV or 
half-rate TV for political candidates. I don't agree with that.

  I am willing to talk about it. I am willing to negotiate. I am 
willing to negotiate everything I mentioned, but the one fundamental 
thing I draw a line on is that the campaign contributions have to be 
voluntary.
  I take issue with anybody who says that is an antiunion bill. That is 
a proworker provision. That is a profreedom provision. It is basically 
saying no one should be compelled to contribute to a campaign against 
their will. That is a fundamental American freedom. We should be 
ashamed of ourselves for making anybody be compelled to contribute to a 
campaign against their will.
  We will fix that. I hope we will fix it. I believe we will fix it. I 
also believe that will be part of our bill, and then I will tell my 
colleagues I don't look at it as a killer amendment, because I'm 
willing to work with them to try to pass real, substantive campaign 
reform.
  Keep it constitutional, do not limit speech, encourage participation, 
make it possible for more people to participate, do not come up with a 
system that guarantees incumbents' advantage. I am more than willing to 
do other things that would limit incumbents' advantage. We can say, 
incumbents, you can't do any mailings in an election year. That will 
crimp it down a little bit. Incumbents, you cannot have carryover 
funds. We can do a lot of things for real campaign reform that we could 
pass in a bipartisan fashion.
  I believe one fundamental freedom should exist that we should all 
agree on, Democrats and Republicans, and that is that all campaign 
contributions should be voluntary. That is the reason why we have the 
Paycheck Protection Act. We don't want anybody reaching into your back 
pocket, taking your money out, and spending it for political purposes 
unless you say OK. That is your back pocket. You are the one who worked 
hard; you are the one who put the money in there. Nobody--no group, no 
association, no employer--should be able to reach in and say, ``I will 
take a little bit out and spend it the way I want without your 
permission.'' We will protect your paycheck and let you have control 
over it. That will be part of this bill. It will be the first amendment 
I believe we will vote on.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I enjoyed the remarks of my colleague 
from the great State of Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, this is a day I have been waiting for since I had the 
great honor and privilege of taking my oath of office as a U.S. Senator 
back in January: a day when we are debating pending campaign finance 
reform legislation on the Senate floor. It has been a long and tortuous 
road since January, and on more than one occasion, we have all heard 
pronouncements that campaign finance reform was dead for this session, 
if not for all time.
  That we are here today is a great tribute to the perseverence an 
effectiveness of my friends and colleagues, Senators McCain and 
Feingold, as well as the relentless commitment of the Democratic 
leader, Senator Daschle, to the cause of campaign finance reform.
  I wish also to thank the distinguished majority leader for affording 
us the opportunity to debate, and cast meaningful votes, on this vital 
issue.
  This is also a testimony to the groundswell of public opinion that is 
compelling us to act on a very embarrassing matter, the way we raise 
political money.
  Will Rogers said it best: ``It takes a lot of money now days to even 
get beat with.'' That was said over 70 years ago. It is certainly even 
more true today.
  But, in describing the current unremitting, unforgiving money chase 
which has overtaken our democratic process, especially, at the Federal 
level, in such a manner as to have a ``for sale sign'' on both ends of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, I like the quote by W.C. Fields to the extent, 
``We must take the bull by the tail and face the situation.''
  As we begin this Senate debate on whether or not we should enact far-
reaching restrictions on the current way money is raised and spent for 
Federal office in America, we must face

[[Page S10145]]

the situation that this current system is fatally flawed. It has enough 
loopholes in it to drive a fleet of 18 wheelers through it and is 
rendering our democratic process and our Government, which flows from 
that process, vulnerable to influence peddling, the inordinate impact 
of special interest pressure groups, foreign influence and outright 
corruption.
  It's time to take the bull by the tail.
  I for one have been fighting this battle for campaign financing 
reform for many years.
  In 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I introduced 
legislation in the Georgia Senate when I was a State senator limiting 
campaign expenditures and contributions. As Georgia's secretary of 
state in the 1980's and early 1990's, I fought for tighter limits on 
campaign giving, and full disclosure of lobbying expenditures.
  As a U.S. Senator sworn in this year on January 7, the first 
legislation I signed as a cosponsor was the McCain-Feingold campaign 
financing reform bill. I am 1 of 45 of my Democratic colleagues and 4 
of my Republican colleagues pledged to support the McCain-Feingold bill 
in its present form when it comes to the floor of the Senate.

  Also, as a new Member of the Senate, I volunteered for service on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, which has been conducting a far-
reaching investigation into the multitude of alleged illegal and 
improper activities associated with the 1996 campaign. Just last week, 
the committee turned to consideration of suggested remedies for such 
abuses. All year long, I have listened to numerous witnesses, sifted 
through countless pages of testimony, read scores of media reports, and 
otherwise immersed myself in the nitty-gritty of the financing of 
Federal campaigns last year. I also had the personal experience of 
enduring the current process in my own race for the U.S. Senate in 
1996.
  Sitting in these hearings and seeing the sordid tale of the money 
chase in 1996, has turned my stomach. I also think the American public 
has viewed all this with increasing disgust. What I have witnessed, 
heard, and read has made me even more convinced than ever that we must 
strengthen our campaign financing laws, now, and provide strong 
enforcement through the Federal Election Commission of these laws, or 
risk seeing our elections process, which is supposed to be conducted 
between the candidates, the press, and the voters, be swept away in a 
tidal wave of big bucks. Unless we act now, we will only see the power 
of special interest groups, corporations, and unions to pedal influence 
grow. We will only see our system more and more vulnerable to foreign 
governments and unscrupulous individuals. Unless we tighten our laws, 
we will see our system more and more operating against the public 
interest.
  I don't think our Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and 
James Madison, had that in mind when they helped create this 
Government.
  Mr. President, the other day I was over in the Library of Congress 
and received a marvelous book by James Madison, titled ``The Search for 
Nationhood.'' Mr. President, I am afraid that more and more candidates 
for Federal office are not so much in search of fulfilling our search 
for nationhood as they are for fulfilling the search for money.
  I certainly don't think they had that in mind when they led the 
effort to create the U.S. Senate. Jefferson and Madison led the way to 
create the Senate to look at the long view of American government, and 
provide a balanced approach for the future of our country.
  Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence 
stated in that magnificent document that the Founding Fathers had 
pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. They didn't say that in 
order to set up a democratic form of government that one had to spend 
their lives to pursue a fortune to run for public office and jeopardize 
their honor in the process.
  Opponents of McCain-Feingold tend to concentrate their spoken 
criticisms on its alleged violations of free speech. Those criticisms 
mistakenly equate money with speech. It is an equation which inevitably 
leads to the conclusion that the paid speech of the millionaire will 
have greater weight and influence than the opinions and expressions of 
the common man and woman.
  Certainly there can be little doubt about the commitment of James 
Madison, Father of the Constitution, an architect of the Bill of 
Rights, and President of the United States, to the great cause of free 
speech. But listen to what Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers:

       But what is government itself, but the greatest of all 
     reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no 
     government would be necessary. In framing a government which 
     is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty 
     lies in this: you must first enable the government to control 
     the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control 
     itself.

  While he was certainly both a revolutionary and a visionary, Madison 
never allowed himself to stray too far from the practical realities of 
the world in which he lived. To him, the lack of human perfection was 
thus the basis for government, and a factor which must be taken into 
account in providing a government with sufficient powers to accomplish 
its necessary functions, while at the same time holding it fully 
accountable to the governed. We must hold those who run for Federal 
elective office fully accountable to tight regulations and complete 
disclosure in the raising and spending of campaign dollars.
  Last week on the Senate floor, Senator Thompson delivered a very fine 
statement on campaign finance reform and free speech in which he 
pointed out that, in the real world, this current debate about campaign 
finance reform and free speech is not one of absolutes, as some would 
have it. This is not a choice between a system of unfettered free 
speech and government regulation, for our current system recognizes 
many, many instances in which there is a legitimate, and 
constitutional, public interest in regulating speech, from slander 
laws, to prohibitions on the disclosure of the identities of American 
intelligence agents, to the campaign arena itself, with a longstanding 
ban on corporate contributions, and quarter-century and older limits on 
other forms of contributions and disclosure requirements.
  So the debate really isn't about free speech. TV isn't free, yet it's 
the main vehicle by which Federal candidates connect to their voters, 
and the single most important factor driving up campaign costs. In the 
words of Dr. Norm Ornstein, a noted political scientist and recent 
witness in the Governmental Affairs hearing, the question is not free 
speech, but whether we will erect some fences to prevent the worst 
abuses of campaign financing to occur. I'm for tighter fences, to 
prevent the horse from getting out of the barn next time.
  Campaign finance reform opponents also sometimes claim to be 
concerned that such efforts will further increase the advantage 
currently enjoyed by incumbents. Even on its face, I have a hard time 
taking this argument seriously. I am aware of very, very few cases in 
the real world of contemporary American politics, whether at the 
Federal, State, or local level, where incumbents do not enjoy a 
substantial advantage over challengers under the current system. And, 
it is difficult to imagine any situation under which any form of 
campaign limits, whether or contributions or spending, will not 
constrain far more the incumbents rather than the challengers.
  For example, earlier this year, the group Public Citizen presented 
one of the first detailed analyses of the likely impact of the 
expenditure limits contained in the original version of McCain-
Feingold, based not on theoretical conjecture, but on the actual 
results had S. 25 been in effect in the most recent elections for each 
of the 100 U.S. Senate seats, based on the 1992, 1994, and 1996 Senate 
elections. The findings of the Public Citizen study clearly demonstrate 
that had the provisions of McCain-Feingold been in effect since 1992, 
Senate campaign spending would have been reduced by $259 million--
that's $259 million--with far more of this reduction coming among 
incumbents than challengers. While fully 90 percent of all the Senate 
incumbents were able to exceed McCain-Feingold's spending limits, just 
24 percent of all the challengers did so. In other words, 9 out of 10 
Senate incumbents would have been forced to spend less by McCain-
Feingold, while only one in four challengers would have seen their 
spending constrained. This should

[[Page S10146]]

put to rest any legitimate argument that spending limits are an 
incumbent's protection measure. The record does not bear this out, and 
as the figures demonstrate, this is not even a close call.

  Some also charge that McCain-Feingold, in whatever version, would 
somehow advantage Democrats more than Republicans. First of all, one of 
the prime sponsors of S. 25 is my good friend and fellow Vietnam 
veteran, the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona. Senator McCain 
is many things. He is a wonderful human being, and a fine Senator. But, 
he is also a very faithful Republican. He would never put forward a 
proposal which would harm is party.
  Once again, the Public Citizen report bears out this commonsense 
wisdom.
  Since 1992, almost identical portions of Democratic and Republican 
Senate candidates would have exceeded McCain-Feingold spending limits: 
54 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Republicans. You can't get much 
more of a level playing field than that.
  And, while the revised version of McCain-Feingold does not contain 
spending limits, the principles of greater constraint on incumbents 
than challengers, and of relatively even partisan impact, applies to 
soft money and issue advocacy advertising as well.
  As I have told anyone who has asked, I like being a U.S. Senator. 
Having the privilege of representing my State in this body, where such 
giants as Clay, Webster, Calhoun, Norris, LaFollette, Dirksen, and 
Russell have served with distinction is the greatest honor of my life. 
But, sitting here day by day, with evidence continually mounting in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee hearings of campaign abuses, and public 
opinion surveys chronicling the loss of public trust in the political 
process, not to mention the ongoing massive fundraising which takes 
place all the time in the Nation's Capital, I cannot but conclude that 
the current campaign finance system is broken and cries out for reform.
  We have heard a lot of talk, and we will hear more talk this week and 
next, about these abuses, and about the general topic of campaign 
finance reform. But, the time is coming when we must take action. 
Certainly, the revised McCain-Feingold package is not perfect; it is 
not all that I think needs to be done to remedy our problem, but it is 
an essential first step aimed at dealing with the worst of these abuses 
which currently plague our campaign system.
  The revised bipartisan campaign finance reform proposal does not 
contain spending limits, does not contain limits on PAC's, and does not 
provide free or discounted broadcast air time for Federal candidates, 
all of which I personally favor. It places no limits on what groups or 
organizations say in their campaign-related communications.
  What the proposal does do is this: It bans soft money contributions 
to and spending by the national political parties--something that has 
been the bane of those that care about campaign finance reform, and who 
have witnessed the testimony before the Government Affairs Committee. 
It should be noted that the pursuit of soft money is at the root of 
almost all of the questionable fundraising activities identified to 
date by the Governmental Affairs Committee upon which I sit.

  I might say also that if you ban soft money then all contributions, 
whether you are a union member, a citizen, stockholder, would be 
voluntary because you would have only two ways you could contribute: 
Independently on your own, or through a political action committee 
registered with the Federal Elections Commission. That is voluntarily 
as well.
  The bill modifies the definition of ``express advocacy.'' These are 
ads, unfortunately, that don't provide a clear distinction between 
communications used to advocate issues from those used to back or 
oppose candidates. This bill would require that clear distinction.
  Under the proposal, independent groups will be free to air either 
kind of ad, but to qualify for the ``issue ad'' designation and thereby 
to avoid the disclosure and financing requirements applied to 
candidates and party committees, they merely have to not use a 
candidate's name or else run more than 60 days before the election. 
This hardly represents an infringement on free speech.
  It improves the enforcement of existing laws by expanding disclosure 
and Federal Election Commission monitoring capability. It strengthens 
current law in such areas as fundraising from Federal property, and the 
use of the Congressional franking privilege.
  It strictly codifies the Beck decision concerning the right of 
nonunion members to have a refund of any union fees used for political 
purposes to which they object.
  It bars political parties from making coordinated expenditures on 
behalf of candidates who do not agree to limit their own personal 
spending on their own behalf.
  It bans all campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign 
sources.
  In addition to this core package, Senators McCain and Feingold will 
offer an amendment, which I strongly support, to establish a voluntary 
system in which those candidates who raise a majority of their 
contributions in their home State, accept no more than 25 percent of 
total contributions from political action committees, and spend no more 
than $50,000 of their own money in the election would receive a 50-
percent discount on television costs.
  We must have controls--rigid, well-enforced controls--on campaign 
financing because campaigns are the embryo of democratic government 
itself. Men are not angels, yet we must find ways to govern ourselves 
in a fair and democratic manner. Therefore, we must enact laws to 
control the financing of campaigns for Federal office in a fair and 
democratic manner.
  My colleagues, the country is watching what we do on campaign finance 
reform. Make no mistake about this. They are understandably skeptical 
that we will take action to reform the system under which we all were 
elected. Their expectations for our action are quite low. Let's 
surprise the public as well as ourselves. Let's prove that physicians 
can heal themselves. Let's take the bull by the tail.
  I urge my colleagues to support the distinguished efforts of two 
courageous Senators, John McCain and Russell Feingold, who through 
their diligence, persistence, and strong belief in upholding the finest 
traditions of our democratic process have brought us to this hour.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend, the 
Senator from Georgia, for his kind remarks, but more importantly for 
his steadfast support on the issue of campaign finance reform.
  The first thing that the Senator from Georgia did when he became a 
Member of this distinguished body was to cosponsor our legislation. But 
he didn't stop there. He has been out here every single time we have 
had to fight the battle. And I know he will be again. I thank very much 
the Senator from Georgia for his support.
  I also want to thank my colleagues, Senators Levin, Lieberman, 
Dorgan, Collins, and, of course, Senator McCain for taking the time on 
what is usually a quiet Monday to have a very intense debate to 
continue this discussion on campaign finance reform.
  Mr. President, one of the most important tactics that has been used 
already in this debate is to single out a couple of provisions of the 
McCain-Feingold modification and to suggest that they are the entire 
bill. It happens that the provisions that have been discussed--the 
issues having to do with express advocacy, and a couple of others--are 
very important provisions, but you would swear that they were the whole 
bill. That is because it is virtually impossible to criticize or attack 
the rest of the bill. Let us remember what is included in the entirety 
of the McCain-Feingold modification--the bill that we introduced today.
  First of all, it completely bans soft money. We have heard virtually 
nothing on the floor effectively criticizing banning these $100,000, 
$200,000, and $500,000 contributions that have clearly undermined our 
political process and made a mockery of the fact that for almost a 
century corporations have not been allowed to give contributions to 
campaigns directly, and for almost half a century labor unions have not 
been allowed to give contributions directly to campaigns. Our bill bans 
that, and the other side apparently has dropped their concern about 
that.

[[Page S10147]]

  There is also virtually no discussion of the fact that our bill 
strongly improves the provisions having to do with disclosure of 
information about campaign contributions; and strengthens the hand of 
the Federal Elections Commission so it can do its job; so we can 
enforce the current laws--the very argument that we have heard the 
majority leader and the Senator from Kentucky make. ``Why don't we 
enforce the current law?''
  Why no comment about the series of important provisions in our bill 
that do exactly that, that improve disclosure and improve enforcement?
  Why no comment on the lowering of contribution limits from $200 to 
$50? If somebody gives $100 to a candidate, we think this ought to be 
reported.
  Why no comment on the fact that our bill strengthens the hand of the 
Federal Election Commission by tripling the penalty for knowing, 
willful violations of Federal election law? This is exactly the kind of 
provision that the other side claims we should have and yet fails to 
mention it is part of the bill.
  Why no mention of the fact that our bill does provide for electronic 
filing with the FEC on a daily basis of campaign contributions so that 
the public does not have to wait and the media do not have to wait for 
6 months to find out whether a contribution occurred in close proximity 
to a vote? Our bill provides for that. Our bill provides that the FEC 
would make campaign finance records available on the Internet within 24 
hours of their filing.
  The bill also strengthens the hand of the Federal Election Commission 
by permitting the FEC to conduct random audits at the end of a campaign 
to ensure compliance with Federal election law. We are strengthening 
the hand of enforcement under the current law.
  Why no discussion at all of the fact that our bill, in addition to 
the other issues, makes it absolutely clear that campaign contributions 
cannot be used for personal purposes? You cannot buy a new suit with 
campaign contributions. You cannot finance various family activities or 
mortgage payments or country club memberships. Some of this has been 
done in the past. Why no comment on the fact that our bill tightens up 
on that?
  Why no reference to the fact that the McCain-Feingold bill requires 
political advertisements to carry a disclaimer that clearly identifies 
who is responsible for the content of the campaign ad?
  Do you know what really irritates my constituents in Wisconsin? It is 
all those negative ads and the fact that the candidates who put them 
out make sure that they are not identified, that people do not know who 
made the ad? The McCain-Feingold bill says if you want to say it, you 
can say it, but how about letting us know you are saying it. The other 
side completely ignores this provision that I think would be of great 
appeal to many members of the public.
  Why doesn't the other side say anything about the fact that the 
McCain-Feingold bill bans the practice of using mass mailings under the 
franking privilege in an election year? We get rid of that. We get rid 
of that incumbent protection provision in current law that allows 
Senators to send out thousands, tens of thousands, of items at public 
expense, at Government expense when they are running for reelection. We 
get rid of that. I happen to not do these mailings anyway. A number of 
Senators do not do them anyway. But we get rid of that in an election 
year. But no comment whatsoever from the other side.
  Our bill also clarifies, which is long overdue, that it should be 
absolutely unlawful to raise any money or solicit any money on Federal 
property, whether it be in the White House or whether it be in the 
Capitol or whether it be in one of these Senate or House office 
buildings. We do know that even Members of Congress have already said 
that they have done that. This bill makes it clear that there are no 
excuses for doing that in the future.
  No reference from the other side except for a brief one to the fact 
that we do begin in this bill to voluntarily provide an incentive to 
candidates to limit their spending. Our bill, as we introduced it today 
as a modification to the underlying bill, says that if you contribute 
over $50,000 of your own personal money to a campaign, you can do that, 
but you shouldn't be able to get the large party-coordinated 
expenditures to assist you. We do that.
  We have provisions relating to clarifying contributions regarding 
money contributions from foreign nationals.
  All of this is in the bill. They are very good provisions. But yet, 
in an effort to distort what this bill is about, the focus has been on 
only one or two provisions rather than the heart of the bill.
  Mr. President, I should like to summarize the debate today by 
pointing out that all of this emphasis on a couple of items in the bill 
to the exclusion of the rest of the bill is merely a prelude to the 
three principal arguments that our opposition has raised thus far as we 
have debated the issue on Friday and today.
  The first argument has been the primary argument in the past, but it 
is flagging. The argument that our bill will be deemed unconstitutional 
by the U.S. Supreme Court just is not having the same luck it has had 
in the past.
  The senior Senator from Kentucky recently said on one of the national 
news shows with reference to me, he said:

       Russ has got no constitutional experts with any credentials 
     who will say that this is going to be upheld in court.

  That was on Fox News Sunday, September 14, 1997. Not one 
constitutional expert, the Senator from Kentucky said, would support 
our view that the basic provisions of the bill are constitutional.
  That was an unfortunate claim because 1 week later we were able to 
release a letter signed by 126 constitutional experts across this 
country representing 88 different institutions, including those in 
Kentucky, saying just the opposite--126 constitutional scholars 
specifically said that the ban on soft money and those provisions that 
relate to providing voluntary incentives to candidates to limit their 
spending are perfectly constitutional within the ruling of the Supreme 
Court 20 years ago in Buckley versus Valeo.
  It is hard to read this chart because there are so many of them, 
because 126 of the leading constitutional experts in this country say 
that this constitutional argument is wrong. In fact, the constitutional 
argument is nothing but a smokescreen because it has been shifting from 
month to month. First, it was the claim that the PAC ban was 
unconstitutional, even though the Senator from Kentucky knew very well 
that we had a backup provision because of that concern which he himself 
had introduced in the past. The Senator from Kentucky had proposed the 
very provision that he said was unconstitutional. So then he shifted to 
saying that banning soft money was unconstitutional.
  Well, that is not working out very well after 126 constitutional 
scholars say just the opposite. There is no credible argument under 
current law that banning that kind of contribution is unconstitutional. 
There simply is no credible authority who believes that.
  So the Senator from Kentucky shifts again. He says that providing 
voluntary incentives to candidates to limit their spending is 
unconstitutional. But that is the very thing that Buckley versus Valeo 
laid out as a mechanism by which you could limit spending voluntarily.
  So now the Senator from Kentucky seems to have dropped all of these 
constitutional arguments and all he has left now is to try to say that 
our attempt to clarify the meaning of express advocacy is 
unconstitutional. Well, he is wrong about that, too. But as he admitted 
in the Chamber today--and this is critical--in the worst-case scenario, 
in the very worst-case scenario, if he is right and we are wrong, the 
Supreme Court will simply strike that provision down.
  Our bill is severable. What does that mean? It means that if the 
Supreme Court determines a provision is unconstitutional, they can 
sever that provision, leaving the rest of the bill intact. That's 
exactly what the Court did in the landmark case of Buckley versus 
Valeo, where the Court said you can't have mandatory spending limits, 
and it severed that from the bill, but the Court did say you could have 
contribution limits, which is what we have had for 20 years. This is 
where PAC's are limited to $10,000 per campaign, where individuals are 
limited to $1,000 per individual. So the fact is that these 
constitutional arguments, if they are

[[Page S10148]]

right, in the worst-case scenario, will simply be dealt with by the 
Supreme Court doing their job. Now, why can't we do our job and let the 
Supreme Court do their job?
  Where was the concern of the Senator from Kentucky about this when he 
voted for the Communications Decency Act, saying that it violated the 
first amendment? And the Supreme Court voted 9 to nothing: No, you 
can't do that. It was taken care of, it was struck down. It is not a 
law. So, this is a smokescreen. Mr. President, 126 constitutional 
scholars have already said that the basic provisions of our bill are 
constitutional.
  So, the constitutional argument is flagging. So the opponents of 
reform, who I think sometimes can also be known as the filibusterers, 
go to a second tactic, that is killing the bill by trying to force a 
filibuster. Today, not surprisingly--the majority leader had his choice 
of any amendment he could offer. That is his right. He could offer a 
substitute amendment, a whole new bill, he could offer a simple 
amendment having to do with certain kinds of contributions or aspects 
of soft money or FEC enforcement--he could choose any amendment he 
wanted. What did the majority leader choose? And what did he use to 
fill up the tree? He used a provision specifically and harshly directed 
at labor unions. The majority leader, and I do appreciate his letting 
us have this bill come to the floor, came out here and said that that 
choice, to be the first item we debate, was not intended as a poison 
pill.
  What does that mean? What it means is, he is saying he didn't pick 
that amendment as a way to cause a filibuster. But this does not square 
with what the majority leader said last Friday. He was quoted in the 
Wall Street Journal, saying ``I set it up so they will be filibustering 
me.'' That is what I am talking about. He had his choice. He came out 
here, he purposely offered a strong antilabor amendment, he set it up 
in the hope that he would force Members on the other side of the aisle 
to filibuster the bill so that he and his colleagues would not be 
blamed for killing it. How can you say that's not a poison pill, if 
your very statement was that you set it up so the other side would 
filibuster? That is the definition of a poison pill. Let no one mistake 
this. This is an intentional effort to kill campaign finance reform.
  Why, if this concern about this issue was so great, was it not 
brought up earlier? This is S. 9, that he has brought up. It is a bill 
I believe offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. Why was this not 
brought out to the floor earlier? Why is this the item that we lead 
with, if it is not intended to destroy campaign finance reform and make 
sure somebody else gets blamed for it? It is a poison pill. It's a more 
dangerous attack than the flimsy constitutional arguments. It does run 
the risk--it does run the risk of destroying the bill, and everyone 
should know that when we vote on the poison pill antilabor amendment, 
that is exactly what it does.
  Most of the time that has been taken up on the floor of the Senate by 
those who seek to kill this legislation has been devoted to a third 
attempt. That third attempt is to make the public believe that this 
bill somehow creates a giant Government bureaucracy that is going to 
regulate their speech. If I could just show a copy of the bill--the 
problem with that is, in the past, when folks have tried to argue that 
a bill is a huge Government bureaucracy bill, they hold up the bill. 
They hold up the President's budget: 2,000 pages. They hold up the 
health care bill and they weigh it on a scale. But this is not going to 
work with the McCain-Feingold bill. It is only 55 pages. It is pretty 
hard, the way lawyers write, to set up a giant Government bureaucracy 
in 55 pages.
  But that is what they want folks to believe. They want folks to 
believe that somehow we are creating a new world of campaign financing 
that will change the way things are done in this country and will 
change the ability of members of the public to speak their mind in an 
election. I think it is just the opposite. I think what the current 
system is, I think the status quo, that the Senator from Kentucky 
defends so vigorously, is so at variance with the system that I grew up 
to believe in that it is shocking. I think we have come so far from the 
notion of one person one vote; so far from the notion that every child 
born in this country could grow up to serve in the House or serve in 
the Senate, or perhaps even be President, that it is an embarrassment.
  Look at what Mr. Tamraz said recently about this system and how he 
apparently gamed it. He said, before the Governmental Affairs Committee 
on September 18, 1997, in response to a question--the question was a 
very direct question:

       Was one of the reasons that you made these contributions 
     because you believed it might get you access? That's my 
     question.

  Mr. Tamraz' response was very straightforward. He said:

       Senator, I'm going even further. It's the only reason--to 
     get access, but what I'm saying is once you have access, what 
     do you do with it? Is it something bad or something good. 
     That's what we have to see.

  When I heard that comment from Mr. Tamraz I just couldn't help but 
think how far we had come from the America that I was brought up to 
believe in. Maybe I was naive, growing up back in Janesville, WI, but I 
really believed it when my parents told me that, ``You may not be the 
richest kid in town, you may not be the most powerful person in the 
town or in the State or in the country. But every American has the same 
vote. Your vote counts the same as a Rockefeller's.'' That was the name 
we used in those days.

  So, when you look at the story of what has happened in the last 30 
years, I can't help but reflect that when I was 7 years old and John F. 
Kennedy was running for President, the way that we would sort of 
observe a Presidential campaign was not just through the television. 
There were a few television sets. You could go out to the Sauk County 
4-H fair. There was a little Democratic booth. Just a few feet away was 
a little Republican booth. And there was a little ribbing going back 
and forth. You know, those booths have not moved an inch in 37 years. 
They are in the exact same place they always were. That is where the 
campaign was, people talking to each other.
  Nobody said anything about raising money. I'm sure they had to fund 
their campaigns, but that was not what the news stories were about. I'm 
sure the Senator from Utah, who is on the floor, would agree with me, 
that that was not the nature of the discussion, who had the most money 
to win an election in those days. Then, as I got into my teen years, 
the civil rights movement came upon us, the Vietnam war, the beginning 
of the environmental movement, the women's movement--so many political 
movements; on the other side of the political spectrum, the great 
concern that arose about law and order in this country. These were the 
great discussions of our time, as well as others.
  I recall some kind of conversation about Howard Hughes giving some 
money to both Presidential candidates, but it was sort of an odd story, 
an esoteric story. ``What is going on? Why would this rich fellow, a 
recluse, give all this money to Presidential campaigns?'' It was not 
the stuff of public life. It was not the news, who was giving what 
money to what political party. In fact, the gentleman who used to hold 
this seat before I did, a couple of Senators back, my friend Gaylord 
Nelson, told me recently that in his distinguished career in Wisconsin 
politics as a Member of this body for 18 years, he never once made a 
phone call to raise money. He never once picked up the phone and said: 
Hey, I'm running for reelection, can you give me some money?
  I suggest that those were the good old days. What the Senator from 
Kentucky is trying to defend is a new world, where not only are 
Senators expected to make phone calls almost every day to raise money 
for their campaigns, but where Senators and others are encouraged to 
call up people and ask them for $100,000. This is not the system that I 
grew up with. This is not the system that led the late Robert Kennedy 
to refer to politics as an honorable profession.
  Then, in high school, the people used to rib me a little bit. I guess 
I was a little bit too open about my desire to go into politics. Some 
of them would say, because I talked so much I would be a good 
politician, and other comments like that. But the one thing they never 
said to me was, ``Russ, if you want to go into politics you have to go 
out and make $10 million first; that there is an opening ante, there is

[[Page S10149]]

an opening fee, that you must be a millionaire.'' That we are, in 
effect, recreating here in Washington the House of Lords, which we 
freed ourselves from over 200 years ago. Nobody ever said that to me.
  Politics was still church dinners and Rotary clubs and the State fair 
and all those things that one may regard as corny. But the fact is, it 
was a pretty good system. This is a lousy system; a system where 
somebody pays $300,000 to get in a room to be with his competitor who 
has paid $300,000, a room that none of us could ever get in. That is a 
lousy system.
  I was still under the perhaps naive belief, in 1982 when I sought 
election to the State senate in Wisconsin, my first race for public 
office--I was under the illusion that money wasn't important. Thanks to 
the good laws of the State of Wisconsin it wasn't terribly important.
  I had no money, but the State law provided that if I could raise 
$17,000, the State would match it with $17,000 if I agreed to a $34,000 
limit and that that would be a reasonable amount for a campaign 
voluntarily. That's what I did.
  I wrote to every relative I had. I wrote to a few former professors 
and teachers of mine. They all sent in a few dollars. We had $17,000 by 
August, and we went out and campaigned. I went to the Sauk County Fair, 
walked in parades, and had some very civil and nice debates with my 
opponent.
  I do remember a brief moment, though, at the end of that campaign 
when one of the senior Democratic officials in the State called me up 
and said, ``Russ, you're going to lose if you don't borrow $10,000 for 
the last few days.''
  I said, ``I can't do that. I'm just not going to do that to my 
family.''
  He was almost right, because I only won that election by 31 votes out 
of 47,000. It was the closest election in the history of the Wisconsin 
State Senate. But the fact is, it was reasonable--$35,000. It was 
something I could at least think about as a person of average means.
  Now the same races in that same district, just 15 years later, cost 
something like $250,000, $300,000 just for a Wisconsin State Senate 
seat that pays somebody some $35,000 to $40,000. But yet I still 
believe, because I won by the slimmest of margins, that running for 
office was not equal to having a lot of money.
  I got a bit of a rude awakening, Mr. President, in 1987 when I 
started thinking about running for the U.S. Senate. I thought I had 
amassed a decent record over the years as a Wisconsin State Senator, 
and I wanted to run against the incumbent senator. But as I went around 
the State gradually for several years trying to build a grassroots 
organization, I wasn't asked what I had done in the State Senate; I 
wasn't asked what I had done before I was in the State Senate; I wasn't 
asked what my views might be. Almost every single encounter, whether 
with the media or with a potential supporter, was, ``Russ, this is fine 
and good and you seem like a nice young fellow, but where are you going 
to get the money?''
  ``Where are you going to get the money, Russ?''
  ``How can you possibly think you have a right or an opportunity to 
run for the U.S. Senate unless you are independently wealthy or if you 
are well connected to Washington?''
  That was the message I was given over and over again. Anybody who 
knows the kind of race I went through--I had a lot of good fortune, 
obviously, because I am standing here--that was my biggest problem. I 
wasn't considered credible because I wasn't wealthy. That didn't feel 
to me like what my parents had told me. That didn't feel to me like the 
assurance that I would have a fair chance to compete with everyone else 
simply because I am an American citizen. It felt really bad. Maybe it 
made me work hard. Maybe it made me stay the course.
  It got particularly difficult when I would go to a group with whom I 
had a good relationship; for example, the independent bankers, a group 
with whom I have a very good relationship. I always admired their 
independence in Wisconsin. And I said to them, ``Could you give me some 
support for my race?''
  They said, ``Well, we think you have done a good job, but we have to 
check in with Washington.'' There is a guy in Washington who makes this 
decision.

  Then when I checked in with some of my friends in the labor unions, 
whom I probably do support on many, many issues, I thought they would 
be able to decide at the local whether or not they would want to back 
me. But, no, they had to check in with Washington, with the Washington 
gatekeepers who want to kill this bill. That is what I learned about 
the system.
  Of course, partially because my two primary opponents were both very 
well-heeled and attacked each other that I wound up winning the 
primary. They used their money to make each other look pretty bad, and 
I wound up winning the primary because I was the other guy who was 
running. And that gave me momentum to win the final election.
  As I stand here with these colleagues I admire greatly, sometimes I 
wonder, am I the last person of average wealth and income who will ever 
serve in this body? Is the door going to slam on people who actually 
worry about making ends meet, people who actually worry about their 
mortgage payment, as I do? Am I the last person who is not a 
millionaire who will be invited to serve in this institution?
  I don't think that is the way it will end up, but I can tell you 
this, if we don't pass a reform like the one we have before us today, 
it will be. I cannot in good conscience look at a high school senior 
today, as I was in 1971, and say, ``You know, it would be great if you 
pursued a political career; it will be wonderful; just learn the 
issues, work with people, show people that you are a natural leader.'' 
I can't just leave it at that. If I am being honest with a young 
person, I would have to say, ``And you better darn well come up with 
$10 million or nobody is going to take you seriously.'' That hurts my 
image of America that I have to say that to a high school senior today.
  The opponents of this bill have absolutely no answer for those high 
school students. They say somehow that free speech in America means 
that they don't matter, it means that they can't participate, it means 
that they don't have the same right that everyone else does to run for 
an office in the House or Senate and have some kind of a belief that 
they can prevail.
  Each of us, I suppose, wants to tell our own story of how we got 
here, as I just did. It is a great honor to serve in this body. Less 
than 2,000 Americans have ever done so. I appreciated it when the 
majority leader the other day spoke to some of his concerns when he was 
running for office. This is the only issue where all the Members of the 
Senate are experts, because we have been through it and we know.
  But the reason I am involved with this bill is that the senior 
Senator from Arizona had the courage to come to me and say, ``Look, 
we've got to do something to change this system, to put aside our 
partisan differences.'' We just decided that we couldn't live with a 
country where a Presidential candidate would begin his campaign, make 
the high point of his announcement for President the following 
statement:

       I have the most reliable friend you can have in American 
     politics and that is ready money.

  That was a leading comment in an announcement for President of the 
United States. I don't remember either John F. Kennedy or Richard Nixon 
leading their campaigns in 1960 with that comment, on anyone else. That 
is a tragic commentary on where we have come over the years.
  So that is what this really comes down to. You have heard the 
constitutional arguments and have seen them fall. You see already an 
attempt to bring a ``poison pill'' out on the floor to kill this bill 
by making it too harsh for either side to accept and destroy its 
bipartisan nature. You have heard the effort to distort what this bill 
really does by suggesting that somehow our bill will create a large 
governmental involvement in free speech.

  The fact is, it is this system that is destroying free speech. It is 
a system where people can give hundreds of thousands of dollars of 
unregulated money or give huge contributions or fundraisers of hard 
money to candidates that cut the average person out of the process. 
This is the corporate democracy that we have come to.
  So, in the coming days, we will hear more of the efforts of our 
opponents to

[[Page S10150]]

take each little piece of the bill and indicate that there is a problem 
here or a problem there. Of course, that is the purpose of the debate. 
But we are ready, Senator McCain and I, to negotiate to solve some of 
the real problems. But what we will not tolerate is the suggestion that 
we should do nothing. Our opposition has no alternative. They have no 
answer to the careening role of money in American politics. They just 
want to kill this bill and get back to the business of running 
elections.
  Mr. President, there will be much more to say on this bill.
  All I can say is that we will not allow this debate to become mired 
in the minutia of important issues that ultimately would be resolved by 
the U.S. Supreme Court. We will come back again and again to the 
central point that this is still a country of one person-one vote, not 
$1 million-1 million votes. And it is still a country where every high 
school student should at least be able to think or dream about 
participating in the process without having to become a 
multimillionaire first.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague from 
Wisconsin chat about these problems. You know, in all honesty, I wonder 
sometimes if we do not treat the American public like they are idiots, 
when in fact the American public is a very smart collective group of 
people.
  You know, I just do not see why in the world we have to have 
government interfere with the first amendment privileges of free 
speech, just to mention one constitutional issue involved here, just 
because some think there are millionaires in the Senate. There have 
always been millionaires in the Senate, as far as I know, at least in 
this century. But there have always been a number of Senators--and 
there is a great number of Senators here today--who are not 
millionaires who made it here the hard way, even under this present 
system, and who will always be able to make it because the American 
people are not idiots.
  They are smart. They know what is going on. They have the ability to 
choose between competing candidacies. Every once in a while you know 
some of us worry about it because of some people who make it here, but, 
in all honesty, it seems to me that to put another layer of Federal 
regulations on what people can say and do in politics is not the way to 
do it, and it presumptively seems to believe that the American people 
do not have the capacity collectively or individually to make right 
decisions for themselves with regard to politics.
  The thing that I find heinous and offensive in the current political 
structure is that we have all kinds of advocacy groups out there, some 
of which support only one party to the exclusion of the other, who 
spend millions and millions of dollars that are never reported in this 
political process.
  I will just cite with particularity one group. I remember when the 
AFL-CIO decided they were going to spend $35 million in advocacy during 
the last campaign. Now, we Republicans all understand that because 
virtually every penny of that goes for liberal Democrats. The only 
Republicans that they ever support --and there are very few of those; 
and if there is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, they will support the 
Democrat every time over even a liberal Republican for the most part--
very few of the liberal Republicans are supported by them, but if any 
are, they have to be very liberal.
  So virtually every dollar of the union movement goes into liberal 
Democratic Party politics. But $35 million is a drop in the bucket 
because the Congressional Research Service mentions that in every 2-
year election cycle the trade union movement puts between $100 and $500 
million into the political process, not one penny of which is reported 
in any filing or disclosure form.
  There is nothing in the Republican Party that comes close to that 
type of economic leverage, and yet I have to say McCain-Feingold does 
absolutely nothing about that. There is good reason for it, because you 
would be restricting the right of the trade union movement in this 
country to express their viewpoints with regard to their political 
beliefs. But you are not talking about distortion.

  Mr. President, $100 to $500 million every 2 years in local, State, 
and Federal politics, not one penny of which is reported. The $35 
million was reported because those were direct contributions to 
individuals, or actually most of it was not reported because most of it 
was soft money that was used to advocate for Democratic, liberal 
Democratic Party politics.
  In fact, ask conservative Democrats how much union money they get as 
a general rule. Not very much. So you know, I sometimes think that we 
beat our gums in here over what appear to be on the surface important 
principles but which really in reality would undermine the very 
constitutional process that we have.
  In that regard, let me just mention that I think one of the most 
prescient articles on this subject ever written was written by George 
Will in the Washington Post yesterday. I know it has been mentioned 
here on the floor before. But let me just read a little bit from that 
article.
  I did not come here wanting to talk about campaign finance 
``reform,'' but I did want to say these few remarks. But I did read 
this today, and I brought it with me. He just says, ``Here Come the 
Speech Police,'' which is the title of the article--``Here Come the 
Speech Police.'' George goes on to say:

       Almost nothing that preoccupies Washington is as important 
     as Washington thinks almost all its preoccupations are. But 
     now Congress is considering some version of the McCain-
     Feingold bill, which raises ``regime-level'' questions. It 
     would continue the change for the worse of American 
     governance. And Washington's political class hopes the bill's 
     real importance will be underestimated.
       With a moralism disproportionate to the merits of their 
     cause, members of that class--including the exhorting, 
     collaborative media--are mounting an unprecedentedly sweeping 
     attack on freedom of expression. Nothing in American 
     history--not the left's recent campus ``speech codes,'' not 
     the right's depredations during 1950s McCarthyism or the 
     1920s ``red scare,'' not the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 
     1790s--matches the menace to the First Amendment posed by 
     campaign ``reforms'' advancing under the protective 
     coloration of political hygiene.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full article 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, Sept. 28, 1997]

                      Here Come the Speech Police

                          (by George F. Will)

       Almost nothing that preoccupies Washington is as important 
     as Washington thinks almost all its preoccupations are. But 
     now Congress is considering some version of the McCain-
     Feingold bill, which raises ``regime-level'' questions. It 
     would continue the change for the worse of American 
     governance. And Washington's political class hopes the bill's 
     real importance will be underestimated.
       With a moralism disproportionate to the merits of their 
     cause, members of that class--including the exhorting, 
     collaborative media--are mounting an unprecedented sweeping 
     attack on freedom of expression. Nothing in American 
     history--not the left's recent campus ``speech codes,'' not 
     the right's depredations during 1950s McCarthyism or the 
     1920s ``red scare,'' not the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 
     1790s--matches the menace to the First Amendment posed by 
     campaign ``reforms'' advancing under the protective 
     coloration of political hygiene.
       Such earlier fevers were evanescent, leaving no 
     institutional embodiments when particular passions abated. 
     And they targeted speech of particular political content. 
     What today's campaign reformers desire is a steadily 
     thickening clot of laws and an enforcing bureaucracy to 
     control both the quantity and the content of all discourse 
     pertinent to politics. By the logic of their aims, reformers 
     cannot stop short of that. This is so, regardless of the 
     supposed modesty of the measure Congress is debating.
       Reformers first empowered government to regulate ``hard'' 
     money--that given to particular candidates. But there remains 
     the ``problem'' of ``soft'' money--that given to parties for 
     general political organizing and advocacy. Reformers call 
     this a ``loophole.'' Reformers use that word to stigmatize 
     any silence of the law that allows unregulated political 
     expression. So now reformers want to ban ``soft'' money. But 
     the political class will not stop there.
       Its patience is sorely tried by the insufferable public, 
     which persists in exercising its First Amendment right of 
     association to organize in groups as different as the Sierra 
     Club and the National Rifle Association. One reason people so 
     organize is to collectively exercise their First Amendment 
     right of free speech pertinent to politics. Therefore 
     reformers want to arm the speech police with additional 
     powers to ration the permissible amount of ``express 
     advocacy,'' meaning

[[Page S10151]]

     speech by independent groups that advocates the election or 
     defeat of an identifiable candidate.
       But the political class will not stop there. Consider mere 
     issue advocacy--say, a television commercial endorsing 
     abortion rights, mentioning no candidate and not mentioning 
     voting, but broadcast in the context of a campaign in which 
     two candidates differ about abortion rights. Such 
     communications can influence the thinking of voters. Can't 
     have that, other than on a short leash held by the 
     government's speech police. So restriction of hard money 
     begets restriction of soft, which begets restriction of 
     express advocacy, which begets regulation of issue advocacy--
     effectively, of all civic discourse.
       The political class is not sliding reluctantly down a 
     slippery slope, it is eagerly skiing down it, extending its 
     regulation of political speech in order to make its life less 
     stressful and more secure. Thus is the First Amendment 
     nibbled away, like an artichoke devoured leaf by leaf.
       This is an example of what has been called ``the Latin 
     Americanization'' of American law--the proliferation of 
     increasingly rococo laws in attempts to enforce fundamentally 
     flawed laws. Reformers produce such laws from the bleak, 
     paternalistic premise that unfettered participation in 
     politics by means of financial support of political speech is 
     a ``problem'' that must be ``solved.''
       One reason the media are complacent about such restrictions 
     on (others') political speech is that restrictions enhance 
     the power of the media as the filters of political speech, 
     and as unregulated participants in a shrunken national 
     conversation. Has the newspaper in which this column is 
     appearing ever editorialized to the effect that restrictions 
     on political money--restrictions on the ability to buy 
     broadcast time and print space and other things the Supreme 
     Court calls ``the indispensable conditions for meaningful 
     communication''--do not restrict speech? If this newspaper 
     ever does, ask the editors if they would accept revising the 
     First Amendment to read:
       ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the 
     press, but Congress can restrict the amount a newspaper may 
     spend on editorial writers, reporters and newsprint.''
       As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and 
     others filibuster to block enlargement of the federal speech-
     rationing machinery, theirs is arguably the most important 
     filibuster in American history. Its importance will be--
     attested by the obloquies they will receive from the herd of 
     independent minds eager to empower the political class to 
     extend controls over speech about itself.

  Mr. HATCH. Let me just quote a couple of other paragraphs because I 
think this article really sums it up. I do not know how anybody could 
disagree with this article. I am skipping over quite a bit of it which 
I think is worthy of consideration by anybody, but let me just read a 
couple more paragraphs:

       The political class is not sliding reluctantly down a 
     slippery slope, it is eagerly skiing down it, extending its 
     regulation of political speech in order to make its life less 
     stressful and more secure. Thus is the First Amendment 
     nibbled away, like an artichoke devoured leaf by leaf.
       This is an example of what has been called ``the Latin 
     Americanization'' of American law--the proliferation of 
     increasingly rococo laws in attempts to enforce fundamentally 
     flawed laws. Reformers produce such laws from the bleak, 
     paternalistic premise that unfettered participation in 
     politics by means of financial support of political speech is 
     a ``problem" that must be ``solved.''
       One reason the media are complacent about such restrictions 
     on (others') political speech is that restrictions enhance 
     the power of the media as the filters of political speech, 
     and as unregulated participants in a shrunken national 
     conversation.

  What a comment, terrific comment. And it sums it up pretty well:

       Has the newspaper in which this column is appearing ever 
     editorialized to the effect that restrictions on political 
     money--restrictions on the ability to buy broadcast time and 
     print space and other things the Supreme Court calls ``the 
     indispensable conditions for meaningful communication''--do 
     not restrict speech? If this newspaper ever does, ask the 
     editors if they would accept revising the First Amendment to 
     read:
       ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the 
     press, but Congress can restrict the amount a newspaper may 
     spend on editorial writers, reporters and newsprint.''
       As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and 
     others filibuster to block enlargement of the federal speech-
     rationing machinery, theirs is arguably the most important 
     filibuster in American history. Its importance will be 
     attested by the obloquies they will receive from the herd of 
     independent minds eager to empower the political class to 
     extend controls over speech about itself.

  What an article. He sums it up better than anybody I know. Frankly, I 
commend this article to anybody who cares about free speech rights, 
that this bill, as modified, would eviscerate.
  I don't quite agree with George Will, that this may be the most 
important constitutional filibuster in history, but it is certainly one 
of the most important. I know of others that have been, I think, equal 
in importance, not the least of which is the debate we had on the 
resignation of the President a few years ago.

                          ____________________