[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10274-S10277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. SANTORUM. The subject matter on which I want to spend the 
majority of my time speaking on is the issue of campaign finance 
reform. As Members have gotten up to discuss the issue, I think one 
might be led to the impression that those of us who oppose McCain-
Feingold are not for any changes in campaign finance rules and that we 
don't see that there are some problems there. I want to make it very 
clear that, as a Senator who is on the Rules Committee, which is the 
committee that has the jurisdiction on this subject matter--we have 
been bypassed by these floor maneuvers but we do have jurisdiction and 
have looked into this subject quite extensively--that I don't know of 
anybody on the Rules Committee on either side who does not believe the 
current campaign finance system has some problems with it and there are 
things that we can do to fix it.
  We disagree on how to do that. Let me just, if I can, draw the 
differences between how one side wants to do it and the other side; 
sort of the big picture, not really talking so much about specifics but 
a general philosophy. Then I will get into more specifics.
  The general philosophy of those of us who oppose the McCain-Feingold 
approach is that we believe that we can fix the campaign finance system 
in this country by making it purely voluntary, so that no one is going 
to be forced to contribute to an election. That is something that you 
would think is as fundamental as any right that we have in this 
country, that you should not be forced by your employer, by your union, 
by your association, or by your family to contribute to anyone the 
resources that you have worked hard to earn. So, one general tenet is 
that contributing to campaigns must be completely voluntary. I think 
that is a tenet you would suspect would be universally shared. It is 
not universally shared. People in support of McCain-Feingold, by and 
large--there are some exceptions, but few--do not support the concept 
that campaign contributions should be voluntary. That is one 
difference.
  Second, that we achieve a better campaign system, a better campaign 
and a better campaign financing system, by increasing participation, by 
having more voices in the political discourse, not fewer. Those of us 
who oppose McCain-Feingold strongly hold to that reading of the first 
amendment that ensures, guarantees, one of the highest guarantees in 
the Constitution, the right of speech, political speech, and political 
discourse.
  In this country today, political speech does not mean--it means this, 
what I am doing. But it does not only mean standing up on the street 
corner and sounding off on what you believe in. These days, if you are 
standing on the street corner sounding off on what you believe in, 
basically you are labeled some sort of freak. We believe the first 
amendment covers organized political speech, that is, people who ban 
together, who want to speak on a particular issue and marshal whatever 
resources they have, whether it is resources in manpower to distribute 
fliers that they print at a half a cent apiece, or to buy a radio ad on 
a local radio station or to, in fact, hold public meetings and public 
debates. Whatever medium they want to use, I think is appropriate to be 
protected by the Congress and by the first amendment.
  On the other side, you have people who want to limit that activity. 
They want to limit people's ability to speak in the political arena 
because they find certain kinds of speech offensive, like people who 
advertise in opposition to a Member of Congress or a Senator saying 
that they voted in such a bad way and don't vote for them, and they do 
it within 60 days of the election; that is bad; somehow people getting 
together and expressing their opinion in a public forum is a bad thing 
that has to be prohibited by the Congress.
  I don't believe that. I don't like it when someone does it to me, and 
it's been done to me and it will be done to me unless we pass one of 
these bills that says you can't. By the way, even if we did do that, I 
believe the Supreme Court would strike it down in a heartbeat. But I 
believe it will be done again.
  I don't have a problem with it, even though it happens to me, because 
I think people have a right if they don't like what I am doing to speak 
up about it, even if I think the attack is unfair, because I trust the 
American public. I know a lot of people around here on a pretty regular 
basis don't trust the American public, but I trust the American public 
and the voters of America to sort of figure out all of those things on 
their own with the help of all the other information that they are 
going to get from networks like C-SPAN2, as we are on today, and other 
independent sources, that that ad, as nasty as it is, as horrible as it 
is, is not going to change somebody's opinion overnight. People are 
smart enough to take all that information, realize it is an ad, 
discount it to the degree they usually do and filter it into the mix, 
as we do with all speech.
  But the other side believes that it is dangerous speech. I believe 
that there is nothing inherently dangerous about speech; there is 
something inherently dangerous about limiting speech, because once we 
start to limit speech, then that takes freedom away from the masses, 
from the people and gives that freedom and control to a bunch of people 
in Washington, DC, who think they know what is best for you.
  You probably hear many Senators talk in those terms when it comes to 
a variety of other subjects in Washington, DC. I suggest that this 
attempt to take power away and freedom away from people and centralize 
it in Washington is consistent with what the other side of the aisle 
generally wants to do when it comes to every decision in your life. As 
a result, we have the huge Government that we have in Washington, DC. 
We have grown and grown and grown because we have taken more and more 
freedom away from people, whether it is in the form of freedom to use 
the money that you have earned by higher and higher taxes, or whether 
it is freedom in the form of regulation on regulation on every aspect 
of business and your life.
  We have taken that responsibility, we have taken your freedom and 
have centralized that decisionmaking in Washington, DC. This is another 
attempt to do that. This has the salutary effect, from those who 
believe in big government, of stifling your criticism of big 
government. This is a win-win. This allows them to continue to grow 
government without you being able to speak out against it. So they can 
stifle you at the same time they continue what they want to do in the 
first place. I think that is very, very, very dangerous to the future 
of this country.
  Columnist George Will called the filibuster--I don't know whether 
that is what it is or not, but let's use that

[[Page S10275]]

term--that the filibuster of the McCain-Feingold finance reform is the 
most important filibuster in the history of America. I don't know if I 
agree with that, but I would say it is certainly one of the most 
important because it goes to the heart of our democracy, it goes to the 
heart of the political discourse in this country and how free are we 
going to allow this country to be at its most fundamental core, its 
democratic core. How free are we going to allow you to be, the average 
citizen in America?
  There are those who say, ``Well, you are just too free right now and 
you have too much power right now. We need to take some of that back 
for your own good. For your own good we're going to take some power 
away from you so you don't go out and do things that are going to hurt 
you.''
  My, my, and believe it or not, you have the national news media just 
along for the ride. They think this is great. And why not? Because if 
we limit your speech, the speech of those who are speaking everyday on 
the network news and in the newspapers and on the radios becomes that 
much louder, because the din of your speech has quieted down, and so 
their speech becomes much more important to the whole debate. You have 
the media very much for squelching other input, so they become much 
more powerful and much more important in the political discourse.
  I suggest that if Congress were proposing a law to limit the amount 
of speech that newspapers and radios and television reporters can 
speak, there would be an absolute hue and cry of ``freedom of the 
press''; ``How dare you restrict''; ``It is the most essential element 
of our democracy.'' ``The first amendment''-- ``Oh, I'm sorry, just 
this part of the first amendment,'' because when it comes to the other 
part of the first amendment, they are all for shutting you up. They 
want to shut you up, but they don't want to be even in the least 
infringed upon. That is the hypocrisy that is going on in the national 
media today.
  Let's get down to the bottom line here. What do those of us who would 
like to see campaign finance reform see as a solution to some of the 
problems?
  No. 1, I suggest we make sure the system is voluntary; that there 
should not be a system where any individual in America is forced to 
contribute against their will. That is not the law of the land today. 
There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, maybe 
millions, of workers in this country who are forced to contribute money 
to campaigns in which they do not believe. That should be an 
embarrassment to every single Member of the Senate and should be an 
outrage to every member of our society. When it comes to union dues 
being used for political purposes, that is exactly what occurs. So we 
have a very simple provision that says you can't do that anymore, it 
has to be voluntary.
  Poll union members--not the union bosses, union members--and ask them 
whether they would like the right to be able to give money voluntarily 
instead of having it taken out of their dues. By overwhelming numbers--
I just saw a poll in California--by a 4 to 1 margin, union members 
themselves said they want that choice.
  Yet--and I always find this really funny because people for McCain-
Feingold say, ``well, we have to fight the special interests; it's the 
special interests that are the problem.'' Then they stand up here and 
fight against a bill that says all contributions should be voluntary. 
Why? Because the unions and their big money backing them in their 
campaigns won't allow them to do what's right. This just exposes it for 
what it is. This is about power. They just want to make sure that they 
can keep all the money funneling toward them, and then go about taking 
away power from you. Keep the money flowing on that side and then take 
the power away from you.

  I don't necessarily think that is the right approach to take. When it 
comes to union dues being used involuntarily for political campaigns--
there is absolutely no excuse for not having the voluntary campaign 
finance system. That should be at the fundamental core. The only reason 
it is not is because of the special interests supporting the other side 
of the aisle, the special interests that they get up and rail against: 
``Oh, this is horrible; special interest money and, by the way, we're 
going to stop campaign finance reform because of the special interest 
money we get from involuntary contributions being maced out of the 
people who work in unions. Maced is actually too kind of a word because 
some people get maced when they don't go along, because they have no 
choice. It is not a matter of being maced and losing your job. You just 
have to go along. You can't even say no.
  So No. 1, it has to be a voluntary system.
  No. 2, a goal of a campaign finance system should be to increase 
participation by the people who are most affected by the election, and 
that is your constituents. The goal of the bill that I am going to be 
introducing is to increase the amount of influence--I use that term 
advisedly--influence that constituents within the State in which you 
reside, such as my State of Pennsylvania, to influence the election 
disproportionate from anybody else, whether they be political action 
committees or people from California--I like people from California but 
they are not from Pennsylvania and, frankly, the people from 
Pennsylvania should have more of a say who the Senator is from 
Pennsylvania than the people from Washington State, Maine or anyplace 
else.
  What I have suggested in my bill is we are going to increase the 
amount of contributions that can be given by people in Pennsylvania. 
The proposal that I have is to take the $1,000 limit and increase it to 
$4,000 per individual per election for people who reside in the State 
in which you run. Everybody else is kept at the $1,000 limit. But 
people in your State are going to have more of an ability to 
contribute.
  I know, because I was a challenger twice. I am a rare breed of cat 
around this place. I defeated an incumbent Congressman to get into the 
House and defeated an incumbent Senator to get into the Senate. There 
are not very many of us around who have that honor, I guess, or burden, 
one of the two. So I know what it is like to be a challenger. I know 
what it is like to be the big underdog. I know what it is like to be 
outspent 3 to 1, and I didn't like it.
  But I will tell you what I didn't like more than anything else. I 
didn't like the fact that my opponent, who was a sitting Congressman, 
had the ability to raise money all over the country. Because of being 
in Congress, he had connections. He could raise money from all over the 
place. He was known, not only all over the country, but all over the 
State. Nobody knew who I was.
  I remember when I first ran for office, they took a poll 6 months 
before the election in 1990, and my name recognition in my district was 
6 percent. I thought that was pretty great; ``Yea, it is 6 percent.'' 
Then my pollster informed me that usually when they put somebody's name 
on the ballot, they get about 8 percent, because about 8 percent of the 
people are afraid to answer that they don't know the person, figuring 
if they were on the survey, they should know the person. So I got below 
what Mickey Mouse would get. Nobody knew me.
  It was hard for me to raise money. I didn't have any money. And it 
was harder only because I could raise $1,000 at a time. If I was lucky 
enough to find someone who would support me who had any kind of 
resources, all I could get was $1,000. That makes it very, very hard 
for a challenger. You have to find a lot of people to help you, to get 
at least a bit of seed corn to build a campaign organization.
  There was a comment from a person who was going to run for the U.S. 
Senate in Pennsylvania next year. She was headed toward running, but 
she announced abruptly she was not going to run. The reason she gave 
for not running was that she found it incredibly hard to find so many 
people to give her $1,000 at a time. She just couldn't find that many 
people to build up the seed corn necessary to start a campaign. Once 
you start a campaign, you can broaden out your search, you can get, as 
I have done--I have 35,000 donors, I believe, to my committee. And that 
is a lot of donors. I am very proud of that.

  The average contribution is well under $100. But you have to get to 
there. And it takes time. It takes some money to start. Unless you are 
a millionaire, which I plead guilty of not

[[Page S10276]]

being, then it is very difficult for the average Joe Citizen to get 
enough resources together to start a campaign when you have to raise it 
$1,000 at a time.
  When you consider the fact that in a Senate race in Pennsylvania it 
is going to cost about probably $9 or $10 million, someone giving you 
$4,000 hardly warrants notice in the big scheme of things.
  So to suggest that somehow, you know, this person has inordinate 
influence is ridiculous. And you are going to get hundreds of people to 
give you that kind of money. I guarantee you, within those hundreds of 
people there will be hundreds of different opinions on probably the 
same issue. So to suggest you are going to do one for one--it just 
doesn't work that way.
  Anybody who believes--this is another fallacy of campaign financing--
that Members of Congress get donations to do favors for people, I mean, 
that is just ridiculous. I mean, it is absolutely absurd. And that is 
why I am for limits on contributions, and I am for low limits. I think 
$4,000 is a low limit because I don't want someone to be able to give 
$100,000 or $200,000 or $500,000 because then, whether it occurs or 
not, the appearance of impropriety is there. With a small donation, 
relatively small, I am talking in terms of a $10 million campaign, 
$4,000 does not, I think, stick out to say they are buying a more 
disproportionate interest here.
  The fact of the matter is, we have low limits. I think we should keep 
them relatively low, but they should be high enough so people can have 
some ability to form a little bit of seed corn to start a campaign if 
they want to run for office. So I believe that raising the limit, oddly 
enough, would help challengers and open-seat candidates more than it 
will help incumbents.
  Incumbents can raise money now. They are one of the few who can raise 
money now. This is to help challengers. The other thing--follow me on 
this concept--what I believe has happened over the past 25 years and 
why campaign reform has come to be such a ``scandal,'' although I think 
it is a somewhat created scandal in some respects; in many respects it 
is a scandal because people are breaking the laws--is what we did in 
1974. It was well-intentioned. It was to limit the influence of special 
interests and limit the influence of big donors. Remember, $1,000 was 
set in 1974. If you index that to inflation, it would be over $3,000 
today. That is why we increase it from $1,000 to $4,000. And campaigns 
have increased by 10 or 20 times as far as expenses since 1974.
  What we have done--if I can give an example of a heart--you have a 
main artery that flows into the heart that provides the blood for the 
heart muscle so the heart can pump. What we did in 1974 was we occluded 
partially, we blocked that artery. We said, we are no longer going to 
allow a free flow of resources, blood, into the heart muscle, the 
candidate; we are going to block it.
  It was an artificial block. It was artificial in the sense that the 
heart still needed the resources, but you have limited the ability for 
direct resources to flow into that heart.
  If you are lucky, what happens if you are a human being and that 
happens? What happens is, you build up what is called collateral 
circulation, other circulation to feed the heart, to keep it alive and 
going and working.
  Collateral circulation in politics is called soft money. By limiting 
the amount that you or anybody can give directly to a candidate, you 
have not stopped the need for the money to get to the candidate; all 
you have done is stop the main, most efficient, most disclosed, most 
apparent way of feeding that heart muscle, of feeding that candidate.
  So what has happened is the money still wants to get there because 
the candidate needs it to run a race, and so what has happened is these 
collateral sources have been built up. We have built up all these soft 
money trees to feed the candidate behind the scenes, undisclosed or 
disclosed not as efficiently or not as readily as the direct pipeline 
to the heart or to the candidate.
  So what I want to do is do a little angioplasty. Let us clear out the 
heart artery to allow some more resources and blood to flow so you can 
watch it. What I propose in my bill is to require monthly reporting--
not quarterly, but monthly. Let us have more disclosure. Let us have 
more prompt disclosure. Let us find out who is giving the money and how 
much they are giving.
  So we have, by doing that, and by raising the limits of people who 
live in the State, you will reduce the need for this other circulation 
for this other money to come into the system.
  I think the best way to cure soft money is not Government to restrict 
it because, you know, we restricted hard money, that money, that direct 
pipeline, that main artery going into the campaign, we restricted it, 
and what happened? They figured out another way, constitutionally 
another way. We try to restrict that, and guess what will happen? They 
will figure out some other way. I mean, look, the big problem here is 
that Government is too big, it spends too much, and it regulates too 
much. It is involved in everything. We have this huge Government that 
people want to have some say in how the Government governs. They want 
to have some say in who is elected to make those decisions. And they 
have every right to do so.
  What the folks who are for McCain-Feingold say is, ``Well, we don't 
want you to have that right. We want to limit your right to do that.'' 
I think that is ridiculous. I think that is, frankly, undemocratic, 
certainly undemocratic, and I will go as far as to say it is un-
American. We are a country that fought hard, we fought wars, we fought 
a Revolutionary War and many others to maintain our freedom. And first 
among them--the first amendment--first among them is the freedom of 
speech.
  What this debate is fundamentally about is the freedom of political 
discourse, of your right to influence the course of an election, and, 
therefore, the course of the country. It is your only chance. This is a 
Republic, not a democracy. We are not all gathered here in the Senate--
we do not get all 250 million people in the room and everybody says 
``aye'' and ``no.'' That is not how we do things. You elect me for 
better or for worse. You elect a Member of the Senate, two Members in 
the Senate from each State, and however many House Members you have, 
and those people represent you.
  If you want to be represented here, you have to work through the 
electoral process to influence the decision as to what Member of 
Congress is elected and what Senator is elected. That is your outlet. 
What the people in this room, many who are for McCain-Feingold, want to 
do is limit the people's ability to impact that election. When I say 
``people,'' I don't just mean individuals, but associations and others 
who have every right under the first amendment to be heard.

  So when you hear all this talk about, ``Oh, special interests,'' 
remember one thing, the biggest special interest that is holding up 
this bill is labor unions who do not want voluntary contributions to be 
the law of the land. That is No. 1. So anytime you hear ``special 
interests'' from people who support McCain-Feingold, ask this question: 
``Are you for voluntary contributions for every member of society?'' 
When they say, ``No,'' then you say, ``Don't talk to me about special 
interest because I know what special interest is buying you. So don't 
talk to me about, `Oh, we need to get rid of special interests when 
your first vote is to defend it and to exhibit the power.' ''
  Voluntary contributions, increased participation, particularly from 
people who are within the boundaries of the district or your State, and 
increased disclosure. It is much easier for the cardiologist to be able 
to find a problem with the flow of blood to the heart by looking at one 
source where it is supposed to be. It is much easier to determine where 
the problem is than looking at all the other different sources that may 
be feeding that heart.
  So if we allow the resources to be channeled, and we have disclosure 
of those resources promptly--monthly--then you are going to have a 
system that I think everyone will be proud of that will encourage 
participation, that will be voluntary, and that will be disclosed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.

[[Page S10277]]

  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator from Michigan yield for a unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, that I be 
permitted to speak in morning business at the conclusion of the remarks 
of the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________