[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10282-S10289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to address the campaign finance 
matter that we have been involved with this year. I would like to start 
off by saying that I think sometimes we give the impression, with all 
of our horror stories about some of the things that have happened in 
campaign finance over the past few years, both on Capitol Hill and in 
the Presidential elections in both parties--that we sometimes emphasize 
to the point where we might add to the cynicism of the people of this 
country instead of helping placate or correct some of the reasons for 
that kind of cynicism.
  I want to add that I think the majority of elected officials here in 
Washington, the majority of the people that run for office, whether 
high political office here in Washington, in the Congress, or even 
running for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, or the people

[[Page S10283]]

back home running for State offices, are by and large some of the 
finest, most dedicated people we have, and they are dedicated to doing 
just as fine a job as they possibly can. So I think that sometimes we 
tend to overdo the criticism to the point where it adds to the problem 
we are trying to cure.
  Having said that, there are problems, and there is no doubt about 
that. We have to look at the big picture sometimes. I think we get so 
bogged down into nits and gnats of what a particular advantage is this 
way to one party or that way to another party, that we sometimes need 
to stand back and look at the big picture of why some of us feel 
campaign finance reform is very, very important.
  Let's drop back to the point where we see how our political system 
developed, why it developed the way it did. You know, we have the 
finest constitutional system of government in the world. We are the 
envy of much of the rest of the world for our political system. It 
represents all the people more perfectly than any system of government 
that has been devised. Winston Churchill put it well once when he said 
we have ``the worst system of government, except for every other system 
of government ever tried.''
  We do more towards representing the individual and more towards 
making sure that every single person has a fair shake in our society 
than any other government that ever has been, even with the problems 
that we have. And we have to admit we do have a lot of problems. I see 
these problems as being mainly ones of danger signs up there to cure 
these little specks of rot that have crept into our system that could 
do major harm to our body politic in the future if we do not correct 
them now.
  If we have such a great system of constitutional government, how 
about the people running that Government? The Constitution does not 
provide for how we are going to staff the Government. And mere words 
written on paper--be they the Constitution of the United States, and 
sacred though that it is--that does not guarantee that we will have a 
good running Government under that constitutional system unless we have 
good people in there to make that system work. That is the key, and 
that is fundamental, because that is what our political systems in this 
country are. Our political systems are basically the personnel 
departments to run that constitutional Government.
  Those political parties that we have right now that wind up after an 
election staffing and giving direction to that constitutional system of 
government--those political parties are not provided for in the 
Constitution. We don't find anything in the Constitution that says 
there will be so many people in the Democratic Party, so many people in 
the Republican Party, and so on. No. In fact, our political parties 
have just sort of developed over a period of time under our 
constitutional system. That is as it should be, I guess. They have 
evolved. They have changed through the years to better reflect the 
interests of the people of this country.
  But there is one thing you have to have to make that constitutional 
system of Government work. And that is in any democracy to long endure 
we have to have in Government the confidence of the people--the 
confidence of the people. Unless you have that, a democracy may not 
long endure because people will want to experiment with trying the 
other systems of government, or they will want to go up and join 
splinter groups that reflect more their own little, narrow interests of 
what their parochial views are in their local community and where they 
think the country should go in the future to benefit them personally. 
We will see more and more of that, if the confidence of our people in 
Government goes down.
  Look across the seas. We see Italy. I don't know how many it is now--
50-some different Governments since World War II. I think they have 
averaged about one per year, or something like that. They only have a 
government by a coalition of different groups--disparate groups of 
people getting together and not making a permanent government for a 
lengthy period of time, and making temporary alliances for short-term 
advantage. That is not the hallmark of America. And to see us setting 
up any possibility of that kind of a situation would play a game of 
roulette for the future of this country.
  Our country was founded on the basis not that we take this group, set 
it aside, and give it certain advantages. Not that there is a ruling 
class up here someplace, and they have certain advantages, and we set 
one class off against another. Our Government was set up on the basis 
of the importance of each individual--not groups, not special groups, 
but each single individual; and each individual was a king in this 
country, each individual was royalty in this country, if you will. Our 
Government was set up not to have a royalty that dictated their ideas, 
and everyone else had to live under that kind of rule. We have our 
constitutional system here where authority wells up from the people 
through their elected officials. It was that confidence in those 
elected officials that let us move ahead and become the kind of Nation 
we have become. We are a representative form of government. We are not 
a perfect town meeting government as we have seen in New England--the 
most pure form of democratic expression I guess that we have in our 
country. We cannot take a referendum on every single vote, in a 
national referendum--on every single issue--as they can at a town 
meeting. No. We say we will send people to work full time representing 
us, and we will trust those people. We will trust those people--that is 
the important word--to make those decisions on our behalf.

  If we start having trust in those people eroded, and we see that 
trust going downhill, then I see a big danger for our country. Our 
Nation was founded on this representative form of government that 
represents all the people all the time. And any time we depart from 
that kind of a feeling in this country of our Government representing 
all the people all the time, we engender less faith in our system, and 
we set up a potential of a slide downhill in our ability to cope with 
the future.
  I don't think the United States of America is ever going to get taken 
over by the likes of Russia, China, and North Korea and Iraq, or 
anybody, or put together by any combination. Our country is going to be 
militarily secure, I believe, into the indefinite future as far as we 
can see because we are cognizant of the fact that we live in an 
uncertain world. We will have to protect ourselves. And we are so far 
ahead of anybody else in military technology and power that I don't see 
that as a hazard for the future of this country at all. But I do see a 
danger for our country if we have this increasing cynicism, this 
cynicism of our people that seems to be growing, and particularly among 
our young people. If that cynicism grows to the point where our young 
people in particular feel that politics is just too dirty, ``I do not 
want to touch it, wash my hands if I shook hands with a politician, I 
just do not want to have anything to do with politics''--if they have 
that kind of view, then what happens? We will have less support for our 
political system; that is, the department of personnel for this 
constitutional system of Government; less support for those parties. We 
will have less trust of elected Government officials and our 
representative form of Government. We will have people tending more to 
split off into special interest groups instead of supporting mainstream 
parties that have served us well for all of the history of this 
country--when we get away from representing all the people all the 
time, we start down a slope that I think is a danger to the future of 
this country.
  One person, one vote, one person, one influence--let's say. We are 
divided up into so many million little bits of influence in this 
country in our system of government, one person, one vote, one 
influence--that is what people think about. We tell our kids. ``When 
they are growing up, when you get to be old enough, you register to 
vote because your vote is every bit as important as the vote of the 
President of the United States.'' And we mean it. And it is. That vote 
counts every bit as much when the tallies come out on election night--
no matter what the rank of the person, be it some gutter bum who got 
registered and decided to vote, or be it the wealthiest person in this 
country, or be it the President of the United States. All the votes are 
equal in that tally. And it is a vote. It is representing those people 
who are elected to represent all the people and represent them all the 
time. And that is the basis on which they are elected.

[[Page S10284]]

  That one influence from each person is supposed to be that person's 
influence, and influence is the future of this country. That, 
throughout our history, has given us the confidence to work together.
  So, when I see a cynical attitude developing toward Government and 
politics and those in Government instead of confidence in elected 
officials, we see question marks all the time about whatever is going 
on in Government--automatic suspicions, automatic paranoia: ``You 
better watch those people in Washington. They are out to get us,'' in a 
certain way or whatever. That to me is the beginning of a danger 
signal. It is the beginning of the potential of a slide downhill and 
confidence in Government that to me can lead to many other problems and 
leave us less able to take care of ourselves as a nation in the future 
than we have been in the past.

  This is erosion of trust to the point where people want no part of 
politics. They just didn't want any part of it at all because of what 
they see. It is something that we don't want to see happen.
  It is rather peculiar because we see some of this cynicism developing 
and expressing itself in polls. When people are polled, they let their 
cynicism all hang out. It is right there in the polling--repeated 
polling that shows that cynicism has been growing with regard to how 
people view their Government. And the confidence they have. That is 
really amazing because we have had rare times in our history when 
economic times and the general social pattern across the country has 
been any better. There the lowest unemployment rate, the lowest 
inflation rate, and Federal employment is coming down. We have a chance 
of balancing our budget. The times are good, and unemployment is low. 
We have no big foreign threat out there to us physically. You think 
people would be very, very happy about this whole thing. But instead of 
that there has been this gnawing, growing, rotten little specks of 
cynicism growing on our body politic that I see as a real danger for 
the long term.
  I think we can come back to what I mentioned a little while ago. 
People no longer feel confident that their primary interests are our 
primary concern here in Washington. They feel, ``Why vote? Why get out 
there and vote? Why participate in a political party?'' Why try an 
exercise that one little bit of influence they have to put together 
with millions of other little bits of influence which will direct the 
future of this country? Why should they try to exercise that little bit 
of influence when they see that the real influence in Washington, the 
real influence in our political parties, the real influence in 
Presidential elections, in congressional elections, in Senate 
elections, is too often money? It buys access.
  Why do we think of Roger Tamraz on the Democratic side who is willing 
to put $300,000 into a Presidential race because he wanted to get in 
and try to influence somebody. If he could get to the President, or to 
the Vice President, or get to somebody, and if he could get them to 
say, ``I will approve your oil pipeline'' in Southwest Asia, he was 
going to make billions out of it. He made no bones about it. He put in 
$300,000, and he said the next time he would put $600,000 in. 
Fortunately, it didn't work, to the credit of the people that were in 
charge--the President, and the other people around there.
  But I will tell you. It raises a warning signal to us about what can 
happen.
  I used that example on the Democratic side. How about on the 
Republican side? How about when you put out invitations to a group 
called ``The Season Ticket Holders'' for $250,000 each. One hundred 
people can join this thing, and for that you are going to get a 
guaranteed dinner with the chairman of your choice in the Congress. It 
says it right in there. No problem. You are invited to all the policy 
matters. You are invited. If you are a businessman and you want to 
contribute $250,000, or have your corporation give that kind of soft 
money--and soft money can be given in any amount--then you are 
guaranteed that you will be able to come in and represent your business 
interests with the committee chairman of your choice.
  It is not in the executive branch. It is here where the laws are 
formed--right here in Congress. At the bottom of the invitation, it 
says ``Benefits Upon Receipt.''
  We wonder why the people are a little bit suspicious out there about 
what is going on.
  That was out of the hearings we had in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. I could go on and on with a number of other examples. I just 
used those two to make sure that we all understand that this isn't 
something that is just one or two or very few people.
  It is something that has become endemic in Government. It is 
something that is pervasive. It is something that is a rot on the body 
politic. It hasn't ruined it yet. Most of that apple, most of that body 
politic, most of whatever it is still is in good shape and the people 
are just as dedicated as they have ever been and the public servants 
are just as dedicated as they have ever been. But if we let this 
practice on either side of the aisle grow into the long-term future, we 
are creating a problem for the future of this country. And that we do 
not need and we do not want and we cannot afford.
  Trust is down. Suspicions are up. People cynically question those of 
us in office, and we cannot blame them.
  Now, some other things have caused some problems in this area, too. 
One is that campaign spending has gone up and up and up and up and up. 
A report from the Federal Election Commission --let's go back about 10 
years. Let's go back to 1985 and 1986. That is just over 10 years. At 
that time, the total, all congressional campaigns--just congressional 
not including the Presidential campaigns--in the 1985-86 cycle, the 
total spending for everything to do with Congress, Senate and the House 
of Representatives, was $472 million. Ten years later it is $790 
million--$790 million just for congressional races, House and Senate.
  This is interesting. The number of candidates has gone up in that 
period. I guess more people are running in primaries and so on that are 
subject to Federal elections. Back in 1985-86, there were 1,873 people 
who ran for national office, congressional campaigns. That has gone up 
to 2,605. I guess that should be encouraging to us in that maybe more 
people are running for office. I wish I knew the quality of those 
people who are running for public office and whether we are getting the 
best and brightest out there in the system instead of more people 
deciding to take a whack at running for Congress. Why not? I do not 
know how you could judge that. Someone could do a poli-sci, political 
science doctoral thesis trying to analyze that, as to what is happening 
to the quality of people running for office.
  When you go from $472 million in 10 years to $790 million, the money 
chase is on. The money chase is on, and 70 percent of it goes to TV. If 
you are not coming into people's homes via TV, you are not, in effect, 
knocking at the door, as we used to do and greet the people and have a 
handshake. TV has replaced all that. If you do not come into that 
person's living room and say hello to them via TV, you are not in the 
campaign anymore. That requires about 70 percent. So the importance of 
TV has gone up, and that has raised the cost of campaigning 
tremendously.
  I point these out as a danger to the future as I see it. We had one 
cataclysmic event back a few years ago, and that is what we all know of 
by the general term ``Watergate.'' The revelations of Watergate 
resulted in our saying enough is enough. Congress got to work. It 
passed some legislation, put some limits on, deciding we were going to 
regulate some of these things in the future, not let them run rampant 
like they were because the whole public psyche in this country had been 
jerked up short at that time. I tell you, everybody was disturbed about 
this, and we couldn't wait every day to hear what the new revelations 
were.
  Watergate, for the first time, resulted in the resignation of a 
President of the United States, something that, growing up, we thought 
would have been absolutely impossible.
  But out of those national concerns came reforms, and the reforms 
served us well, I believe. They worked. We had testimony yesterday from 
our former colleagues here, Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, and a former 
colleague here also and later Vice President, Walter Mondale, before 
our Governmental Affairs Committee. They talked about how the reforms 
put in

[[Page S10285]]

place following Watergate, they felt, really worked very well. There 
were some regulations put on. People had some questions about first 
amendment rights and all these different things that are brought up and 
discussed in the Chamber now also, but the reforms after Watergate 
seemed to have worked pretty well.
  But then came a series of court and FEC decisions that undermined it 
and created some loopholes for those Watergate reforms. We started 
seeing the rise of soft money, and it rose and it rose, and then it 
really went out through the ceiling in the last election. And that was 
by far the biggest change that had occurred.
  So we are now on a money chase, be it Presidential or be it here in 
the Congress. I have heard criticism on the floor, as well as in some 
of the press conferences of some of the Members here, being caustically 
critical of--and some of the press being caustically critical of--the 
President going out and fundraising when he says at the same time we 
need campaign finance reform. Isn't this being hypocritical? I say, no, 
I do not think so at all because we have not really changed the rules. 
As the President said, he is not interested in unilateral disarmament 
at this point.
  As I said at our hearing yesterday, if both sides agree that this 
money chase should not go on the way it is and we agree to limit both 
sides, then certainly the President should not be out fundraising. If 
we agree to that, the other side could agree to it also. It would be a 
little bit like if I was over in England and I got used to driving on 
the left side of the road and I liked that, and I came back to this 
country and I put in legislation to say, let's have driving on the 
left-hand side of the highway become the norm in this country and we 
are going to pass a law that permits that to happen, but I say I 
believe in this so fervently I am going to go drive on the left-hand 
side of the road even before the law is changed, you know what the 
result would be. I guess we can say the same thing here. I think the 
President is right in going ahead with fundraising as long as the law 
is the way it is and the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing.
  So I think some of our campaign practices need to be revised, and 
that is what we are talking about with campaign finance reform.
  You know what all the current practices are. We see them every day 
right here on Capitol Hill. Some people can't go through more than, 
let's say, a two-pay period here without receiving an invitation here 
in Washington or someplace to a barbecue, to a coffee, to a reception, 
to a dinner. Are these all situations where you go and you say, I have 
to pay $500 or I have to pay $100 or I have to give $1,000 or I can't 
go to this thing? No. A number of these things, quite a lot of them, as 
a matter of fact, mean just getting acquainted with people and doing 
the first stroking, if you will, and setting up a situation where you 
can go back later and ask for some money, and, hopefully, they will see 
fit, once you become acquainted with them, to contribute to your 
campaign. That is the nature of politics. That is the way it is.
  But then later on there are some people who creep into this whole 
process--even though I think the major part of the process is still 
legitimate and aboveboard--who do want special access. They are not 
looking to just support someone whose beliefs they believe in, whose 
statements of purpose, whose ideas of public office are something that 
they personally believe in--which would be the best of democracy, if we 
could guarantee that was the type of support being given to 
individuals.
  No; they are people who come in and then want to do what I talked 
about a little while ago. They want either to buy a ticket to become a 
season ticket holder and have that guaranteed dinner with the committee 
chairman of their choice or they are a Tamraz who makes no bones about 
it; he wants to get his pipeline approved, and he is willing to give 
$300,000 to get a shot at a few words with the President in hopes he 
can influence that person to come around to his way of thinking--which 
did not occur, I repeat.
  Is that influence imaginary? Buying access; is that imaginary? No, it 
is not. When we had insurance legislation here a couple years ago, it 
came out in the paper that some of the big contributors and big 
lobbyists were called in--I believe it was on an insurance bill--and 
actually wrote part of that bill on the Hill here. They called in the 
lobbyists who made the huge contributions and let them write their own 
portion of the bill. That was even defended by one of the Members by 
saying, well, they knew more about it than anybody else. They certainly 
did, but that did not mean they were going to write it in a way that 
was for the benefit of all the people all the time. They had bought 
their way in with influence, and they were writing it for the benefit 
of some of the people and the benefit of their special interest, you 
can bet on that, or they would not have been in here doing that.

  We saw recently the results of $50 billion being inserted into a bill 
to benefit the tobacco companies, the biggest contributors. Their chief 
representative, who reportedly in a magazine makes about $50,000 a 
month, former Republican National Committee chairman, was the one who 
apparently worked his way and got that in. That is what people are 
unhappy about.
  I have given both Democratic and Republican examples here because I 
want to point out that this is not something which is just all on one 
side of the aisle.
  Sometimes the States get out ahead of the Federal Government in these 
United States of ours. They get out ahead of us in that they can 
operate, they can act more swiftly to take on a problem as they see it 
developing. Some of the States have seen their political systems be 
corrupted, or the danger of being corrupted, by political influence at 
the local level, and they have taken some action.
  The State of Maine has recently passed legislation, the basic theme 
of which is they are going to try State funding for State races. They 
are saying, we are going to cure this thing; and rather than try to 
write more complex laws on top of already complex laws, we are going to 
say, no, we are not going to do that anymore. We are just going to say, 
in the best interests of the people in getting the government, getting 
our elected officials, to make sure they address the concerns of all 
the people all the time, once they get through the primary, then let's 
get them some financing here so they do not have to go out on this 
money chase and promise everything under the sun to get enough money to 
have a chance of winning an election.
  There are 12 other States, as I understand it, that are looking at a 
similar program right now. Maybe that is the answer for the future. We 
have seen court rulings and FEC regulations and rulings create 
loopholes that let people have access to getting around our election 
laws. Perhaps Federal financing is a way to correct that. I personally 
think that is something we will come to eventually, whether we like it 
or not. We will be forced into it because it looks as if, unless 
something drastic changes in the Chamber here--we may get a bill 
through, but it appears that it is going to be watered down enough that 
it may not be the overall comprehensive campaign finance reform that 
some of us believe, sincerely believe, is necessary if we are going to 
correct this problem into the future.
  I do not rule out the possibility that at some time in the future we 
are going to have Federal financing of Federal campaigns because I 
think the people of this country may demand that. I am one of the 
original cosponsors of a bill here in the Senate, the Kerry-Wellstone 
bill, to take a look at this, to see if we could not work out something 
that is satisfactory in that particular area.
  So I think we need to watch this experience of the States as they try 
to take back their State governments and make their State governments 
representative of all the people all the time, not all the people part 
of the time and special interests the rest of the time. We need to 
watch this very, very closely.
  Let me address one other area. We haven't had much discussion 
recently in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings that we have 
been having, we have not had much emphasis on enforcement. There have 
been those who said we have all these laws on the books now. They are 
not working, so why add more laws on top of them and make more laws 
that won't work either? That is a pretty good argument,

[[Page S10286]]

as a matter of fact. But I don't believe that is the way we ought to 
go. What we should do, we should make a FEC that can enforce the 
legislation, enforce the laws of the land, enforce the regulations they 
have put out, and make sure that anyone who violates those regulations 
is brought up short and is penalized and do it immediately, not years 
and years later.

  Instead of that, what have we seen? We have seen, through the years, 
the budget for the Federal Election Commission either remain about the 
same or actually be cut, from year to year. Instead of giving better 
enforcement, they are only able to give less enforcement. Maybe the 
people who have perpetrated those cuts on our system here had that in 
mind. Maybe they did not want to see the FEC be anything more than, 
what has been termed in the past, a toothless tiger. I think if we have 
laws they should be enforced. I think whatever is required to help the 
FEC do that, we should provide the money to do exactly that.
  This year we have reached even a ridiculous example. They asked for 
an additional $4.6 million over there in addition to their, I think it 
is, $28-point-something million. They asked for an additional $4.6 
million to give them special investigative authority, investigative 
capability to go out and see what happened in the 1996 election. And 
the committees up here have not only not approved the additional money 
for them, they have sent word over there specifying they are not to 
hire more people. They are not to hire more people. That is the word 
that FEC is operating under from the committees on the Hill right now 
this very day. They are not to hire more people to look into these 
alleged violations of law that happened in the last election.
  In other words, we are creating a Nation of political scofflaws out 
there, if you will. Because they know you are not likely to get caught 
if you do something wrong, because that is just the way the system is. 
It does not have the capability of picking up all the wrongs in the 
system. So you have a chance of getting away with all sorts of misdeeds 
if you want to try it.
  So, we need a strong FEC. We had one estimate given to us the other 
day by one person who studies these things a lot of the time, that they 
thought the FEC budget should probably be doubled. It should be 
somewhere around the $50 million mark, instead of hovering around the 
$30 million or under mark. I would vote for that.
  I think we also need to make some changes in the Federal Election 
Commission, in that I don't believe they are organized on the proper 
basis. When we say you have six commissioners over there, three will be 
Republican and three will be Democrat, that sets it up for political 
bickering right off the bat. It is organized for political disunity 
going in. It is not organized to get to election fraud and violations 
without fear or favor, no matter what the politics of it are, 
Republican, Democrat, or independent. It is set up with three and 
three, which just breeds political gridlock. And that is exactly what 
they have had through the years, in many cases. Much of the time.
  One of the suggestions that had been made in the past is that we, 
instead of having the commissioners appointed on a political basis the 
way they are now, we should have the commissioners appointed from 
former Federal judges: People who would be stable; they have been used 
to giving fair consideration of the law and cases, that has been their 
training, that has been their background; and to be appointed for their 
nonpolitics, for their apolitical views, if you will, because they 
would best be able to judge, then, when a Democratic or Republican 
transgression occurs, they would best be able to give it the proper 
attention and proper consideration. Rather than just saying I am a 
Democrat so I better protect my Democratic interests over here no 
matter what, or I am a Republican so I'll see that we forgive that 
violation or whatever it is on the Republican side--no. That is not in 
the best interests of the people of the United States. The best 
interests of the people of the United States is in having a Federal 
Election Commission that enforces the law without fear or favor, 
wherever the violation occurs. And that means, I think, that we have to 
reorganize at the top level over there.

  Going into our committee investigations this year, we were faced with 
a tough choice.
  Before I leave that, for just a moment let me give a few figures here 
on the FEC, what their budget problems have been. For fiscal 1995 they 
had over 10 percent of their budget rescinded halfway through the 
fiscal year, the largest percentage agency rescission of any Government 
agency. In fiscal 1996 they sought $32 million but they received only 
$26 million, with some of those funds fenced for other particular 
purposes. For fiscal 1997 they had their travel budget limited and 
fenced such that it was difficult to conduct depositions and court 
appearances, including those undertaken in connection with the 
Christian Coalition litigation. In fiscal 1998, being considered right 
now, they asked both the House and Senate for $29 million, plus an 
additional $4.9 million--I correct my figure I gave a moment ago at 
$4.8 and $28 million, I guess I said--but they asked both the House and 
Senate for $29 million plus an additional $4.9 million just to deal 
with cases arising from the 1996 Federal election. The actual budget is 
still in conference, but they have been told specifically not to hire 
more staff to look into those problems of the 1996 election.
  Let me tell you one other thing, and this I think is rather amazing. 
I didn't know this until a few days ago myself. Their total enforcement 
cadre over there is 30 lawyers to oversee all these hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of cases filed with the FEC. There are 30 
lawyers. How many investigators would you think the FEC would have to 
go out in the field and investigate wrongdoing out there, get the 
information, go to boards of elections, bring that information back, 
really create these cases--how many investigators do we figure the FEC 
has? Do you know what the answer is right now, as of this day, the 1st 
of October, 1997? They have two, two investigators. And that is up from 
only one just a short time ago. I guess that is heartening. That is a 
100 percent increase, isn't it? We have gone from one up to two.
  Two investigators for the FEC. Their lawyers in the enforcement 
division go out but they don't do investigations. They will go out and 
do depositions. They will go out and do a court case someplace that has 
been developed here, but their work is basically paperwork handled at 
the Washington level. So the investigative capacity at the FEC is not 
much, two people for the whole agency.
  I propose we somehow get some little cadre of FBI people who really 
know something about investigation and assign them, at least for a 
period here of a few years, to help out over there, doing real 
investigative work trying to clean up the problems of campaign finance 
where the laws have been broken. And there have been laws broken in a 
number of areas.
  Where do they need to look? Starting out our hearings this year I 
suggested we, instead of just going with Republican investigations or 
Democratic investigations, I proposed that we pick some areas where we 
know there are difficulties with campaign finance and then we bring 
those up, one after the other, and have a series of hearings on each 
one of these subjects. Let the chips fall where they may, Democrat or 
Republican, and find out what is wrong with the system, get it out 
there, get it out in the open. If we need additional law, let's have 
additional law. If we just need to enforce existing law better, then 
let's do that, too. But let's find out what the problems are first and 
then enforce them and make a system that really is run on a tight 
basis.
  What are some of these areas I want to look at? One is foreign money. 
There are all sorts of allegations about money coming in from wherever, 
whether it was the Chinese or Chinese Government, where it was being 
channeled, where it was coming through and who it was going to, and did 
it affect elections or did it not affect elections--we had all sorts of 
problems with foreign money potentially coming into the American 
system. We had one on one side looking at whether it is the Democrats 
are where the money is coming and John Huang and Charlie Trie, and did 
that money come from the Government of China? On the other hand, we had 
the spectacle of Haley Barbour and the Republican National Committee 
getting loans of money, $2.1 million out of Hong Kong, funding it

[[Page S10287]]

through the National Policy Forum in this country and into the 
Republican coffers. So we had bipartisan foreign money problems, there 
isn't any doubt about it.

  So we should be looking at that? That is one area. There are other 
areas, though, that we have only touched on briefly in the last few 
hearings that we have had, that I think we also have to look at if we 
are going to really do the right job, looking into campaign finance 
reform or campaign finance violations, No. 1; and things the FEC should 
be monitoring on a steady basis.
  How about the second one, third-party transfer? If I have maxed out 
my contributions that I can give, I say, ``I am maxed out.'' But I turn 
to somebody else and I say, ``OK, look, I'll give you $1,000 and you go 
over there and you give that in your name and that clears it and I'll 
just give you the money.'' That is illegal. We have lots of information 
about that being done. That whole thing is an area we have really not 
even explored much yet, yet it was violated time after time after time.
  So, foreign money, do we have to look into that? Of course we do. The 
third party transfer of funds? Of course we do.
  Another area was the area of misuse of tax exempt organizations, so-
called 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations, where they have 
organizations given certain tax-exempt status and, for having that 
status, they are prohibited from political activity. But in this last 
election that whole thing ran amok. Organizations were being put 
together with that kind of charter and they were deliberately 
channeling money through. We have example after example of that, and we 
have not really had a chance to bring those things out yet, either. So 
that is another area we ought to be looking at.
  Another area the FEC ought to be following, if we gave them adequate 
resources to do so, is tax-exempt organizations.
  Then we had the biggest increase of all and that is in the area of 
soft money, where you can give any amount you want to give, any amount 
you want to give. If you are a billionaire you can walk in and put $1 
billion down if you wanted to. Do you think that might buy some 
influence? I think it might buy some, yes. You can put down any amount 
you want. As I talked about a little while ago, we had the restricted 
membership of 100, if they would contribute $250,000 to that season 
ticket holder group that I mentioned just a moment ago when I was 
lining up one on the Democratic side and one on the Republican side to 
give some balance to this. The soft money can come in in any amounts 
now, but it is supposed to be just for party building. It is supposed 
to be used for things like get-out-the-vote drives and general 
advertising on general views of the Republican Party or the Democratic 
Party. Was that misused? There is no doubt whatsoever about the misuse 
of soft money and the pernicious influence that it had with this last 
election. The area of influence of soft money has just skyrocketed from 
election to election since the new FEC ruling just a few years ago.
  Another area is the straight old quid pro quo. We could add that as a 
fifth. If I give you so much money as a public official, then I want 
you to pass a certain law for me; and you do it. There are examples of 
quid pro quo also. So, these are all areas that we cannot ignore from 
the past. There are many of those things, just in those areas that I 
mentioned, that are flat illegal. Soft money is not illegal. It is 
perfectly legal now, but we have to make it illegal with McCain-
Feingold, which I support fully and I am a cosponsor of. This is 
probably the most runaway part of campaign financing that we have had 
in recent elections--certainly in this last election.
  Now, along with soft money, that I make such a fuss about, there is 
one other part. If we are going to correct this, there is one other 
thing we have to do, too. We cannot just see the money that was 
formerly going to soft money, to the parties and being misused then, 
being put into State races or into congressional races. We can't just 
see that money then not go into soft money but go over into issue 
advocacy ads and independent expenditures for the so-called issue 
advocacy ads that can be put on in a particular campaign in the last 
few days and influence a campaign, quite apart from the person running 
in that campaign who doesn't even have control of who is coming in and 
putting on TV ads either for or against him or her.
  So we can't just do away with soft money and hope that will solve the 
problem, because soft money is probably going to gravitate over to the 
area of issue advocacy or independent expenditures. If we are going to 
correct one, we have to correct the other; we have to deal with them 
together.
  So the question is, how do we prevent soft money not only from going 
into issue advocacy ads or independent expenditures, but also we want 
to make sure that we don't create a loophole here where the soft money 
now will go by the many, many millions of dollars over to the States, 
which it would be legal to do right now, go to the States, and the 
State parties then would use it in particular campaigns within the 
State by putting on independent ads or issue advocacy ads in support of 
congressional candidates, even those that are not State races, but 
there is an interest in them. So you see how complex this whole thing 
becomes.
  Mr. President, those are a few views on some of the things that I see 
with regard to campaign finance this year.
  There are a couple of statements I would like to quote on the floor 
today. Will Rogers is looked at as one of our great political 
commentators, in a humorous way, from years past. He did it in a way 
that got the attention of the people. He was pretty caustic in his 
comments sometimes. He made a statement once that might be applicable 
today, though. He said:

       Wouldn't it be great if other countries started electing by 
     the ballot instead of by bullet, and us electing by the 
     ballot instead of by bullion?

  I think he was right.
  Another is a statement by Kin Hubbard, Frank McKinney Hubbard:

       When a fellow says, ``It ain't the money but the principle 
     of the thing,'' it's the money.

  And you can bet on that.
  Jesse Unruh of California some years ago said:

       Money is the mother's milk of politics.

  And that's sure true. It is as true today as it has ever been before.
  Let me finish up where I started off today with this. I am afraid by 
our talk here about what is the potential for the future that we talk 
about this in such terms to make our point on the floor that sometimes 
we emphasize them to the point that we are about to increase what we 
are trying to prevent, and that is cynicism in this country.
  By talking about the difficulties of campaign finance and the 
transgressions against campaign finance law--which should never have 
occurred in the last election on both sides of the aisle, and they have 
to be corrected. I am not trying to say they are not important, but 
they are. My whole statement today has been along the theme that this 
is a beginning of a rot we have to correct. So I am not trying to 
minimize these things.
  I hope most of the people of the country realize that most of the 
people who run for high office do so with very good purpose in mind. 
Most of the people here, I would say, are very talented people. Most of 
them could probably be making more in business or in some corporate 
position or outside of public office than they do here. Not all of 
them, but certainly many people could. We have people running for 
office who are very fine people.
  But this is a danger when we see things like what happened in this 
last election--the potential with foreign money, although all the sums 
talked about or rumored, whatever came from foreign money is a tiny 
little pittance, just a tiny little nothing almost compared to what was 
spent. That $790 million I indicated was spent in the last election 
just in congressional elections. Not even the Presidential election is 
included in that.
  So a few million dollars that may have come from some foreign source 
is a fairly small amount, but it is a danger sign. We have to regulate 
that. We have to cut it off. We have to make our restrictions 
enforceable if we are not to see that grow into the future, and that is 
the danger; that is the danger. We have to make sure that with third-
party transfer of money, we don't just find rampant disregard of our 
laws, and then people just saying, ``I know my

[[Page S10288]]

limit is'' so and so ``under the law, I will give you'' this, this, 
``and somebody else, and I will contribute a lot more than my Federal 
limit was ever supposed to be and I won't get caught anyway.''

  We have to make sure that doesn't occur. We have to make sure the 
misuse of tax exempts, which ran rampant this last time, as conduits 
from people who had special interest money to put in --and they put it 
in by the millions. We have evidence of where that went and how it 
went. I hope we are able to put that on in the hearings before our 
campaign finance investigation ends on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee.
  All these areas--whether it is foreign money or third-party money or 
tax-exempt money or soft money or quid pro quo--all these areas must be 
enforced with existing law. Then we can go ahead with bringing soft 
money under better regulation than we have ever done in the past. In 
fact, there isn't any regulation on it to speak of now. Then we are 
making real progress.
  I believe the McCain-Feingold bill, which I fully support, is a 
start. I don't view it as anything more than a start. I don't think 
Senator McCain or Senator Feingold feels it is anything but a start 
right now, but it is a start. It is a start in showing people that, 
yes, we can act here in Washington; yes, when we do see a danger for 
the future, when we see some rot beginning on this body politic, we can 
cut that out, we can correct it, we have the capability to do it and we 
can restore confidence.
  Where we see cynicism and we see disregard for law, we see cynicism 
about what may be going on with our Government, we can replace that, 
once again, with real confidence, real faith in letting the people of 
this country know that we are concerned and are willing to do something 
about it.
  That is the reason why I support the McCain-Feingold proposal so 
wholeheartedly. They are important, and I am hoping that we can really 
have a vote up or down eventually. I know the so-called legislative 
tree has been filled that will try to thwart the passage of this 
legislation, but I am hoping we will really see a vote possible on this 
legislation before we finish with it. I guess the schedule is we will 
finish with it sometime next week.
  Mr. President, this was a rather lengthy statement. I will 
undoubtedly have more to say about this next week.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared remarks be 
printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Campaign Finance Reform

                        (By Senator John Glenn)

       ``Wouldn't it be great if [other countries] started 
     electing by the ballot instead of by bullet, and us electing 
     by the ballot instead of by bullion?''--Will Rogers.
       ``When a fellow says, `It ain't the money but the principle 
     of the thing,' it's the money,''--Frank McKinney Hubbard 
     (``Kin Hubbard'').
       ``Money is mother's milk of politics.''--Jesse Unruh.
       Well, Mr. President, I have often wondered if and when this 
     day would come. I recognize that both the distinguished 
     Majority Leader and the equally distinguished Minority Leader 
     have worked long and hard to get this bill to the floor and I 
     congratulate them on their efforts. I also want to express my 
     appreciation of Senators McCain and Feingold as the authors 
     of this legislation and for their leadership on an issue that 
     truly goes to the heart of American values. Their bipartisan 
     cooperation has pointed us in the right direction and I hope 
     that we can follow their example. We now have an opportunity 
     to restore faith in our American system and renew our 
     commitment to government for all the people, all the time and 
     not some of the people some of the time, special interests 
     buying access too much of the time.
       One thing is clear to me. Our current system is sick and 
     must be healed. We must work together to find a way to bring 
     that needed reform. Our nation is confronted by many concerns 
     and we have spent much of this year addressing some of those 
     problems through the budget, reconciliation, defense 
     authorization, appropriations bills, and the Chemical and 
     Biological Weapons Treaty. With this debate we turn our 
     attention to a more fundamental question: the role of money 
     in our electoral system. I believe that a simple principle 
     should apply in our democracy. We should encourage the active 
     participation of the greatest possible number of citizens and 
     restrain the undue influence of narrow factions and special 
     interests. Only by insuring that our electoral system is open 
     and fair can the notion of ``consent of the governed'' have 
     true meaning.
       How we finance our election campaigns is a central feature 
     of how American citizens judge the integrity of our 
     democracy. Many Americans see our current campaign fund 
     raising practices as a form of corruption and because they 
     believe that some interests have an unfair advantage when it 
     comes to governmental decision making. I believe that this 
     contributes to a corrosive cynicism that undermines America. 
     When voters continually witness the political money chase 
     they conclude that our system is for sale, that politicians 
     are bought, and that policy decisions are made to favor the 
     highest bidder.
       We have all noted the increasing numbers of people who lack 
     confidence in government and do not trust the government to 
     do the right thing. We have witnessed declining voting 
     participation.
       Some would have us believe that campaign finance reform 
     isn't of any interest to the American public. Some say the 
     public doesn't care, why should we care? I think that's flat 
     wrong. I think the public does care.
       Let's face it, the public continues to lose faith in their 
     federal government. Recent polls have shown that 70% of 
     Americans want campaign finance reform, but only 30% believe 
     it will happen. And perhaps most disturbing of all, three out 
     of four interviewed do not trust us in Washington to do what 
     is right.
       Let me read a quote about government leaders from one of 
     those people interviewed: ``I don't expect too much . . . 
     They're all crooked. It's just a degree of crookedness.''
       That's chilling. And I'm afraid it's a sentiment that is 
     all too common.
       Campaign finance reform is a perfect example of why the 
     public doesn't trust us.
       Another recent poll (Center For Responsive Politics, 
     conducted in early April) found that 60 percent of the people 
     polled thought campaign finance reform should be a high 
     priority this year. And, late last year, (Mellman Group, 
     October, 1996) showed that 59 percent supported the concept 
     of public financing of elections to clean up this mess.
       Yet, despite its desire to see solutions, the public simply 
     hears out of Washington that no one cares about campaign 
     finance reform. The public sees both Democrats and 
     Republicans sling mud at each other over each party's 
     excesses, but they don't hear a real desire to clean up the 
     mud. They hear about attempts to block reform, that reform 
     isn't the ``American way.''
       Poll after poll shows the public wants campaign finance 
     reform. I think we should listen.
       At the same time we have seen spending in campaigns rise 
     through the roof. According to the Federal Election 
     Commission (FEC) the cost of all Congressional campaigns more 
     than doubled from $354.7 million in 1981-2 to $765.3 million 
     in 1995-96. Major political party efforts at the local, state 
     and national level increased from $254.1 million in 1981-2 to 
     $881 million in 1995-96.
       Of course most of this money has been used to purchase more 
     and more broadcast time at ever increasing costs to reach 
     more and more voters over an ever longer campaign. One 
     could conclude that the amount of money raised and spent 
     has had a negative effect on voter attitudes and 
     participation.


                          watergate and reform

       We all remember the Watergate era that led to the campaign 
     finance rules under which we currently operate. Reform at 
     that time was long overdue. Important improvements were made 
     at that time. Prior to the enactment of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act and its amendments, some campaigns conducted 
     business through slush funds and hush money. Major reforms 
     included the establishment of the Federal Election 
     Commission, requiring reporting of contributions and 
     expenditures by federal candidates, limits on individual 
     contributions, and spending limits and partial public 
     financing of presidential campaigns.
       Unfortunately, those reforms have been eroded over the 
     years by FEC rulings and Supreme Court decisions such as 
     Buckley v. Valeo--overruling spending limits for 
     Congressional candidates and equating money with free 
     speech--and Colorado Campaign Republican Committee v. FEC--
     allowing political parties to make independent expenditures.


                           the road to reform

       With this debate we continue the long battle to reform our 
     campaign finance system. The former Senator from Oklahoma, 
     Senator Boren first brought the need for reform to the 
     attention of the Senate in 1985. The battle having been 
     joined, it was difficult to get it considered in the 99th 
     Congress. Former Senator Goldwater of Arizona played an 
     important role.
       In the 100th Congress, the Senate conducted a historical 
     record number of cloture votes. In 1988, we saw a scene right 
     out of Frank Capra's ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' with an 
     all night filibuster and the Sgt. At Arms arresting absent 
     Senators and bringing them to the Senate chamber. I believe 
     that our inability to bring about reform has made things 
     worse.


                           current practices

       Let me be clear. I do not believe that raising money for 
     campaigns is corrupt. I do not believe that our government is 
     corrupt because public officials raise money for campaigns. I 
     believe that fund raising and public policy decision making 
     can be kept separate. I believe that those who choose public 
     service have a high calling. This is an honorable

[[Page S10289]]

     profession and I have always been proud to serve.
       However, with the explosion of fund raising and the erosion 
     of our laws, many citizens believe that the credibility of 
     our electoral process has been impugned by the view that 
     special interests have special access and therefore have 
     undue influence.
       We must reform our system to restore faith in our 
     democracy.
       We all are witnesses to the perception that money has a 
     growing influence. Political parties and candidates are 
     engaged in an endless pursuit of campaign funds made up of 
     both hard and soft money. Not a day passes without a full 
     schedule of events, receptions, coffees, meetings, dinners, 
     lunches, discussions, and, forums--many ultimately intended 
     to establish the climate to eventually raise money.
       Soft money, campaign contributions not directly used in 
     behalf of federal candidates and not required to be reported 
     has become the crack cocaine of politics and parties and 
     candidates are addicted.
       As the ranking member of the Senate Governmental Affairs 
     Committee I have spent all year looking into campaign fund 
     raising. It is clear to me that many contributors believe 
     that they get what they are seeking. They pay for access in 
     the legislative and executive branches, and they get it.
       We have been examples of contributors who want to appear to 
     have influence by being seen with important officials and to 
     have their pictures taken as a way to impress others. We have 
     also seen contributors who have a special interest or 
     particular project that they want considered. Through their 
     contributions they obtain access.
       Many contributors do have interests that can be affected by 
     government decisions. No one can underestimate the impact on 
     the American people when headline after headline links 
     governmental action and campaign contributions. The $50 
     billion tax benefit for tobacco companies in this year's tax 
     bill, inserted in secret and with no debate, only serves to 
     make many citizens believe that the integrity of our 
     electoral process has been compromised by special interests.


                             needed reform

       Eventually, Mr. President, I believe that the answer to our 
     concern is to eliminate the role of private money in 
     campaigns. We should allow campaigns to be fairly and equally 
     underwritten by all Americans through a some form of publicly 
     supported financing.
       That is why I joined with my colleagues Senator Kerry of 
     Massachusetts and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota in 
     cosponsoring a bill, the Clean Money Clean Campaign Act, 
     based upon the Maine plan to limit campaign spending, 
     prohibit special interest contributions, eliminate fund 
     raising efforts, provide equal funding and a level playing 
     field for all candidates and end the loopholes that have 
     wrecked our current system. Through a publicly funded 
     system we can end the current abuse and establish a system 
     that takes us back to our major responsibility, 
     representing the interests of ``all the people, all the 
     time''.
       I recognize that the time has probably not yet come to move 
     to federal financing, but I believe that the more the 
     American people focus on the current system and its exploding 
     abuses, the more likely it will be that the support will grow 
     for such a change.


                            McCain-Feingold

       The bill before us originally contained spending limits for 
     Congressional candidates. In an effort to reach out for a 
     consensus on this issue, those provisions have been 
     eliminated. Nevertheless, we now consider a bill which I 
     believe addresses many important concerns.
       We must address the question of soft money contributions. 
     We must find a way to require the disclosure of funds used 
     for express advocacy and issue advocacy.
       I believe we have to take a hard look at the FEC. We must 
     have enforcement of election law--present or future--or we 
     encourage scofflaw parties and candidates. The FEC cannot do 
     an adequate job. Currently the FEC has 30 enforcement 
     attorneys. Mr. President, that is fewer than the number of 
     lawyers currently working on the Governmental Affairs 
     investigation. The FEC has two--count them--two full time 
     investigators. In order to insure better enforcement we must 
     consider that the $28 million FEC budget should be increased 
     and if expected to do an adequate job it should be nearly 
     doubled. Furthermore, while the FEC is being expanded I 
     believe that investigative assistance should be provided 
     by at least a small group of FBI agents.


                       summary of fec budget woes

       Fiscal 1995: Had over 10% of budget rescinded half way 
     through the fiscal year, the largest percentage agency 
     rescission of any government agency
       Fiscal 1996: Sought $32 million but received only $26 
     million with some funds ``fenced'' for particular purposes.
       Fiscal 1997: Had travel budget limited and fenced such that 
     it was difficult to conduct depositions and court appearances 
     including those undertaken in connection with the Christian 
     Coalition litigation
       Fiscal 1998: Asked both the House and Senate for $29 
     million plus an additional $4.9 million just to deal with 
     cases arising from the 1996 federal election. Actual budget 
     is still in conference but have been told specifically not to 
     hire more staff. Summary of FEC Provisions in Clean Money 
     Clean Campaign Bill
       Adds ``independent'' Commissioner selected by independent 
     commission to the FEC
       Limits Commissioners to one six year term
       Prohibits contributions from individuals not qualified to 
     vote (juveniles, felons and foreign nationals)
       Permits the Commission to conduct random audits of PACs, 
     candidate and party committees
       Grants the Commission the authority to seek an injunction 
     to halt illegal act PRIOR to the election
       Lowers the threshold for opening an investigation from 
     reason to believe a violation has occurred to reason to open 
     an investigation
       Mandatory requirement to file disclosure reports either 
     electronically or by fax.
       Through this debate I hope that we can work together and 
     make needed improvements to our system of campaign finance. 
     We must clean up campaigns and restore faith in our 
     government.

  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Maine.

                          ____________________