[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I came over to speak on a beautiful, lazy 
Friday afternoon--that is one of the times you can get the floor 
without having to sit around too long--and talk about three or four 
items that I have just been reflecting on--nothing heavy.
  But to take up campaign finance reform first, that issue has had the 
Senate tied in knots, now, for about 6 weeks, so tied in knots that we 
are not going to be able to finish the work that we ought to finish, 
particularly on the highway transportation bill, and that is a real 
tragedy. Nevertheless, I have felt very strongly about this issue for a 
long time, so strongly that earlier this year I introduced my own bill 
to provide for public financing of campaigns.
  I think I could probably say without fear of contradiction--and at my 
age I am not likely to live long enough to see this country go to 
public financing--and yet in my opinion that is the only solution: If 
you take all private money out of financing of campaigns in this 
country then you know that any private money in a campaign is a 
violation.
  Senator Thompson has just announced--essentially announced--the 
shutting down of the hearings on campaign finance reform. Nobody's 
fault--I thought Senator Thompson did a credible job. I thought all the 
members of the committee did. But there really was not very much there, 
except occasional abuses, cases of neglect, inattention, and heavy 
partisanship, but very little in a way that could remotely be construed 
as illegal. Yet, for all the abuses--and there were some--uncovered and 
testified to and about during those hearings, there is not any strong 
sentiment here to change the system under which those abuses occurred. 
If we do nothing this year, we do nothing next year, you can rest 
assured the abuses will continue.
  I come from the Democratic Party. Of course, when it comes to raising 
money, we are a threatened species. But completely aside from the 
politics of the issue--and the fact is that the Republicans outraise 
us--I think our Democratic National Committee is in debt by $15 
million. I saw a big story in the paper this morning that the 
Democratic National Committee was going to raise $2.5 million at a 
retreat in Florida this weekend, and the story acted as though there 
was something ominous and maybe certainly unethical about it. But it 
didn't seem that way to me at all, not under the existing system. There 
is nothing wrong with people giving $50,000 a couple to attend a 
weekend retreat. That is a pretty steep price, but people do it every 
weekend in both parties. The price is just not normally that high.
  But I also feel that as long as we allow that sort of thing to 
continue, we are effectively selling off the Government to the highest 
bidder. I said on the floor, and it bears repeating, you cannot expect 
a democracy to function as it is supposed to function when money plays 
the role it plays in our campaigns. So, I hope that, come next March or 
whenever they have agreed to, if there has been such an agreement, that 
we can address the McCain-Feingold bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill, 
but I must say it pales compared to what I think ought to be done, 
namely go to public financing and take private money out of it.
  I saw a list in the Washington Post yesterday of all the incumbents 
and how much money they had in the bank and how much the challengers 
had. And the incumbents are all friends of mine. This is not to 
belittle them. They are simply taking advantage of the system as it is. 
But the incumbents have millions in the bank and the challengers had 
virtually nothing. As a country lawyer from a town of 1,200 people who 
jumped up from a private practice to run for Governor--which most 
people considered insane, trying to get me to submit to a saliva test--
believe you me, I know the power of incumbency and I faced it.
  In the first primary, I spent $90,000. You couldn't get on the 
evening news for a week for that today.
  I don't want to get too preachy about it. This is something you can 
get preachy about. But the fact is, I see campaign finance reform now 
in a different way than I saw it even as recently as 2 or 3 years ago. 
I see it now as a real threat to this Nation. It is no longer, at least 
it should not be, a partisan matter. It is, and it shouldn't be, 
because everybody's future is at stake.
  I saw in the paper this morning where one of the candidates in 
Virginia is going to be given $1 million by his party. I saw last week 
where one of the candidates for Susan Molinari's spot, I guess it is in 
New York, that one of the parties is dumping $800,000 into that 
campaign and that person's opponent had $35,000 in the bank. You don't 
have to be brilliant to know how those races are going to come out. 
Television does it all and you cannot get on television without money. 
That is what these massive contributions are all about.
  Whoever has the most money 94 percent of the time wins. You can 
hardly call that a democracy because, as I say, it is threatening.

                          ____________________