[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 13 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S805-S806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to turn just for a moment to 
the issue of campaign finance reform which we will take up this 
afternoon at 3 p.m. This is an issue, also, that was discussed some 
last year and, by agreement, is to be brought to the floor of the 
Senate this afternoon. Since our last discussion on this issue, I want 
to call my colleagues' attention to two pieces of information in the 
newspaper dealing with the two special elections to the Congress that 
have been held in the interim period. One was in New York, a special 
election to fill a vacancy in New York. It says:

       RNC [Republicans National Committee] Invests Heavily in 
     ``Issue'' Attack Ads; $800,000 spent in New York House race.

  It's not hard to figure out who won this race. Mr. President, 
$800,000 of outside money called ``issue ads,'' unregulated by the 
current rules on campaign finance--corporate money, unlimited 
quantities of money from any given source stuck into a big pot and then 
sent into a district by a political party. And it is declared, under 
current circumstances and with current court decisions, that this is 
not a part of the investment in those races. This nearly $1 million, 
with other funds included, was brought into the system in the form of 
issue ads--sham ads that were clearly direct 30-second advertisements 
expressly waged for one purpose, and that was to attack and destroy a 
candidate of the other party. This was done, by the way, with a legal 
form of cheating made possible by today's campaign finance law and 
current court decisions permitting issue ads, not so thinly disguised, 
to be waged in unlimited quantity using unlimited corporate money, 
unlimited individual money and undisclosed so that no one, no one in 
this country, will discover where the money came from. That is what is 
wrong with this current system.

  We just had more recently a race in California. Same result; 
different amounts. Two different groups, large amounts of money coming 
into so-called issue advertising. Do they have a right to do this? Yes, 
they do. But do they have a right to wage advertisements in political 
campaigns with money that can come in huge blocks donated by 
corporations or very wealthy people to the tune of $50,000, $100,000 or 
$500,000 and then go into a State and use it in a political race in a 
Federal election and never have to disclose where the money came from? 
I don't think that's fair.
  If anybody on the floor of the Senate, given what we have seen in the 
recent races in this country, can stand and say, ``Gee, campaign 
finance reform, there's nothing wrong here, things are just fine,'' if 
anybody can honestly stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and say 
things are just fine, we have no problems with campaign finance reform, 
I submit that they have not watched what is happening around the 
country.
  We passed a piece of campaign finance reform legislation in 1974, and 
the rules since 1974 have been bent and twisted and people have gone 
under them and over them, and the result now, not only because of what 
has happened with those rules but also because

[[Page S806]]

of some court decisions, is that we have a campaign finance system in 
total chaos.
  I come to the floor today to support the McCain-Feingold bill which 
will be voted on this week by the U.S. Senate. We have some Members of 
the Senate who have stood and said, ``We intend to filibuster; we don't 
think that anything should be passed by the Congress; we believe 
anything that Congress does limits someone else's speech.'' And, in 
effect, I guess they are saying there ought not be any rules.
  We are told somehow that money is speech in politics: The more money 
you have, the more speech you have, the more you are able to speak. 
Some of us believe that there ought to be in politics campaign finance 
reform that begins to set some reasonable limits on what kind of money 
is spent in political campaigns. We think that the current regime of 
campaign finance is just completely spiraling out of control, and we 
think the McCain-Feingold bill, while not perfect, is a good piece of 
legislation for this Congress to enact.
  Mr. President, I also intend to offer, if I am allowed in the context 
of these debates, one additional piece of legislation I would like to 
mention just for a moment. Federal law currently provides that all 
television stations must offer candidates for Federal office the lowest 
rate on their advertising rate card for commercials for a certain 
amount of time preceding the election. To repeat, under current law, we 
say candidates are entitled to the lowest rate on the rate card for 
political advertising for a certain period prior to the election.
  Everyone has a right to put on the air what they wish to put on the 
air about their opponent. In politics, unlike most other forms of 
competition, the normal discourse is to say, ``There's my opponent. 
Look at what an awful person that opponent is. Let me tell you 18 awful 
things about my opponent.'' Is that the way you see airlines advertise? 
``Look at my competing airline over here. Let me tell you about how 
awful they are, how awful their maintenance record is.'' I don't think 
so. Is that the way automobile companies advertise? No. It is the way 
people in politics advertise because it has worked.
  My point is this. I am going to offer an amendment that says we will 
change the Federal law that requires the lowest rate on the rate card 
for the 60 days prior to elections. We will say that the television 
stations are required to offer that lowest rate only to television 
commercials that are 1 minute in length and only in circumstances where 
the candidate appears on the commercial 75 percent of the time.

  Why do I do that? Because I would like candidates to start taking 
some ownership of their commercials instead of the 30-second slash-and-
burn commercial that the candidate never appears on. Oh, everybody has 
a right to continue to run those. However, we are not required, in my 
judgment, to tell television studios they must offer the lowest rate 
for these kinds of ads.
  Air pollution in this country is a problem. We have been concerned 
about air pollution for some long while. One form of air pollution in 
this country is the kind of political commercial that has been very 
successful. I don't deign to suggest now we can ban it. We can't. Free 
speech in this country and free political speech allows anybody to do 
anything they want in their campaigns in a 30- or 60-second ad.
  But I believe we ought to give an incentive for those who put 
commercials on the air during political campaigns that say to the 
American people, ``Here's what I stand for, here's what I believe, 
here's what I want to fight for as we debate the future of this 
country,'' in which the candidate himself or herself asserts positions 
that they think ought to be a part of public discourse and public 
debate. It seems to me we ought to try to provide incentives for that 
by saying the lowest rate card in campaigns, the lowest rate on the 
bottom of the card, will go to commercials that are at least 1 minute 
in length and on which the candidate appears 75 percent of the time.
  I don't know if we are going to get to that. I intend to offer it as 
an amendment.
  First and foremost, I rise to say I support the McCain-Feingold bill. 
I think Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have done a good job. Is it 
perfect? No. It is an awfully good start to try to bring some order and 
establish some thoughtful rules to a campaign finance system that is 
now a mess.
  I want to be involved in the debate in the coming hours, when I hear 
people stand on the floor of the Senate and say, ``Gee, we think the 
campaign finance system is wonderful,'' because I want to ask them what 
they have been reading, what they have been watching. Not the campaigns 
that I have seen, not the reports that I have seen about campaign 
finance awash in soft money, awash in issue ads financed by soft money 
flying all over the country to pollute the air waves, that never allow 
the American people to understand who was the donor, who put in half a 
million dollars to go after this or that candidate. That has become a 
perversion of fair rules and fair standards in campaign finance reform, 
and I hope when we pass McCain-Feingold we will finally begin to make 
some order and some thoughtful response to campaign finance reform.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________