[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 13 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S817-S832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Under the previous order, the 
hour of 3 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the 
campaign finance reform legislation. The clerk will report the bill.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1663) to protect individuals from having their 
     money involuntarily collected and used for politics by a 
     corporation or labor organization.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, spring has come early to Washington this 
year, and the Senate's return to the subject of campaign finance will 
strengthen the impression that we have already entered the television 
rerun season. The evening news, I fear, for the next few nights will 
seem like a replay of events from last fall when two irreconcilable 
points of view met on the Senate floor and reached a stalemate.
  We agreed to try again at some time before March 6, and so, pursuant 
to that agreement, I have laid down a bill that embodies the most 
important campaign finance reform of all: paycheck protection. The 
bill, S. 1663, is at the desk.
  It is as simple as this: No one should be forced to make a political 
contribution. That is pretty elementary, and overwhelmingly Americans, 
including union members, agree with that. No one should be compelled by 
a union or a corporation or a Congress to give their hard-earned 
dollars to a candidate or a campaign. And yet, millions of our fellow 
Americans are held up like that, not at the point of a gun but through 
misuse of their union dues.
  I am the son of a shipyard worker, a pipefitter, a pipefitter union 
member, and even, as I understand it, temporarily a union steward. I 
grew up in a blue-collar family. I grew up with my father going to work 
in a shipyard, and I am very sympathetic to how they work--the 
conditions they used to have to work in and the fact that those 
conditions are better now.
  But I know my father would have objected strenuously to his union 
dues being taken and used for political purposes with which he did not 
agree. Diverting workers' earnings to campaign coffers of some favorite 
politicians in some other part of the country, that certainly is a 
legitimate concern. No matter who does it, we shouldn't be allowing 
that to happen.
  If we are serious about reforming the Nation's campaign finance laws, 
this is the place to start, by protecting workers' paychecks.
  This bill before us, which is largely the work of my colleague from 
Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, is the gate through which campaign finance 
reform must proceed if it is to proceed at all. Whatever our respective 
views on other aspects of the campaign finance debate, support for 
paycheck protection is a litmus test of whether we are serious or 
whether we are credible.
  Opponents of paycheck protection have created quite a stir about 
other problems they perceive with campaign finance reform. They remind 
me of the overly zealous policeman writing a ticket for a car parked 
just 3 inches too close to a fire hydrant while a brutal mugging takes 
place right behind his back. In fact, the workers of America are mugged 
every time they are forced to contribute to candidates and to causes 
they do not support.
  The bills that have thus far been called ``campaign finance reform'' 
would not do a thing about that, but, golly, they would sure write 
parking tickets.
  This Senate over the past 2 years has been able to reach consensus on 
a lot of difficult issues. It hasn't been easy. We have worked hard 
reaching consensus, agreeing to welfare reform and last year the budget 
agreement and tax reductions. It took weeks, it took months, it took 
sacrifice, it took give and take. That atmosphere has not developed 
with campaign finance reform. You would think we could reach a 
consensus, but the consensus is not there yet. Both sides have to want 
consensus, and a consensus would have to do five things:

[[Page S818]]

  First, respect the constitutional rights of every American to engage 
in the political process as those rights were enunciated by the Supreme 
Court in Buckley v. Valeo. We don't need less participation by 
Americans at all stages of life and in all avenues in elections; we 
need more participation. We shouldn't be trying to restrict their 
expression; we ought to be encouraging it to take advantage of every 
opportunity to express themselves and express their views on issues 
and, yes, on candidates, and not sometime far off removed from an 
election when people are not paying attention. As a matter of fact, I 
think one of the things we ought to do is shorten the length 
of campaigns and compact them if we can, but there is a little problem 
with that, too. That would be my desire, but how do you do it 
constitutionally?

  Second, encourage greater participation by citizens in the political 
process.
  Third, ensure that any and all contributions to a campaign are 
absolutely voluntary.
  Fourth, restrict the power of Government officials to meddle in 
campaigns and to intimidate citizens who participate in them.
  And fifth, and last, safeguard America's elections from foreign 
influence.
  All of us should be able to rally around those very basic principles, 
I think. Unfortunately, though, many in this Chamber don't seem to want 
a consensus. What they want is an advantage, an unfair advantage for 
some candidates, some special interests, and some contributors, but not 
for all.
  Sure, let's be real honest. Democrats would like to limit 
contributions from groups that support Republicans, but if you talk 
about any kind of fair restriction on their supporters, oh, no, that's 
not fair. They want to tilt the Nation's campaign laws and, in the 
process, discourage citizen involvement in Government. Their 
legislation would make it more difficult for Americans to hold 
accountable their elected officials. That is hardly the way to restore 
trust in government or respect for those who lead it.
  More rules and regulations will not do the job. Our elections are 
already swamped with rules and regulations. They are so complicated 
that virtually every congressional campaign now needs a battery of 
election law attorneys to guard against inadvertent violations.
  Every campaign now has to have a CPA to make sure you get all these 
filings done properly and that you get the addresses and the 
employment. You better have some good legal advice and you better take 
every possible precaution to make sure that you are dotting every ``i'' 
and crossing every ``t,'' because there are going to be some people who 
will be pawing through everything you do.
  I have voted for some of the campaign finance laws in the past. I 
voted for the FEC, thinking maybe it would get better, and it has 
gotten worse. We have been limiting participation. We have been making 
it more difficult for candidates to be able to raise the money to get 
their message out, and there are a lot of people I figure who would 
like to really put elections in the control of the national news media, 
the national broadcasters, certain limited organizations.
  I have said here before, if I were at the mercy of the major 
newspaper in my State and the biggest television station in my State, I 
would be trying lawsuits in Pascagoula, MS, and making a lot more 
money, but I was able to get out and get my message across in spite of 
the opposition of the establishment, the courthouse gangs, and the news 
media with their prejudices. I was able to go directly to the people. 
Would the proposal that we have heard--McCain-Feingold--help that? No. 
It would cut that off.

  All the laws already on the books did not prevent, by the way, the 
most blatant, the most egregious, the most offensive disregard of the 
law in the last Presidential campaign. I mean, this idea of ``stop me 
before I do it again,'' I do not think should sell.
  The first thing we should do with our campaigns in America is to 
comply with the laws on the books. That is where the problem was. The 
last election, you know, did not have problems because we had people 
who were doing things that we could stop with this bill; they were 
violating the law. That is what caused the problem.
  Foreign contributions are illegal. Many of the problems that we saw 
in the last election were illegal. Now some people say, ``Well, we've 
got to stop the efforts of people to help the parties.'' I thought we 
were supposed to help the two-party system in America. We should 
encourage the two-party system. We should encourage parties to get 
voters to turn out to the polls. We should encourage groups to support 
candidates of their choice--not discourage it.
  The outcome, of course, that we had from the last Presidential 
campaign was a morass involving everything from Vice Presidential phone 
calls and Native American casinos to illegal fundraising at religious 
institutions. All of those things were probably against the law anyway.
  When key Democratic fundraisers flee the country to avoid 
questioning, it is no wonder their beneficiaries would like to change 
the subject away from the enforcement of current law. But enforcing 
current law is precisely the way that we should begin the debate on 
this campaign finance reform issue today.
  If current law needs to be streamlined or clarified or simplified, 
let us do it. But let us do it while encouraging greater participation 
by more people in politics, and let us do it constitutionally.
  The amendment that will be offered by Senator McCain and Senator 
Feingold will take us in the wrong direction, in my opinion, toward 
more controls, more restrictions, and less accountability. We should go 
the other way. We should try to replicate on a national scale the 
spirit of a town meeting in which every person is free to speak, free 
to complain, and free to hold accountable those in positions of power.
  The bill I have presented advances that goal by protecting workers' 
paychecks against political abuse. Let us agree to do this today and 
then explore other possible accords. If we can take this one step, this 
modest step, it could be the one that would break the dam and allow us 
to do some of the other things that we probably could agree to. But, 
no, it is said that this is a poison pill--a poison pill--when the 
American people know it is the right thing to do, when union members 
support it overwhelmingly, when what we are really talking about is 
voluntarily agreeing to have your money used.
  That is a very American thing we are trying to do, I think. We should 
stop the confiscation of workers' earnings for the benefit of 
politicians. Then we can finish campaign finance reform in a true sense 
and move on to other matters the American people want us to deal with.
  Let me just say that we are going to have a full debate on this 
today, tomorrow, Wednesday; and there will be votes on it as we agreed 
to last year. But I want to remind my colleagues that after this, we 
have pending some really important issues, including issues involving 
education in America, highway construction in America, NATO 
enlargement, a budget resolution, supplemental appropriations to 
provide funds for the situations in Bosnia and Iraq, and to make a 
decision about how to deal with IMF.
  We are talking about Internal Revenue Service reform, maybe even some 
tobacco settlement legislation. All of that, and it has to be done 
before the end of April. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of 
work to do on issues that people really care about. Education is a 
perfect example. A decent infrastructure is another example. In my own 
State of Mississippi, we have gotten an unfair share of the highway 
funds for 40 years. It is time we changed that.
  We should give this debate fair time. And we can do that this week as 
we promised. But we have a lot of really important issues that we need 
to take up that will directly affect people's lives in America for 
years to come. I hope that after a reasonable time, unless we can find 
some broader consensus that I do not see that would include paycheck 
equity for workers, then we should move on to other very important 
issues.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my good friend and leader how much I 
appreciate his leadership on this issue. Your

[[Page S819]]

speech was, of course, right on point. We have many important things to 
accomplish for the people of the United States that they care about 
deeply. I think the leader was right on point when he made the 
observation that the last thing we want to do is to diminish the 
ability of Americans to participate in the political process. So I 
thank my good friend and leader for his outstanding work on this 
subject.

  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam President.
  I thank the leader for kicking off this debate on campaign finance 
reform.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members 
of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of our debate 
on campaign finance reform: Mary Murphy, Bob Schiff, Sumner Slichter, 
Kitty Loos, and Diane Welch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I and the senior Senator from Arizona, 
the senior Senator from Tennessee, and the Presiding Officer, and many 
of the rest of us have been looking forward to this moment for a number 
of months--the return of campaign finance reform to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate.
  This is an important occasion because, when we left the issue last 
fall, we clearly were in somewhat of a stalemate. Some people wanted 
more than anything else to say that is it, the campaign finance reform 
debate of the 105th Congress is over and done with and we will not see 
it again. They wanted to call a halt to this debate and let us go to 
the 1998 elections changing absolutely nothing about the current 
system.
  But others, including myself, thought that our consideration last 
fall of this issue had not been sufficient, that the American people 
deserved more from this Senate than parliamentary tricks and poison 
pills, that campaign finance reform is essential to the future of our 
democracy, and that we cannot afford to once again sweep this problem 
under the rug.
  The sweeping has already begun anew. And it is vigorous sweeping. It 
is coming in the form, not this time of a poison pill amendment, but a 
poison pill bill. The underlying bill to which we will have the McCain-
Feingold bill attached as an amendment is the same thing as the poison 
pill amendment. The majority leader made no pretense in this regard. It 
is simply the antiunion poison pill bill, as if that is the only issue 
that is involved in the question of campaign finance reform.
  The idea that the entirety of campaign finance reform can be 
summarized in just the question of what happens to union dues is 
completely untenable. It is an untenable notion to any American that 
the whole problem with the campaign finance reform system is related 
only to labor unions.
  Surely, that is part of the problem. But what about corporations? 
What about groups spending incredible amounts of money on ads that are 
not really issue ads at all; they are just phony campaign ads? What 
about multimillionaires buying Senate seats? What about all of these 
things?
  I do not think anyone in America really believes that this whole 
topic is summarized and encapsulated in the mere question of what 
happens with union dues. It is also incorrect to suggest that the 
McCain-Feingold bill does not address that issue. It does in fact 
codify, put into statute, what the U.S. Supreme Court has said ought to 
be done and what is the law with regard to union dues, and it does so 
by codifying what is actually said in the so-called Beck decision.
  So, Madam President, for all these months, after all this discussion 
of this issue for well over a year, all that the majority leader's bill 
does is say: We have to address this problem of union dues. I do not 
think anyone in America believes that.
  We just learned a few hours ago, Madam President, that that was going 
to be the entire contents of the leader's bill. Over 4 months after we 
agreed that he would lay down the first bill in the debate and after an 
entire year of scandals and revelations and accusations and 
investigations, the entire bill that is before us at the moment 
consists of one narrow provision--one provision--the so-called Paycheck 
Protection Act. All this time the Republican leadership has not been 
able to come up with even one thing about this current campaign finance 
system that it wants to change other than that--not one--as if nothing 
else has occurred in the country that might trouble Americans a little 
bit about how much big money is awash in their system in Washington, 
DC.
  The leader's bill does not even mention disclosure. It says nothing 
about fundraising on Federal property. It does not say a word about 
foreign money. It lets the soft money system off the hook entirely.
  I guess, from the point of view of the majority leader, all is well 
in the campaign finance world except for that one question: What about 
those union dues? Of course, we in effect knew this was his position 
anyway. The majority leader calls our current system of unlimited 
contributions in the political parties by corporations and unions and 
wealthy individuals ``the American way.''
  Frankly, Madam President, although I am not surprised at the 
proposal, I am disappointed. Although all the pundits have been saying 
for the past few months that the Republican opponents of McCain-
Feingold were just going to try to bring about the same deadlock that 
we had before, I guess I hoped, without reason, that we might have a 
real debate here about two different bills, about two different 
visions, about two different real, comprehensive ideas about how our 
campaign financing system should work.
  McCain-Feingold has been out there now for over 2 years. It has been 
analyzed and criticized and, of course, vilified in many ways, but at 
least it is out there. The so-called Snowe-Jeffords amendment has even 
been out there for the past week in draft form. Already some groups are 
attacking it. At least they have something to attack. At least the 
senior Senator from Arizona and I put our bill out there for people to 
review and consider. And at least Senators Snowe and Jeffords are 
trying to reach a compromise and are willing to let people have a look 
at what they are proposing.
  But, again, the leadership here has given us nothing new to look at 
all. Instead, all we get is merciless criticism of President Clinton's 
campaign fundraising for the last year and yet not a hint of a 
suggestion about how we could have changed that system that both 
Presidential campaigns abused. In fact, the very things that the leader 
was just describing as troubling about the President's campaign, in 
most cases, I think almost everyone would have to concede was legal. 
The raising of huge amounts of soft money is entirely legal. The 
leader's bill does not even mention the problem, as if nothing happened 
in 1996. Apparently the goal is, once again, just to tie this body in 
knots, not with a poison pill amendment, but now with a poison pill 
bill, the goal of which is to attack only one player in the system, the 
labor unions.
  Madam President, I did note that one commentator this morning said 
that campaign finance reform is going to go down again in a prearranged 
standoff. I remember being told at the beginning of last year the bill 
would never come up, it was dead on arrival, it would never see the 
light of day, and certainly that it would never come back this year. 
But this notion of a prearranged standoff is something that I cannot 
accept from our point of view.
  Well, there is no prearrangement on our side. We are ready to fight 
for reform, because that is what the American people want us to do. I 
think we have some reason to hope that we will have the votes to defeat 
the majority leader's attack on unions if he does in fact bring that up 
again for an up-or-down vote.
  The majority leader is not going to be able to rely on his poison 
pill bill to defeat campaign finance reform this time. I hope that 
gives the American people some hope that we can finally achieve 
meaningful reform this year.
  Madam President, a lot has happened in the world and in the country 
since we last debated this issue last October. Current events and 
breaking news are always unpredictable and sometimes distract us from 
the very important task we have at hand.

[[Page S820]]

  I want to agree with the leader that there are many other issues that 
require our earnest attention this year. But my first message today 
with regard to our priorities is that the allegations here in 
Washington with regard to certain personal issues and issues involving 
the White House are serious and they have to be taken seriously. But 
let us not let one potential scandal become an excuse to ignore an 
obvious and clear scandal. That clear and proven scandal is the record 
of the 1996 elections and the virtual destruction of the post-Watergate 
campaign finance reform. Today, Madam President, we are in grave danger 
of letting that happen.

  Campaign finance reform is a difficult enough topic to get people 
interested in, anyway. It can be very arcane and this other alleged 
scandal which has piqued the public's interest could distract the 
public and the Senate and end up becoming one of the biggest gifts to 
the money-driven status quo that has ever occurred.
  We have to recommit ourselves to the issue of cleaning up the 
political money system. That is why we are here today. I think there 
are two questions we have to answer. First, how is the American 
political system supposed to work? Whom is it supposed to serve? How 
one answers both of those questions depends on one's vision of American 
democracy. One vision, the one I share and I bet most of us share, that 
this is supposed to be a representative democracy. Our Government, our 
political process, and a good part of our common social and cultural 
heritage are all based on the premise that we are all to be treated 
equally under the law. It says so on the facade of the U.S. Supreme 
Court Building, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' It is implied in our 
Nation's motto, e pluribus unum, ``out of many, one.'' It is clearly 
the driving principle behind our Constitution and behind this basic 
concept which has been summarized in the notion of one person, one 
vote, and the foundation of our whole electoral system.
  Madam President, that vision of America and our democracy, a 
representative democracy, assumes that every American by his or her 
birthright has an equal role to play in this system. But there is 
another vision and that is a vision that does away with this notion of 
equality, ``one person, one vote,'' and replaces it with a system that 
I have come to see and refer to as ``corporate democracy.''
  Now, what do I mean by that? I want to return again to a story from 
my younger days, as I mentioned before, because I think it illustrates 
the difference between representative democracy in one person, one 
vote, and the notion of a corporate democracy, which is what I think we 
are becoming. When I was 13, a relative of mine gave me one share of 
stock in our great Janesville, WI, company, the Parker Pen Company. My 
relative wanted me to learn something about how our economy worked, and 
more specifically about how the stock market worked. I think that share 
was worth about $13. My father told me in addition to owning a stock 
and getting the massive dividends that $13 share of stock would 
produce, I also owned a small piece of the company, and therefore, I 
was entitled to a vote at the company's stockholder meeting.
  Now, already at age 13 I was interested in the political process and 
I sort of equated the idea of a shareholders meeting with voting at an 
election, so at that age I could hardly wait to get to the shareholders 
meeting and cast my ballot. I asked my father a follow-up question, 
``When is the stockholders' meeting? When do I get to cast my vote?'' 
He laughed, and said ``I better tell you something, the number of votes 
you get depends on how many shares you have. It is not one person, one 
vote. It is how many bucks you have invested in the company.'' He said, 
``You don't have the same vote and the same power as everyone else 
because it is a corporation. It is properly based--because it is a 
corporation--on how much money you are able to put into the 
corporation.'' He said, ``You can go to the stockholders meeting, Russ, 
but your vote won't count for very much.''
  Needless to say, that dampened my excitement a little bit, but it 
helped me understand how a corporation works. The people with the 
largest stake in the business get the most say in how the business 
operates. That is how it should be. That is how it should be in a 
corporation. That is the basis of our system.
  But that is not, Madam President, the way our democracy should work. 
We are all supposed to have the same opportunity in the democratic 
process. Now, some of us may have a larger interest in a particular 
policy or piece of legislation, but we are all supposed to be vested 
with an equal share of power in the process by which we appoint people 
to set policy and to vote on legislation.
  Madam President, the current campaign finance system is fueling the 
transformation of our representative democracy into a corporate 
democracy, creating a political system that allots power in direct 
relation to the amount of money an individual or an interest group can 
contribute.
  Let's not completely ignore those hearings that were held earlier 
last year by the senior Senator and chairman from Tennessee. Remember 
the testimony of Roger Tamraz who said not only that he had given 
$300,000 in soft money legally--remember the words of the majority 
leader, ``the problem is only what is illegal''--$300,000, legally to 
go to a coffee at the White House, but that next time he would do 
better. He would get into some serious money and contribute, instead, 
$600,000. He said he felt after his earlier experience that he needed 
to pay that kind of money to participate, to get access, and in his own 
words, ``to level the playing field'' with his competitors. He felt he 
needed to pay $600,000 so he could have equal share in the political 
process.

  There is a question here of what that means not only for our 
political system but what does it mean for our free enterprise system? 
One of the great ironies for me in serving on both the Judiciary 
Committee where we work for the most part on domestic laws and then 
working on the Foreign Relations Committee is that we have an 
opportunity to look at the issue of international bribery.
  Under American law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, American 
business men and women are not allowed, under penalty of law and fines 
and imprisonment, to give bribes under that law to foreign companies 
and to foreign countries. But here in America, with a soft money system 
that is perfectly legal, these same business men and women have become 
the fall guys of the American political system who are called up and 
asked to give outrageous sums of soft money so they can enter a 
particular room to apparently be on a ``level playing field'' with 
others who have been pushed to do the same.
  Madam President, there has got to be a different vision, a different 
vision than paying for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom or to have coffee 
with the President or going down to Florida to have lunch with a 
distinguished leader of the majority party for $50,000 and having him 
stand up and look out at the crowd and say this is the ``American 
way.''
  In case anyone thinks that the motive of the people who give these 
kinds of soft money contributions is simply public spirited or perhaps 
that we could regard them as a bunch of people who are trying to buy 
influence that are constantly being swindled because they are getting 
nothing for it, you can rest assured that these contributions one way 
or another do affect public policy.
  There have been a number of embarrassing examples. One is the case of 
the Federal Express Corporation. Another antiunion express carrier 
provision was inserted in the aviation bill. That provision, Madam 
President, had been defeated at every turn, at every opportunity, in 
every committee, on every floor vote, when it had been attempted, in 
Congress. This provision was supposed to make it more difficult for the 
employees of the Federal Express Company to organize their union, and 
the Federal Express Corporation makes no denial about this. In the 
waning days of the session, the Federal Express Corporation gave each 
party $100,000 in soft money, and the provision almost within a few 
hours found its way magically into a conference committee report. After 
this was jammed through the Congress, the very impressive CEO of 
FedEx--who I give credit to for his ingenuity in creating FedEx--came 
to see me and said, ``You people in Washington set this game up this 
way and I

[[Page S821]]

will play it and I will play it hard as long as that is the way it is 
set up.'' I can't fault him for that. That is the way the system is set 
up.
  Madam President, I think you know, as they say, the rest of the 
story. We had a UPS strike, and while that strike went on, while the 
unionized company was in a very difficult position and difficult 
negotiations, the FedEx Corporation obtained a 10 to 15 percent share 
of the business that used to go to UPS. That is a very good return for 
only $200,000 of soft money.
  The 1996 Telecommunications Act covered a huge field from cable to 
cellular service to long distance. There was massive lobbying involved. 
It was the biggest overhaul of our communications law since 1934, and a 
Center for Responsive Politics analysis showed that cable companies, 
local telephone companies, and long distance companies gave more than 
$12 million in soft money and PAC contributions just during the 1996 
election cycle.
  When the bill finally passed in February 1996, all these corporate 
concerns supported it while consumer groups opposed it. There was very, 
very little in the way of consumer protections in that bill. Today, 
cable rates continue to go up, and merger mania has hit all parts of 
the telecommunications industry. We have yet to see any of those 
proconsumer effects of competition that the corporate donors who so 
strongly supported the bill had promised us at the time.
  One more example, the B-2 bomber. Apparently, the Department of 
Defense doesn't really want the B-2 bomber anymore. There are questions 
about its effectiveness, including the possibility that it may not work 
very well when it gets wet. Yet the Congress added this past year $331 
million in this year's bill to keep it going.
  Northrup Grumman made $877,000 in PAC contributions and soft money 
contributions during that 1996 election. Its PAC gave $84,500 to House 
Members from January 1 to May 31, 1997.
  There are other examples. There are many examples, but these are 
examples I have had a chance to witness in the last couple of years and 
they concern me. Lobbyists and other representatives have gotten the 
messages that some members expect contributions from lobbyists if they 
want to be heard. Some rely on the stick, saying ``put up or shut up.'' 
Others hold out a carrot, such as those who would write a letter to 
people inviting them, if they contribute a certain amount of money, to 
sort of a club atmosphere where they have been promised the rewards of 
``leadership, friendship, effectiveness and exclusivity'' in return for 
a contribution.

  In other words, our democracy has become a huge bazaar for very 
powerful traders. It is bizarre to watch it played out in the middle of 
our country's great symbol of democracy. Some of us are willing to 
fight for reform as long as it takes. Some say this is nothing more 
than a couple of Senators pretending to be like Sisyphus, pushing a 
rock up a hill.
  But many issues take time. Tax reform has to be done over and over 
again to make it work. The post-Watergate reforms were difficult to get 
through but the fact is they worked pretty well for quite a few years. 
It has been 24 years since Watergate. Thomas Jefferson said there 
should be a revolution in America every 20 years. That is not such a 
terrible statement on our system if we have to fix our campaign finance 
laws every 20 years or less.
  Madam President, this is the third year in a row we have made this 
effort and we will keep fighting for this until we give the American 
people a campaign finance system that does not turn them away from 
participating, it doesn't turn them off on participating in our great 
democracy.
  I can't really talk about this issue without paying tribute to my 
senior partner in this effort, the senior Senator from Arizona, who is 
really the courageous one here. I am the one who is in the minority. It 
takes a lot more courage to buck this system for a member of the 
majority. He initiated our relationship for working together on many 
reform issues and I am grateful to him for having allowed me the chance 
to work with him on this issue.
  When we got to the point of campaign finance reform after having 
successfully passed the gift ban and a number of other efforts, it 
became pretty clear this would be the hardest of all, changing this 
addiction to money in this town would be the hardest of all. So our 
bill has gone through several transformations due to political 
necessity, but it remains a strong and unique bipartisan compromise. It 
is not the Feingold bill. I tried the Feingold bill and got no 
cosponsors. That is a good bill, but it involves public financing, and 
there isn't majority support for that approach.
  This was an exercise, instead, in seeing if people of different 
philosophies could come together and put together the first bipartisan 
effort of its kind in 11 years. McCain-Feingold in the form presented 
as an amendment at the next procedural point has several key 
components. It simply bans these unregulated soft money contributions, 
these huge contributions that are primarily funneled to the political 
parties. This is the piece President Clinton focused on correctly and 
rightly in his State of the Union Address. He said if you vote for 
McCain-Feingold you are voting against soft money; if you don't, you 
are supporting the current system.
  In our bill, we have the beginning of mechanisms to try to encourage 
people to voluntarily limit how much they spend, at least of their own 
personal wealth, in the base bill. We also require much greater and 
more immediate disclosure of campaign contributions, electronic filing, 
daily filing of campaign contributions, and a prohibition on accepting 
contributions from people who have not disclosed their profession.
  We heard a lot of opponents of our bill in the last debate talk about 
the need for prompt and complete disclosure. Madam President, that is 
exactly what we have in our bill, the strongest disclosure provisions 
to date. We also strengthen the FEC's enforcement powers, and we 
clarify and strengthen the ban on raising money on Federal property and 
on foreign contributions to elections. Now the current McCain-Feingold 
bill doesn't do everything that I would like to do on campaign finance 
reform. I don't think it even does everything that the senior Senator 
from Arizona wants to do. And so if we do have the opportunity as the 
debate goes on, we will offer the McCain-Feingold challenger amendment.

  Our amendment would ask Senate candidates to voluntarily limit their 
overall spending by getting most of their campaign contributions from 
their own home State, limiting their PAC fundraising and restricting 
their spending from their own personal wealth. In return, they would 
receive the benefit of reduced-cost television time. So we hope to get 
to that point, and we are optimistic.
  We expected fierce opposition to our bill in the past, and we got it. 
We knew from experience that many Members of the Senate are comfortable 
with the current campaign finance system and they don't want to change 
it.
  We tried this in 1996 before people really got a good, clean look at 
this system, and we didn't get terribly far. When we failed to break a 
filibuster in 1996, the Senator from Arizona turned to me and said, 
``This thing is going to take a scandal.'' I said, ``John, you're too 
pessimistic, we'll get it through.'' Well, he was right and I was 
wrong.
  But we got a scandal. In 1997, we moved this issue much further. 
After the hearings conducted by the senior Senator from Tennessee and 
the revelation of many of the things that went on, we got 53 votes on 
the floor of the Senate; but we still faced a filibuster and a series 
of arguments that, in my view, can't withstand scrutiny.
  I see that the Senator from Tennessee has entered the Chamber as 
well, and the Senator from Kentucky has risen to speak. At this point I 
will yield the floor and I will complete my remarks at another point.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The measure before us today is the Paycheck Protection 
Act, authored by the distinguished majority leader and the assistant 
majority leader. The Paycheck Protection Act is predicated on a 
fundamental tenet of any truly free society--that no person should be 
forced to support a cause or a candidate.
  It is really quite that simple. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps, best 
enunciated this

[[Page S822]]

principle with a characteristic eloquence that we will likely hear 
often during the course of this debate, and it certainly merits 
repetition.
  Mr. Jefferson observed:

       To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the 
     propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and 
     tyrannical.

  Sinful and tyrannical as it is, union bosses do it every day. 
Millions of Americans are on the receiving end of this tyranny as a 
portion of their paychecks are confiscated and used to advance a 
political agenda with which many of them disagree. That fact, Mr. 
President, should not be in dispute.
  Ten years have passed since the Supreme Court's Beck decision in 
which the Court ruled that workers who are forced to pay union dues as 
a condition of employment cannot be forced to pay dues beyond those 
necessary for collective bargaining. Yet, most union workers still have 
no relief. Their unions provide them with little or no information of 
their rights.
  A national survey last year revealed that most union workers are not 
even aware of their rights under the Beck decision. Even more 
deplorable, many union workers' efforts to exercise their 
constitutional rights under Beck have been met with intimidation and 
with stonewalling. In a telling illustration, a union worker testified 
before Congress in 1997, just last year, that ``almost immediately the 
lies started: anti-union, scab, freeloader, and religious fanatic were 
labels ascribed to me,'' said a union member. That poor fellow had to 
resort to a lawsuit to get his union dues reduced in accordance with 
Beck.
  The onus, Mr. President, should not be on the workers. It should not 
be the workers' burden to pursue an after-the-fact refund or to wait 
until the end of the year and have to jump through hoops to get 
returned to him or her money that should not have been taken in the 
first place.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are understandably alarmed 
at the prospect of their most powerful, aggressive and well-funded ally 
losing a significant portion of the political war chest after workers 
are freed from the compulsory dues tyranny.
  Mr. President, we know what happens. Washington State voters, back in 
1992, by an overwhelming margin--70 percent, by the way, supported 
this--approved a referendum to make it illegal for unions to extract 
dues for political purposes without obtaining prior written approval 
from union workers. After this emancipation, only 82 of Washington 
State's public employee union members gave the union permission to take 
their money for political purposes. Prior to the voters' action, 40,000 
Washington State employees had been forced to stand by helplessly as a 
chunk of their paychecks were confiscated and used without their 
consent to advance the political causes of the union bosses.
  The number of Washington State teachers union members contributing 
even a modest dollar amount to the union bosses' political fund dropped 
from 48,000 down to 8,000. Now, all politicians who benefited from the 
union largess, a largess born of forced contributions, intimidation, 
and a conspiracy of silence, will understandably tremble at the 
prospect of losing it.
  For them, the sounds of paycheck protection roaring down the 
legislative tracks must be terrifying indeed. Nationwide, over 80 
percent of the American people support a Federal Paycheck Protection 
Act.
  But I am certainly not so naive as to think union workers will see 
this freedom coming out of Washington, DC, because President Clinton 
would surely veto it. The union bosses have been so generous to the 
Clinton-Gore campaigns over the years that the Lincoln Bedroom probably 
feels like home.
  Fortunately for America's union workers, they may well see relief in 
those States with the referendum process or political leaders less 
beholden to union bosses than is the President of the United States.
  So, Mr. President, there is a lot of action out in the States. 
Proponents of paycheck protection are heartened by the reception they 
are getting out in the States. It will be on the ballot in California 
this June. Californians will have an opportunity to strike a blow for 
freedom for union workers. Freedom's prospects are quite bright there.
  But the union bosses will resist this freedom for the rank and file. 
The union bosses will fight it with everything at their disposal, 
including the hundreds of millions of dollars they have amassed for 
political use from the workers' dues. It is expected that union bosses 
will spend $20 million or more in California in their quest to defeat 
this freedom quest for the rank and file.
  I am confident that Californians will not be duped by the union 
bosses and their millions. Paycheck protection rings true to regular 
folks and not even the most sophisticated, well-funded smear campaign 
will drown it out.
  There is going to be paycheck protection referenda in other States as 
well, Mr. President. I think there are four or five that are going to 
be on the ballot this year. There are movements all across America in 
State legislatures to press forward with bills giving union members 
these basic, fundamental rights. So to have this kind of measure 
described as a ``poison pill'' is amusing indeed.
  It is fundamental, Mr. President, that no one in this country ought 
to be forced to contribute to causes with which they might disagree. So 
we will press forward with this issue and hope for the best. But it 
will go forward on a State-by-State basis regardless of what happens 
here in Washington.
  Now, Mr. President, let me just make a few more observations. I see 
that my friend from Tennessee is here, and I won't delay him too long. 
I do want to make some observations about the larger question of 
McCain-Feingold. The whole motive behind this reform agenda for the 
last 22 years has been a disappointment, Mr. President, in the Supreme 
Court decision of Buckley v. Valeo, which was, of course, a great 
victory for the American people. The Court said in the Buckley case 
that spending is speech. When you first hear that, you sort of scratch 
your head and say, ``Gee, could that be true?'' But when you think 
about it and when you read the decision, it is obviously the case that 
in a country of 270 million people, unless you can amplify your voice, 
you don't have much speech. Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw and Peter 
Jennings have a lot of speech--way more than any of us--because their 
speech is amplified every night to millions of Americans. But the Court 
said to put Americans in a straitjacket of spending limits is to say 
that they are left only with inadequate speech--in other words, a kind 
of continuing effort to go door-to-door, I guess, to carry your message 
to more and more Americans.

  In fact, the Court said a spending limit would be about like saying 
you are free to travel, but you can only have $100. How free are you? 
You are not very free if you can't amplify your voice. The Court said 
you are going to have a constitutional first amendment right to amplify 
your voice, either with your own resources or that of others gathered 
together in a common purpose to advance a particular cause. The cause 
could be speaking for a candidate, or against a candidate, or 
advocating an issue, or opposing an issue.
  In fact, the whole Court case was crafted in the direction of a wide 
amount of permissible political discourse in this country. Well, the 
reformers hated that decision, and they have been coming back and 
coming back and coming back over the years, and it has had different 
names in different Congresses. A few years ago it was Boren-Mitchell. 
Now it is McCain-Feingold. But, fundamentally, the philosophy is the 
same: What is wrong with the system is that we just don't have enough 
regulation. We just don't have enough restraint on the voices of all of 
these Americans who are running around expressing themselves, and we 
don't like it.
  So McCain-Feingold has been constantly changing, and the version we 
currently have before us is a little bit different from earlier 
versions. The original version sought to put the Government in charge 
of the political speech of individuals, groups, candidates, and 
parties. The current version, which is the same version that was 
defeated in October, seeks to put the Government in charge of the 
political speech of parties and groups, leaving aside individuals and 
leaving aside candidates.
  So let me focus just a minute, Mr. President, on the kind of speech 
that parties and groups engage in. It is said that, because of the 
scandals of 1996, we should take away from the political

[[Page S823]]

parties their ability to function in State and local races. It's called 
getting rid of soft money. What happened in 1996, Mr. President? As the 
distinguished majority leader pointed out, and as Senator Thompson's 
hearings have confirmed, we had arguable violations of existing laws; 
that is, contributions from foreigners, money laundering, and raising 
money on Federal property. All of that is against the law now. What 
that cries out for is enforcement of the law.
  This bill--McCain-Feingold--doesn't have anything to do with the 
scandals of 1996. It is a totally different subject. This bill is 
seeking to restrain, to inhibit, to diminish the voices of American 
citizens in their effort to participate in the political process 
through their political parties, or through groups they may belong to.
  Now, the courts have had a good deal to say about that, Mr. 
President. Let me start with the groups. The courts have said that a 
group or, for that matter, an individual can go out and engage in 
what's called issue advocacy, without having to ask permission from the 
Federal Government, without having to register with the Federal 
Election Commission, or subject itself to the rules that apply to 
candidates and to parties in Federal elections. The Court has said that 
as long as you don't say ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' you are 
permitted wide latitude to applaud, condemn, say whatever you want to 
in the American political process.
  There has been a whole line of cases on the question of issue 
advocacy. The Federal Election Commission doesn't like the law on issue 
advocacy. It has been pursuing groups over the years and it has lost 
every single case. In fact, the last case the FEC lost was in the 
Fourth Circuit, and they not only lost the case, but were required to 
pay the lawyer's fees of the other side because the FEC just didn't get 
it. They couldn't read the law.
  It is very clear. We don't have the authority here in the Congress to 
keep people from criticizing us. We don't like it. We love to be able 
to control the entire election. But we don't own the election. The 
election is not the property of the candidates, and if people want to 
criticize us early or late, the courts are not going to allow us to 
interfere with that.
  One of the mutations of this that is developing that we have heard 
about and read about may be offered by the senior Senator from Maine, 
Senator Snowe.
  I gather, in addition to trying to change the rules on issue 
advocacy, that it would also, in proximity to the election, require the 
group to disclose.
  Mr. President, the courts have already spoken on that issue. They 
spoke on it as early as 1958 on the question of whether you could 
require a group to disclose their sources of funds or their membership 
lists as a condition for criticism. In the case of the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP v. Alabama in 
1958, the court made it very, very clear that it is a real threat to 
citizens' groups and to their right to band together and express 
themselves to require them as a condition for expressing themselves 
that they disclose their membership.
  The court said in that case, ``Compelled disclosure of membership in 
an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs'' . . . is 
inappropriate. ``Inviolability of privacy in group association may in 
many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of 
association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.''
  The court went on to say:

       We think it apparent that compelled disclosure of 
     petitioner's Alabama membership is likely to affect adversely 
     the ability of petitioner and [*463] its members to pursue 
     their collective effort to foster beliefs which they 
     admittedly have the right to advocate, in that it may induce 
     members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others 
     from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs 
     shown through their associations and of the consequences of 
     this exposure.

  In other words, Mr. President, there will probably be another effort 
here to shut down issue advocacy. Members may argue that we are not 
really telling them they can't speak; we are just saying they have to 
disclose if they speak. The courts have already said you can't do that; 
you can't require people to disclose their membership as a precondition 
for expressing their beliefs.
  So it gets back to the fundamental point: We don't own these 
elections. Most of us do not like it when some group comes in. Even if 
they are trying to help us, we usually think they are botching it. We 
hate all of these voices that are outside of our campaigns and outside 
of our control. But that is the price you pay for free speech in a 
democracy--that is the price you pay for free speech in a democracy.
  So all of these efforts to try to shut these groups up by forcing 
them to come under the Federal Election Commission, by forcing them 
into the hard money camp, by trying to make it difficult for them to 
express themselves in proximity to an election, there is no court in 
America that would uphold that. It is so clearly and blatantly 
unconstitutional that we ought not to do it.
  The other entity that the most recent version of McCain-Feingold 
seeks to shut up are our great political parties. Soft money has become 
a pejorative term. Let me define it: Soft money is everything that 
isn't hard money. Hard money, by definition, is money raised and spent 
in support of Federal candidates. But, as we know, Mr. President, this 
is a Federal system. The two great national parties--the Democratic 
National Committee and the Republican National Committee--care who gets 
elected Governor of Tennessee and who controls the legislature in 
Tennessee. They may even care who gets to be mayor of Knoxville. They 
have at times even cared who the county commissioner was going to be in 
whatever county Knoxville is in. These are national parties. The only 
way you could eliminate non-Federal money by definition is to 
federalize everything. So that the Federal Election Commission would 
then be in charge of the city council races in Nashville.
  That is a great step in the right direction--just what we need. The 
FEC would be the size of the Pentagon with reams of files in every race 
in America.
  The second problem with eliminating non-Federal money is a practical 
problem. As I have already indicated, you will not be able to 
constitutionally eliminate issue advocacy from the American political 
scene. It cannot be done. If we tried to do that, it would be struck 
down. Maybe. We don't know. Some court could uphold an effort to 
eliminate so-called soft money for the national parties. I don't know. 
I doubt it.
  But let's assume they would uphold it. Then, Mr. President, the 
situation would be this: The two great political parties, which exist 
only for the purpose of electing candidates, would be the only entities 
in America that could not engage in issue advocacy. Everybody else 
can--from the AFL-CIO to the Sierra Club to the Chamber of Commerce. 
Only political parties wouldn't be able to engage in issue advocacy.
  So the candidates of those parties would be defenseless when groups 
hostile or individuals hostile to candidates of their parties came in 
and engaged in issue advocacy, particularly in proximity to an 
election. So the parties which exist for no other purpose other than to 
elect candidates would be restricted in engaging in issue advocacy 
presumably in defense of the candidates who wore their party label--a 
perfectly absurd result, Mr. President; a perfectly absurd and 
undesirable result of a quest to end non-Federal money.
  Mr. President, fortunately, the Senate is not going to take that 
step. There is not a consensus for any of these so-called reforms. 
Fortunately, there is strong support for the first amendment.
  I am glad that our friends in the press believe in the first 
amendment. They are the practitioners of the first amendment. They have 
from time to time believed that it only applied to them, which I have 
always found somewhat amusing.
  I started last year asking reporters with whom I discuss this issue 
whether they have read Buckley. At the beginning of 1997 almost no one 
had. I am pleased to report that it got better. More and more reporters 
sat down and struggled their way through the Buckley case, and, all of 
a sudden, eyes popped open and they began to realize that the first 
amendment was not the sole prerogative--or property, shall I

[[Page S824]]

say--of the fourth estate. It exists for all of us.
  I have been perplexed, frankly, at the editorial support around the 
country for McCain-Feingold. The ACLU has been perplexed, too. I will 
just read a few observations from a letter of December 29 that they 
sent out to editorial boards around the country.
  The ACLU said:

       We're perplexed. As Washington prepares for another round 
     of campaign finance debate, we are deeply puzzled about why 
     so many--particularly in the media--continue to support 
     campaign finance legislation like the McCain-Feingold bill 
     that is patently unconstitutional, unlikely to pass and 
     doomed to failure in the courts.
       Frankly, we're also worried. Polls are beginning to suggest 
     that the media's cavalier disregard for the free speech 
     implications of current campaign finance proposals is 
     encouraging an attitude among the public that could lead to 
     serious damage to freedom of the press. A recent Rasmussen 
     Research survey, for example, found that Americans believe 
     that one of the best ways to clean up campaigns is to 
     restrict newspaper coverage of elections.

  Mr. President, I am not advocating that. But imagine the Washington 
Post calling for spending limits. It makes about as much sense as the 
Congress saying to the media, ``You are free to say whatever you want 
to but, by the way, your circulation is limited.'' And I wonder how the 
Washington Post would feel if the Congress decided it could only have a 
5,000 circulation--not saying that Congress can have any impact on what 
the Washington Post can say--but that we just think the Post is 
speaking to too broad an audience, and it is spending too much. 
Obviously, I am being facetious. But it is the same principle. It is 
the very same principle.
  Advocates of spending limits say we are not telling you what to do; 
we just think you are saying it too much or too many, but your audience 
is too widespread. We may all snicker about this issue. But, frankly, 
the public has a lot of skepticism about the press.
  I am looking at an article by Richard Harwood in the Washington Post 
from last October referring to a study of public opinion commissioned 
in 1990 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It is part of the 
observance of the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. Dick Harwood 
points out that a Lou Harris survey for that group more recently had 
some, as he put it, ``depressing findings.'' This is Harwood's 
observation about the Lou Harris poll of the American people. He said:

       If they had their way, ``the people''--meaning a majority 
     of adults--would not allow journalists to practice their 
     trade without first obtaining, as lawyers and doctors must 
     license. Whether the preferred licensing authority would be 
     the government or some other credentialing agency is not 
     clear.
  That was the majority view of the American public with regard to the 
licensing of the media.
  Number two, referring to the survey:
       They would confer on judges the power to impose fines on 
     publishers and broadcasters for ``inaccurate and biased 
     reporting'' and would liberalize libel laws to make it easier 
     for plaintiffs to win judgments against the press.

  This is the majority view of the American people now. Third:

       They would empower government entities to monitor the work 
     of journalists for fairness and compel us to ``give equal 
     coverage to all sides of a controversial issue.'' They also 
     favor the creation of local and national news councils to 
     investigate complaints against the press and issue 
     corrections'' of erroneous news reports.

  That is the view of the American public, Mr. President.
  Also, from this Rasmussen Research study, that I referred to earlier, 
there is a release from this institute of October 2, 1997, which has an 
interesting finding. It says:

       Most Americans think that friendly reporters are more 
     important to a successful political campaign than money, 
     according to a Rasmussen Research survey of 1,000 adults. By 
     a 3-to-1 margin (61% to 19%) Americans believe that if 
     reporters like one candidate more than another, that 
     candidate is likely to win--even if the other candidate 
     raised more money in the campaign.

  Further:

       Americans are also generally suspicious of reporters. More 
     than seven-out-of-ten registered voters believe that the 
     personal biases of reporters affect their coverage of 
     stories, issues, and campaigns.

  I cite this somewhat tongue and cheek to make the point that the 
first amendment applies to all of us. Just because the American public 
is skeptical of the press and its motivations doesn't mean that we want 
to restrict the press. By the same token, Mr. President, it is 
astonishing to find so many editorial boards around the country that do 
not understand that the first amendment doesn't just apply to the 
press. It applies to all of us.
  So, Mr. President, when all is said and done and this debate is 
ended, the Constitution will still be intact and the ability of 
individuals, groups, candidates, and parties who participate in the 
American political process without regulation or interference by the 
Government will be preserved.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allow a member of my staff, 
Melissa Figge, to have privileges of the floor during the duration of 
this debate on campaign finance reform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, during a 3-month period, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee saw examples of clear violations of the law--money 
laundering, foreign campaign contributions, violations of the Hatch 
Act, possible sale of influence. These are simple, flat-out legal 
violations which require little debate or delay in terms of prosecuting 
the appropriate individuals. There has been considerable delay, 
however, but at least we now see three indictments and the request for 
one special council coming totally or in part from our committee 
activities. One would assume that several more are imminent, judging 
from the record laid out before our committee.
  There is another category of matters which up until 1996 were also 
considered to be violations of the law by most people--using the White 
House for fundraising purposes, a Presidential candidate actually 
controlling the expenditure of millions of dollars of soft money for TV 
ads containing electioneering messages placed specifically to advance 
his reelection prospects.
  I say ``considered to be violations until recently'' because the 
Attorney General and Justice Department apparently now take the 
position that these activities are legal for the final time. Although I 
believe that these are erroneous interpretations of the law, supported 
by neither the law or logic, the result is to give new arguments to 
those who would seek to circumvent the clear intent of the law. This 
along with court decisions, Federal Election Commission interpretations 
of the law, and piecemeal Congressional amendments has resulted in a 
campaign finance system that is in shambles. The loopholes are now 
bigger than the law and there are now effectively no limits on big 
corporate, big labor, big individual monies flowing into our political 
campaigns--a situation that Congress has said we do not want for almost 
a hundred years.
  And if people think the 1996 campaign set new records for the big 
money scramble, they only have to wait until the next election cycle, 
and especially the next Presidential race. At least the last time there 
was some concern among the candidates, and even the Clinton-Gore 
campaign, as to how far they could go in pushing the limits. Now that 
everyone has seen that the Justice Department is apparently willing to 
bless the most egregious of this activity and refuse to request the 
appointment of an independent counsel for what the Courts and FEC 
consider to be illegal activity, there will be no such hesitancy next 
time.
  And the Clinton-Gore example will be picked up and followed in the 
Senate and House races, one can only assume. Under the Attorney 
General's interpretation, I can see nothing wrong with a Congressional 
candidate raising unlimited amounts of soft money for use in TV ads 
praising the candidate or denigrating his opponent, so long as the ads 
do not contain the magic words of ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' a 
particular candidate.
  Congress must decide whether or not we are going to pass on this 
patchwork, swiss cheese system, which goes against the clear intent of 
Congress the last time they addressed these issues. If so then the 
implicit message will be

[[Page S825]]

that we are no longer concerned about the appearance of corruption; 
that we think that millions of dollars from companies, unions and 
individuals who are trying to get us to pass legislation is okay with 
the American people. I don't think it is and I don't think that is what 
we want to say.

  The McCain-Feingold bill addresses the worst of these problems. Also, 
many of my colleagues have amendments which would greatly improve our 
current situation, although they may never see the light of day.
  However, I would urge that we don't get so caught up in the details 
of a particular piece of legislation that we are oblivious to the fact 
that we are going to have to comprehensively address money in our 
political system eventually. We haven't really done it in 20 years and 
it shows. In many other areas we see that after a period of time laws 
that have been passed have resulted in unintended consequences, and 
there are court decisions and there are administrative rulings to point 
out weaknesses in the legislation and sometimes they go contrary to 
congressional intent and we conclude that we need to address the law 
again. That is clearly what we are going to have to do with regard to 
campaign finance legislation.
  It's important for us to understand how we got to where we are today. 
In 1907, Congress banned corporate contributions. In 1943, Congress 
banned labor union contributions. Congress comprehensively addressed 
how we finance our federal political campaigns in 1972 and 1974. Again, 
Congress was specifically concerned with the extent to which 
corporations, union, and individuals should be allowed to contribute to 
political candidates. Individuals were limited to $1,000 per election 
and limited to $25,000 in total annual contributions--$20,000 of this 
could go to party committees. Corporations and labor unions were 
strictly forbidden involvement in the federal campaign process, outside 
of $20,000 per election per candidate political action committee 
contributions. The underlying justification for allowing political 
action committees was to provide a mechanism to facilitate voluntary 
contributions from individual union members, corporate stockholders, 
and their administrative personnel.
  In 1972 and 1974 limitations were placed on expenditures but all of 
them were either repealed or deemed unconstitutional with the Buckley 
versus Valeo decision in 1976, except for the restrictions on party 
committees and publicly funded Presidential candidates. And the 
contribution limits were upheld. So we have been talking about Buckley 
v. Valeo. The Senator from Kentucky rightly pointed out that in Buckley 
the Court struck down most of the limits on expenditures. The Court did 
not strike down the limits on contributions because the Court 
recognized that, historically, governments of all kinds have been 
concerned with the amounts of big money that could be given to 
politicians who were in charge of public policy. And, as I said, 
Congress has been concerned about that since 1907. This is not a new 
concern or a new issue.

  Also, Congress eliminated private contributions to Presidential 
general election campaigns altogether for those who opted into the 
Presidential public financing program that was established. So for the 
last 25 years or so, Presidential nominees, who were willing to certify 
that they would not raise and spend additional funds, were given 
millions of dollars of tax payers money to fund their campaigns. That 
has been our system. Again, as with the idea of limiting corporate, 
union, and large individual contributions, the idea was to cut down on 
the corrupting influence or appearance of corruption of large sums of 
private money being given to Presidential candidates, or maybe 
Presidents who were already in office. Congress also believed this 
legislation would have the added benefit of pulling presidential 
candidates out of the fundraising chase, and instead allow them time to 
focus on issues and not so much on the money behind factions supporting 
those issues. So, for a long time, Mr. President--we talk about the 
Government being in charge and we don't want to put the Government in 
charge--for a long time in this country, many Members of this same body 
and many Members from both sides of the political spectrum, enough to 
get these laws passed for almost a century, the Government has been 
involved. I am not a big one for having the Government involved in a 
lot of things, but many of us have come to the conclusion that how we 
elect our Federal officers, how we elect our Federal officials, is one 
of those things that is legitimately the business of the Federal 
Government. And the Federal Government, and this Congress, has passed 
on specific contribution limitations in times past because of this 
notion that we need to kind of watch that carefully, because if you go 
out here in the private world and you see people in positions of 
decisionmaking receiving money from the people whom they are making the 
decision with regard to, that could be a problem. It is just kind of 
basic common sense. And the idea that the Government has kind of been 
oblivious to this and not involved in this for some time is really an 
invalid concept.

  For 25 years, the system that I have just described has worked pretty 
well. There hasn't been a major Presidential scandal. People talk about 
public financing. We are clearly not talking about public financing 
here. But on the Presidential level, many people may not realize it but 
we have had public financing for a long time, and it has been scandal 
free. It has operated about as well for incumbents as it has 
challengers. It has been more of a level playing field, people have 
opted into it, and it has worked pretty well. All the TV advertisements 
were paid for within this system. With all of this money that was 
raised within this system, with these limitations placed on them, 
people managed to buy television ads and have pretty decent television 
campaigns--with this money, we call it hard money now, but the money 
within the system that was carefully thought out and allowed to be 
given to those of us in political office--because they were reasonable 
amounts and it didn't feel like they were large enough to have any 
influence on us, is what it boils down to.
  However, things began to happen in the 1970s, with later more 
significant developments in the 1990s, that have totally transformed 
that system that Congress set up.
  There was concern in Congress, for example, that there be adequate 
funding for grassroots political activities. We are all concerned about 
that. So, in the late 1970's, Congress amended the campaign laws and 
the FEC interpreted those amendments to allow national parties to send 
unlimited amounts, but for voter registration, voter turnout, and so 
forth, without these moneys counting against the limitations placed on 
party expenditures. Buckley, by the way, said that you could place 
limitations on party expenditures. That was one of the expenditure 
areas that Buckley said it was right and proper for Congress to place 
limitations on. We have limitations on party expenditures today.
  Congress and the FEC also allowed part of these expenditures to be 
funded with money that might be referred to as ``outside the system''--
outside the system that we have just been discussing, the $1,000/$5,000 
limitation system that we have just been discussing. We now call this 
other money outside the system soft money--unlimited moneys; no 
limitation on these moneys from corporations, labor unions, 
individuals.
  In 1991, now, moving along, the FEC--this is the Federal Election 
Commission, as we all know--decided that national parties could fund 35 
percent of their generic voter-drive cost from soft money and 40 
percent in an election year. So, now the soft money race was on. So 
now, we see, we were concerned about local grassroots participation. We 
let the parties send in more unlimited money for that purpose. Then we 
said OK, we can send some soft money in that you don't have to worry 
about limitations on, for that particular purpose. So the soft money 
drive was on and the public learned, in 1992, that the major party 
committees raised more than $83 million in soft money, which was 4 
times the amount of soft money estimated to have been spent by the 
parties in 1984.
  In 1996 the explosion in soft money continued. Soft money receipts by 
the Republican National Party committees increased 178 percent over 
1992, to $138 million; while Democratic Party committee receipts of 
soft money increased 242 percent over 1992 levels to $123 million. It 
is almost enough to make you

[[Page S826]]

long for the good old days back when many people were concerned about 
$5,000 PAC contributions. PACs were considered to be our greatest 
potential problem, not too long ago by many people.
  So, naturally with all this new money on hand there was a tremendous 
desire by people in the political system to marry up that money with 
the largest expenditure that we were all beginning to incur at that 
time, and of course that's television advertising. So, in the summer of 
1995, Dick Morris fervently believed television advertisements 
comparing the President with the Republican Congress were keys to the 
President's reelection. He encouraged the President to opt out of the 
public financing program in order to run expensive TV ads that he felt 
were absolutely necessary. Because he understood at the time, under the 
public system, if you took the public money but you couldn't go out 
here and raise all this money on the side, all this soft money to run 
these additional programs--he said, ``Mr. President, I wish you just 
wouldn't take the public money so we can have unlimited expenditures.'' 
The President decided to take the money and figure out a way to get the 
unlimited expenditures anyway. He told Mr. Morris to come back with 
plan B.
  So, luckily for Mr. Morris, plan B was outlined for him in an 
advisory opinion, once again issued by the FEC. We talk about not 
putting the Government in this. The Government has been in this up to 
its eyebrows almost from the very beginning. Congress has been involved 
in it. Congress set up the Federal Election Commission. The Federal 
Election Commission comes with all these advisory opinions. They said 
you can use so much soft money for this, so much hard money for that, 
so many percentages for this purpose, so many percentages for the other 
purpose--that is the system we have now. The campaign finance reform 
bill would almost be a deregulation bill. This is not adding additional 
regulations on top of anything. This is doing away with some of this 
Rube Goldberg system that we have now.
  So, continuing on with this pattern, the FEC comes in again and, in 
August of 1995, they issued an opinion and, despite an attempt to use 
careful language, the clear result of this advisory opinion was to 
place the FEC stamp of approval for the first time on the use of soft 
money by national party committees to pay for broadcast media 
advertisements that directly reference Federal candidates. So, by 
lumping this candidate-specific but issue-based TV advertising with 
grassroots activity which, as we discussed a moment ago, was encouraged 
by the 1979 amendment, the FEC handed Mr. Morris his plan B on a 
silver, soft-money platter.
  The DNC and the Clinton-Gore campaign seized on the opportunity to 
use the FEC's hard/soft allocation regulations to run TV ads, using the 
40 percent soft money. The first ones began running in October of 1995, 
shortly after this opinion was rendered. And so there we go.
  However, it is very important to note that the rules still prohibited 
soft money electioneering messages and coordination between the 
candidate and the committee.
  So, in summary, the national party could now spend soft money for a 
portion of its State-based party building, and it could directly spend 
soft money for a portion of its issue advocacy, or it could transfer 
soft money to the State parties.
  Again, this is the system we have today. Does this sound like a 
simple free-enterprise system that we are trying to somehow improperly 
mess with? This is the hopelessly complex, as we will see in a minute, 
ridiculous system that we have allowed to be created under our very 
noses.
  However, again, under the FEC rulings and court decisions, it should 
be noted that none of this soft money was supposed to go for activities 
that were to be coordinated with individual candidates. Nevertheless, 
by now the system had been haphazardly and without premeditation 
transformed from one which limited big money for Federal candidates 
into an attractive opportunity for anyone willing to push the soft 
money game to its next level and past what the law allowed.
  The Clinton-Gore campaign was willing. Briefly stated, their campaign 
circumvented the DNC's coordinated limit and used approximately $44 
million in national committee soft money to their candidates' advantage 
through electioneering messages that they claimed to be ``issue 
advertisements,'' all the while certifying under our Presidential 
system, that they would not spend more than the public funding system 
was giving them. They were receiving the taxpayer funding all at the 
same time they were raising the $44 million outside the system.
  The President and the Vice President personally raised a lot of this 
money, putting them right back into the campaign fundraising chase that 
Congress specifically intended the campaign laws to put them above. The 
President personally reviewed and edited TV commercial scripts that the 
soft money went for and helped make the decision as to where the ads 
would be run. Again, soft money is not permitted to go to support 
individual candidates, and it is not supposed to be coordinated or 
directed by those candidates. Nevertheless, the Attorney General, 
through her opinion on this matter, permits this abuse, and we can 
fasten our seatbelts for the next elections unless we make some 
changes.
  The second large area that was exploited in the 1996 election cycle 
had to do with the transfer of large amounts of soft money from the 
national party to the State parties, which in turn would be directed by 
the national parties as to how to use the funds for national party 
purposes. In other words, the national party is just using the State 
parties as a passthrough.
  Under FEC rules, the amount of permissible soft money expenditures by 
State parties depends on the ratio of Federal to non-Federal candidates 
that is on the State's November ballot. For example, if there are two 
Federal races, say a Presidential and a congressional race, and eight 
non-Federal local races, the State party can pay for 80 percent of 
their generic activities with soft dollars.
  Again, this is the simple, deregulated system that we have today.
  Given that hard dollars raised in $1,000 increments are more 
difficult to raise, this gives an incentive to have the State party pay 
for as many activities as possible using soft money. In other words, 
now they have a system all contorted so that States can use more soft 
money than the Federal can, so you game the Federal system as much as 
you can through the party committee. The President raises the soft 
money, runs it through the DNC and spends the soft money additionally 
to what he is allowed to spend through the public financing. Then you 
go to the States, and because the States can use more soft money than 
you can, you run the rest of it through the States and have the States 
run the same ads that you are running at the Federal level for the same 
purpose, of reelecting the President. Now, that is the system that we 
have today.
  So to take advantage of the system, the national party committees 
began transferring soft money to State party committees to utilize 
their higher soft-money allowance.
  In the crucial 1995 pre-election year, according to the FEC reports, 
the DNC transferred almost $11.4 million of soft money to State 
parties, followed by another $6.4 million in the first quarter of 1996. 
The RNC shifted a little over $2.4 million to the States in about that 
same period of time. Ultimately, the DNC quietly transferred at least 
$32 million, and perhaps as much as $64 million by some estimates, to 
State Democratic Party committees in the 1996 election cycle. Of 
course, much of this money was used for television commercials.
  This transfer allowed, of course, the State party committees to use 
national party soft money in areas to help their Federal election goals 
more than if the national committee had made the expenditures directly. 
The DNC, on its own, would have had to purchase the same air time under 
the guidelines requiring a high percentage of hard dollars.

  Our hearings demonstrated that on some occasions, the very same ad 
would be run by both the national party and the State party, all 
created by the DNC Clinton-Gore consultants, Squier, Knapp & Ochs. 
Reports of the receipts and expenditures of a dozen State Democratic 
parties from July 1, 1995, to March 31, 1996, indicate the

[[Page S827]]

State entities operated as a little more than passthroughs for the DNC 
to pay for the production and broadcasting of ads by the Squier firm. 
The Squier firm, of course, was in the White House consulting with the 
President, was the paid media consultant for the DNC, for the Clinton-
Gore campaign and, at the same time, was running these ads and creating 
these ads for these State parties, and, in many cases, they were the 
same ads. As we see, the DNC and Clinton-Gore campaign found a way to 
use the big corporate, union and individual soft money they could raise 
for the direct benefit of their own campaign. They could actually raise 
the soft money from the DNC, which would, in turn, spend it as they 
were directed by the Clinton-Gore campaign in order to benefit the 
national campaign.
  So it was all an obvious ruse to anybody who took a look at it, but 
it could work in a world where the FEC might take 4 or 5 years to 
impose a modest fine and where the Attorney General was willing to 
adopt a tortured Clinton-Gore legal defense theory in order to justify 
such actions.
  Of course, labor unions and 501(c)(4) tax-exempt independent groups 
supporting both parties have kept apace of these new developments. 
They, too, now systematically run ads supporting or targeting specific 
candidates while often coordinating their activities with the candidate 
they support as well as with each other.
  As with the national parties, they claim the ads they run are ``issue 
ads'' and, therefore, can't be regulated. Sometimes they are and 
sometimes maybe they are not. We have to decide that on an individual 
fact-by-fact basis. However, they take the position that, in most 
cases, they are not coordinating factual issues. But if they are 
coordinated with the candidate, it is considered to be a contribution 
to the candidate, according to Buckley.
  Buckley has been quoted, of course, as limiting the regulation that 
Congress can place on expenditures, but in the Buckley decision, it 
says, if you set up a kind of a sham deal where you are supposed to be 
making these independent expenditures but you are really doing it at 
the direction of the candidate, that is not independent and that is 
considered a contribution to the candidate. The FEC has, in many cases, 
supported that proposition.
  There is nothing in the court cases that would indicate that that is 
proper. In fact, quite the contrary. In fact, the FEC takes the 
position that even issue ads which are coordinated are illegal. 
National parties and independent groups seem to be taking the position 
that, ``We didn't coordinate, but if we did, it may be legal anyway.'' 
But the DNC and the Clinton-Gore campaign kind of stand alone on that 
issue because their soft-money expenditures were coordinated and 
directed by the President so openly and clearly and blatantly that they 
had no choice but to just adopt the idea, in the face of court 
decisions and in the face of FEC rulings, that it was still legal and 
proper, and the Attorney General has gone along with them on it.
  As I said, Buckley addressed the problems of would-be contributors 
avoiding the contribution limits by the simple expedient of paying 
directly for media advertisements for a candidate when the expenditures 
were controlled by or coordinated with the candidate. Buckley stated--
and this is a quotation from the much-quoted Buckley--``. . . such 
controlled and coordinated expenditures are treated as contributions 
rather than expenditures under the Act's contributions ceilings [And 
this]. . . prevents attempts to circumvent the Act through prearranged 
or coordinated expenditures amounting to disguised contributions. . . 
.''
  That is the Buckley decision. But, of course, in the present 
environment, it prevents no such thing. Buckley says legally it 
prevents it. Practically we see that it does not.
  It certainly makes no difference that the person who wants to 
purchase the TV ads runs his contributions through the political 
parties instead of directly. The potential corrupting influence that 
people have been concerned with for many, many years in this country 
and others is there anyway. Nevertheless, the Attorney General seems to 
have adopted the Clinton-Gore campaign argument.
  The Attorney General's position will have many ramifications, Mr. 
President. Her position is based on the idea that soft money 
contributions are not ``contributions'' within the definition of the 
act, and she thinks since soft-money contributions really don't fall 
within that definition of contributions, then they are not regulated, 
so that you can have unlimited soft money over here, but we won't call 
them contributions, so they are not regulated.
  Well, if that blanket position is true, then foreign soft-money 
contributions are not illegal either, because they came under the same 
definition. If soft-money contributions of any kind are not really 
contributions as defined by the act, then that is going to apply to 
domestic or foreign. Under her interpretation, you could have unlimited 
amounts of foreign money brought in and put by a political campaign 
into a soft-money account and used for so-called issue ads, and it 
would be perfectly legal.
  These are the things we are going to see in the next election cycle.
  If Congress does not want to be bound by this absurd interpretation, 
then we are going to have to act. So, in summary, we see that the 1996 
elections produced some clear violations of the criminal law, and 
Congress' job in this area is to exercise oversight over the Justice 
Department to make sure the laws are enforced. We need no changes in 
the law with regard to these matters.
  However, we also see that because of the way in which soft money, 
issue advocacy and coordination are being used and allowed to be used, 
as a practical matter, we are left with no campaign finance system at 
all, and we must decide if that is really what we want.
  Because all these loopholes have been opened up now, contrary to our 
original intent, we find ourselves with a situation where we weren't 
the ones who opened up the barn door, but all the horses are rapidly 
leaving. Do we want to fix it or do we want to take advantage of it, 
because it essentially helps all incumbents, and we go through this 
exercise every so often and get a pretty good vote, but not quite 
enough, and now we can have our cake and eat it, too.
  If we had come to this floor and passed a piece of legislation that 
allowed the current system, they would have laughed us out of town, and 
nobody here would have had the courage to do it.
  So the question is whether or not, if we find ourselves with it, we 
are going to take advantage of it because it benefits an incumbent. 
Some would welcome this turn of events. Some honestly believe there is 
not enough money in our political system and that large corporations, 
unions and others should be allowed to make unlimited contributions to 
candidates.
  I believe that those who hold this opinion have won the day so far, 
because I think that is exactly where we are now. And I think it is 
tragic, and I believe that those of us in both parties who support such 
a system because we think it might be beneficial to us as incumbents in 
some way are being very shortsighted, because I believe that no system 
that requires us or allows us as elected officials, including the 
President of the United States, to spend so much time raising so much 
money from so many people who have interests before us that we are 
passing legislation on, no such system will be allowed to survive 
indefinitely.
  Where does such a system leave the average citizen with his or her 
$100 contribution? Is there any doubt as to why the more money we raise 
the fewer people vote?
  Throughout history, people have recognized the inherent problems 
associated with large amounts of money going to those who make public 
policy. It does not require a very smart person to see the inherent 
problem with that. Nineteen centuries ago, the historian Plutarch 
thought that that was, more than anything else, what brought down the 
Roman Republic. Seven centuries ago, the Venetians imposed strict 
limitations on what could be given public officials. If the donors had 
favors to ask, they were not allowed to give anything.
  Political influence money brought down the entire political systems 
in Japan and Italy. We have had our own money scandals--the corporate 
influence-buying scandals at the end of the last century as well as the 
Watergate campaign finance scandal that in large

[[Page S828]]

part caused the legislation of 1974. So we do not have to look very far 
to see the relevant historical precedence of what we are dealing with.
  It is unlikely that we have recently abridged the laws of human 
nature or the corrupting influence of power or what people are willing 
to do to get it. In fact, that is what the 1996 scandals are all about.
  When you add all of this history, the fact that we now have spent--
last time--$2.7 billion on our national elections, with all this amount 
of money involved, it is a virtual certainty we will have another major 
scandal in the not too distant future if we do nothing.
  There are some who would try to convince those of us who are somewhat 
new to these hallowed halls that campaign finance reform is somehow not 
conservative or it is anti-Republican.
  Well, I believe that the best witness on that is Mr. Republican 
himself, Barry Goldwater. In testifying before Congress in 1983, he 
said that big money ``eats at the heart of the democratic process. It 
feeds the growth of special interest groups created solely to channel 
money into political campaigns. It creates the impression that every 
candidate is bought and owned by the biggest givers. And it causes 
elected officials to devote more time to raising money than to their 
public duties. If present trends continue, voter participation will 
drop significantly''--sound familiar?--``public respect will fall into 
an all-time low''--sound familiar?--``political campaigns will be 
controlled by slick packaging artists''--sound familiar?--``and neglect 
of public duties by absentee officials will undermine government 
operations.''
  Now, that is the man that we call ``Mr. Republican.'' Reading his 
``Conscience of a Conservative'' as a college student had a lot to do 
with my becoming a Republican. And I do not think anybody ever accused 
Barry Goldwater of being an enemy of the first amendment.
  I would ask those who are rightfully concerned about maintaining the 
authority of Congress in our system of checks and balances, those of us 
who criticize the courts--and I am one of them--and who criticize our 
Federal agencies--and I am one of them--if we really want the way we 
elect the highest officials in our Federal system to be determined not 
by Congress but by the courts, and by the Federal Election Commission, 
and by the Attorney General, and by those running for office who have 
the most audacity.
  So while McCain-Feingold may achieve its predicted fate again this 
year--and maybe not--we need to realize that this overall issue is 
going to continue to stare Congress in the face. And as the next 
campaign makes the last one look like child's play, we are going to 
have to ultimately decide in this body, is this what we really want? 
And since it involves the very fundamentals of our democracy, don't we 
have an obligation to deal with it?
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Tennessee leaves 
the floor, I would like to ask him a question and make a comment about 
his remarks.
  I believe I heard the Senator from Tennessee predict that there would 
be more scandals associated with the present system. Did I hear him 
right? And what form will they be in? And how serious?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely, I would say to my friend from Arizona. 
Nobody ever knows for sure what is going to happen, but if the past is 
prologue, we have seen throughout history and in our own recent 
history, and certainly in the history of Europe, that when the money 
gets out of hand, the scandals come.

  And we have gone from a system now where we were arguing whether it 
should be a $1,000 limitation per individual or a little more or little 
less or whether it should be a $5,000 PAC limitation or not, and a big 
controversy whether that had a corrupting influence, to where now, 
instead of soliciting those amounts, we are soliciting $250,000 from 
these large entities.
  So if the past has brought those kinds of political problems and 
legal problems to us, I think we can almost rest assured that in the 
future, with those amounts involved, that we will have the same thing.
  As I said, I do not think that we have abridged the laws of human 
nature over the last few years. And I suppose that Lord Acton's 
admonition about the corrupting influence of power is still very much 
alive and well and with us.
  So I say to my friend, I regret to say it, but I know that you 
predicted it would take another one to get anybody's attention on this 
issue. Now we have had one. Your prediction has come true. I am afraid 
that I am just following up with the next prediction.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the Senator also, in light of the literally 
thousands of hours that he has spent on this issue in the last year, is 
there any remaining restraint on campaign contributions? Is there any 
remaining law, rule, or regulation that, if someone is serious enough, 
that they can inject not as much money as they wish into any political 
campaign?
  Mr. THOMPSON. As a practical matter, I think there are no restraints. 
I think under the present situation, with the FEC interpretations that 
have come down, with the Attorney General decisions and opinions that 
she has made, I literally think that you could call up someone, if you 
knew someone in Russia or China or Brazil, or wherever you wanted to--
or California for that matter--get them to send a suitcase full of a 
million dollars cash, launder it, if you needed to, put it into a soft 
money account, and as long as you used issue ads and did not say ``vote 
for'' or ``vote against'' under this current ridiculous setup of 
interpretations we have now, that is permissible. That is the system we 
have currently.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my colleague from Tennessee then, if that is 
the situation, why does he detect a reluctance for our colleagues to 
support even, say, full disclosure or the banning of soft money or an 
abolition of the most obvious abuses that you so well described in your 
remarks?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I do not want to delve too deeply into the 
motivations of anyone. People can have different reasons for their 
thoughts. But it does puzzle me because, you know, in looking back at 
the history of this thing, some of the leading Republicans, some of the 
leading conservatives, as well as some of the leading liberals and 
Democrats in this body, have all joined together on some of these basic 
things.
  What I think the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin 
and I are trying to do here is kind of get back to where we were 20, 25 
years ago. We do not have that situation now. I hope the answer to your 
question is not that we see this current situation as an opportunity 
for incumbents. And we know that most of the money goes to incumbents. 
I have been a challenger; I have been an incumbent, like we all have. 
And we know how the system works and operates. And that is fine. That 
will always be the case.
  We have some certain advantages, inherent advantages, in terms of 
news coverage and things of that nature that I have no intention of 
willingly giving up. And I think it is fine that I have those 
advantages. But the money situation has gotten out of hand, and 
incumbents have such an advantage there that about 90 percent of all 
the kind of money that we are talking about--well, that is not the 
correct figure either--but the great majority of the money we are 
talking about now goes into incumbents.
  In times past, in this body those considerations have not ruled, and 
I do not think ultimately they will here now. And I am not saying that 
that is the motivation. All I am saying is that I hope that is not the 
motivation. I am afraid that if we do not do some things--the Senator 
from Kentucky pointed out problems with Buckley that we have on the 
free speech side of things. He makes some valid points there. It is a 
problematic situation. It has to be either not dealt with at all, 
because of the Court interpretations, or it has to be dealt with very, 
very carefully. I do not know how far we can go constitutionally.
  But that has nothing to do with the contribution side. We decided 
back in 1907 that we did not want corporate contributions, large or 
small, and yet now we have effectively repealed that law, in my 
estimation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Let me finally ask the Senator from Tennessee, he also 
brings

[[Page S829]]

a unique perspective to this issue in that he, I am sure, is the only 
Member of this body who was an active participant in the Watergate 
scandal. Part of the scandal was the washing around of large amounts of 
money. I have heard the stories--people walking around with a valise 
with a million and a half dollars of cash, et cetera. If we do not do 
something about this situation, in the view of the Senator from 
Tennessee, are we likely to see a repeat of those kinds of revelations?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I think if we do not do something about it, the 
big difference will be that people will not have to hide that activity 
anymore because it would be considered permissible. You might have some 
limitations on cash and things of that nature, but in terms of the 
amounts, you know, one of the Cabinet members of the President at that 
time allegedly was going around and, you know, hitting up these 
corporations for pretty good sums of money--at that point, $50,000, 
increments like that, some of it cash.
  Mr. McCAIN. That was scandalous.
  Mr. THOMPSON. That was scandalous in those days.
  Mr. McCAIN. Now they are hit up for $50,000, and it is the order of 
the day, it is a lunch with the President.
  Mr. THOMPSON. So we decided that--I think the country decided, after 
that, that we needed to decide what we wanted to have corporations and 
large labor unions do. Clearly, they needed to participate. We set up 
political action committees and decided how much we wanted them to 
participate. And we said to corporations, labor unions, ``You can't do 
any more than that in terms of direct political contribution.'' We said 
to individuals, ``You can't spend more than $1,000 per election per 
individual.'' That was not indexed. I think that was a mistake.
  I think that $1,000, frankly, is ridiculously low nowadays, and if we 
had a higher hard money limitation that maybe so much money would not 
go into these independent ads and more money would go into hard money. 
But we sat down and consciously decided, I think, as a Congress and as 
a country, how much was appropriate for candidates to get their message 
out and to communicate with people and in what line did you get to a 
point where the influence might appear to be too great. These were all 
conscious decisions.
  All I am saying to this body now is that we at least need to 
recognize that we are now addressing whether or not we still adhere to 
that or not or are we going to a system where there are no limitations.
  Some people make an eloquent argument there should be no limitations 
at all. But it ought to be debated. We ought to hash that out here on 
the floor and not fool the American people into thinking that 
everything is basically just the way it was, and we do not want to 
encumber the system with additional regulations, and everything is 
fairly simple, and everything is fairly clean.
  The Government, as I said, has been up to its eyeballs in this from 
day one, sometimes beneficially and sometimes ridiculously. And this 
law, to me, is just like most other major pieces of legislation. After 
20 years, you learn some things about it. You have unintended 
consequences. You have court interpretations that go against what you 
thought you were doing.

  So you have to sit down and revisit it and bring it up to date. I 
hope we don't avoid the responsibility of sitting down and revisiting 
this. If the majority sentiment is that we don't want any rules 
anymore, that we want to allow candidates to pick up the phone and 
raise $5 million, maybe run it through a committee but coordinate all 
of it and direct it so that you can slam somebody maybe 2 years in 
advance who might be a potential rival--if we really want to do that, 
say that is what we are doing and lay it out in a piece of legislation.
  It is a hodgepodge now. We argue about what is legal and illegal. We 
have had some people say it is just violations of the law, what we need 
to do is enforce the law. That is true. Other people say, ``I don't see 
any violations of the law.'' See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. 
All we need is reform. They are in part true. The biggest problem is 
the gray area that everybody has assumed up until this last election 
was against the law.
  The Clinton-Gore campaign primarily went way beyond that and the 
Attorney General is trying to back them up. We can stamp our feet about 
it--I think she is dead wrong-- or we can sit down and say no, this is 
not the way it is, Attorney General, this is not the way it is, FEC, or 
courts, within the Constitution. We can make our own determinations as 
to what the Federal Government should be doing with regard to the 
election of Federal candidates.
  You and I do not want the Federal Government involved in many aspects 
of people's lives. I decided a long time ago, the motivation has to do 
with lots of other things, like term limits and how long people stay 
when they are here, what their motivations are when they come here, 
what is primarily on their mind. All those kinds of things are the 
business of this body. That is Federal Government business. I make no 
apology for that.
  So whether it is by inaction or by action, we are going to be 
determining how we elect people for Federal offices in this country.
  Mr. McCAIN. Let me ask the Senator from Tennessee to sum up. Right 
now there is no restriction on any campaign contribution, in his view; 
there is no enforcement of existing law; there is no outrage because 
``everybody does it.''
  Mr. THOMPSON. I have heard that often. That was part of what we heard 
over the last several months.
  Everybody doesn't do it. Everybody doesn't do the things that we saw 
the Clinton-Gore campaign do last time. I think everybody doesn't do 
what their campaign did in terms of laundering foreign money into this 
campaign or using the White House and denigrating the White House. 
Everybody doesn't do that.
  Where there are clear law violations the laws ought to be enforced. 
That is another speech. If you get me started, it will be longer than 
the last speech.
  Mr. McCAIN. But existing law is not being prosecuted.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Is not being pushed hard enough, I don't think. We 
finally got a couple of indictments on matters that have been on the 
public record for a long, long time now. I am willing to reserve a 
certain amount of judgment to see what comes up. Based on the public 
record we have there could be a dozen indictments, based on things that 
have been on public record for a long, long time now. I expect there 
will be more indictments coming down the pike, but up until now it has 
not been aggressive. I'm afraid the trail has gotten cold on many. If 
you don't act promptly on some of these things, it is a lost cause. I'm 
afraid that has happened.
  Having said all of that, they can't blind us to the fact that 
separate and apart from the clear violations of the law which do not 
need amendment--they are clear laws, they are clear violations--we have 
now created another area that does not require our attention, except 
our oversight, to see the law is enforced. What doesn't require our 
attention because of what the courts have done, because of what the FEC 
has done, because of what we have done and because of what the Attorney 
General has done, we have a hodgepodge that results in the allowance of 
unlimited amounts of money coming into any campaign almost under any 
circumstances. You have to run it through a committee, perhaps. You 
have to be careful how you word the TV ads, but as a practical matter 
we have no limitations. That is what deserves our attention.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I hope that it is 
understood the Senator from Tennessee, chairman of the committee, just 
finished a year-long oversight of the campaign finance abuses of this 
country. I think it is an important way to frame the debate which we 
are again embarking on, and that is that there are no limitations on 
any campaign contributions in American politics today. That is wrong. 
It is wrong. It is wrong. We need to do something to fix it, or I 
suggest that the people of this country will send some people who will 
fix it.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his incredible work and for 
his perseverance and for his courage under sometimes very difficult 
circumstances as he conducted his investigations throughout the last 
year. I'm grateful for him, as well, obviously for his friendship.

[[Page S830]]

                           Amendment No. 1646

 (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute to reform the financing of 
                           Federal elections)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in accordance with the unanimous consent 
agreement regarding this issue, I send an amendment in the form of a 
substitute to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself Mr. 
     Feingold, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Collins, Mr. Levin, and Mr. 
     Cleland, proposes an amendment numbered 1646.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud that today we begin what 
promises to be a thorough and responsible debate on the issue of 
campaign finance reform. I say responsible because I anticipate that in 
the course of this debate Senators will make unmistakenly clear whether 
they support or oppose meaningful reform. Senators will cast votes on 
at least one reform proposal, the revised McCain-Feingold legislation, 
and probably other proposals such as the one to be offered by Senator 
Snowe before we vote on whether or not to invoke cloture.
  Previous debates have ended, unsatisfactorily, in a series of cloture 
votes which, as we all know, tended to discourage good faith 
compromises among Senators who are genuinely committed to finding a 
fair and effective solution to the disreputable state of modern 
campaign financing. Moreover, cloture votes sometimes obscure from the 
public a Senator's true position on the issue in question. By the end 
of this debate, whichever argument prevails, Senators will be on the 
record in support or opposition to reform, and, thus, accountable to 
their constituents who may then register their approval or disapproval 
at the polls.
  Mr. President, I believe an open debate, which considers amendments 
representing various views on the subject of reform, will encourage 
Senators on both sides of the issue to pursue a majority consensus on 
what can be done to improve our obviously and appallingly dysfunctional 
campaign finance system. Should our debate result in honest progress 
toward an acceptable compromise we may not even need to hold cloture 
votes. Of course, this is an ideal result of the debate we commence 
today, and I recognize that we are a long way from achieving it. But I 
believe, with just a minimum of good faith on all sides, we can get 
there.
  But even if we fall short again, Mr. President, Senators will have 
shown ourselves willing to stand up for our beliefs and risk the 
people's judgment when next we stand for election. I am proud of my 
colleagues for having the courage of their convictions.
  Mr. President, I want to thank the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, for 
agreeing to return to this subject, and allow Senators to express their 
views by means usually employed in Senate debates--by means of 
amendment. I wish also to thank my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, 
who has long shown he has the courage of his convictions, for agreeing 
to resume debate in this manner.
  I want also to thank the Minority Leader for his essential assistance 
in helping use to arrive at this important moment. I want to thank 
Senators Snowe, Jeffords and Chafee along with Senator Levin for their 
efforts to help the Senate achieve a meaningful consensus on a 
contentious issue involved in this debate, and all Senators, on both 
sides of the aisle and the issue, who have worked hard to ensure that 
this issue is fairly addressed by this Senate.
  I wish to thank all the co-sponsors of McCain-Feingold, both 
Republicans and Democrats, with a special thanks to a hardy band of 
determined Republicans, Senators Thompson, Collins and Specter who have 
labored long and hard to change what we believe to be a mistaken 
majority view among our fellow Republicans.
  Lastly, I want to especially thank my tireless, resourceful and 
passionately committed friend, Senator Feingold. I have been in 
Congress for many years now, and I have never worked with a more 
dedicated or able member of this institution to pass legislation of 
such importance to our political system. He has inspired my own 
determination, and I am grateful to him.
  Mr. President, we will hear from many Senators, representing several 
points of view, during the course of this debate. I look forward to 
debating various provisions of our legislation, as well as amendments 
offered by my colleagues on a range of issues related to campaign 
finance reform. As I have said, many times in the past, this is a 
necessary and important debate. The issue of campaign finance reform 
merits our most serious attention. Indeed, I believe it deserves to be 
a central focus of this Congress' work. I believe this so strongly 
because I think it is beyond doubt that the way we finance our 
elections in this country has caused the people we represent to doubt 
our personal integrity and the integrity of the institution we are 
privileged to serve. And that, my friends, is a concern that should 
call us all to action.
  The substitute that Senator Feingold and I offer today represents a 
substantial change from S. 25, the original McCain-Feingold Campaign 
Finance Reform Bill, but at the same time, maintains the core of the 
original bill.
  I strongly support all the provisions of the original bill. And as I 
have stated in the past, as the debate proceeds, Senator Feingold and I 
intend to offer amendments that would restore the component parts of 
our original bill. We intend to proceed to those amendments in good 
time.
  Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement that the Senate entered 
into last year, the Senate will now turn to the bill S. 25 as modified, 
as an amendment to an original underlying bill. Later I will discuss my 
thoughts on the underlying bill, but now I would like to outline for my 
colleagues the contents of our proposal.
  Before I elaborate on the provisions of the bill, I want to remind my 
colleagues of three points:
  One--For reform to become law, it must be bi-partisan. This is a bi-
partisan bill. It is a bill that effects both parties in a fair and 
equal manner.
  Two--Reform must seek to lessen the role of money in politics. 
Spending on campaigns in current, inflation adjusted dollars continues 
to rise. In constant dollars, the amount spent on House and Senate 
races in 1976 was $318 million. By 1986, the total had risen to $645 
million. And in 1996 to $765 million. Including the Presidential races, 
over a billion dollars was spent in the last race. And as the need for 
money escalates, the influence of those who have it rises 
exponentially.
  Three--Reform must seek to level the playing field between 
challengers and incumbents. Our bill achieves this goal by recognizing 
the fact that incumbents almost always raise more money than 
challengers and as a general rule, the candidate with the most money 
wins the race. If money is forced to play a lesser role, then 
challengers will have a better chance.


                                title i

  Title One of the modified bill seeks to reduce the influence of 
special interest money in campaigns by banning the use of soft money in 
federal races. Soft money would be allowed to be contributed to state 
parties in accordance with state law.
  In the first half of 1997, a record $34 million dollars of soft money 
flowed into political coffers. That staggering amount represents a 250% 
increase in soft money contributions since 1993. And Mr. President, 
unless reform is passed, we are witnessing only the beginning of this 
problem.
  We do, however, seek to differentiate between state and federal 
activities. Soft money contributed to state parties could be used for 
any and all state candidate activities. Let me repeat that statement. 
Soft money given to the state parties could be used for any state 
electioneering activities.
  If a state allows soft money to be used in a gubernatorial race, a 
state senate race, or the local Sheriff's race, it would still be 
allowed under this bill. However, if a state party seeks to use soft 
money to indirectly influence a federal race, such activity would be 
banned 120 days prior to the general

[[Page S831]]

election. Voter registration and general campaign advertising would be 
allowed except during the 120 days prior to the election.
  Voter registration efforts are very important. I know my colleagues 
recognize that fact. We want individuals to register and then to go 
vote. This bill allows parties to engage in voter registration 
activities. Additionally, state parties would be allowed within limits 
to engage in generic party advertising. These activities help build the 
party and encourage people to vote.
  To make up for the loss of soft money, the modified bill doubles the 
limit that individuals can give to state parties in hard money. 
Consequently, the aggregate contribution limit for hard money that 
individuals could donate to political races would rise to $30,000.
  This ban of soft money is important for two fundamental reasons: 
first, it would reduce the amount of money in the election process; and 
second, it would result in candidates being forced to campaign for 
smaller dollar amounts from individuals back home.


                                title ii

  Title II of the modified bill seeks to limit the role of independent 
expenditures in political campaigns.
  The bill in no way bans, curbs, or seeks to control real, 
independent, non-coordinated expenditures in any manner. Any 
independent expenditure made to advocate any cause, with the exception 
of the express advocacy of a candidate's victory or defeat, is fully 
allowed. To do anything else would violate the first amendment.
  However, the bill does expand the definition of express advocacy. The 
courts have routinely ruled that the Congress may define express 
advocacy. In fact, current standards of express advocacy have been 
derived from the Buckley case itself.
  As we all know, the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo stated 
that campaign spending cannot be mandatorily capped. This bill is fully 
consistent with the Buckley decision.
  What the modified bill seeks to do is establish a so-called ``bright 
line'' test 60 days out from an election. Any independent expenditures 
that fall within that 60 day window could not use a candidate's name or 
his or her likeness. During this 60 day period, ads could run that 
advocate any number of issues. Pro-life ads, pro-choice ads, anti-labor 
ads, pro-wilderness ads, pro-Republican party or Democratic party ads--
all could be aired with impunity. However, ads mentioning candidates 
themselves could not be aired.
  This accomplishes much. First, if soft money is banned to the 
political parties, such money will inevitably flow to independent 
campaign organizations. These groups often run ads that the candidates 
themselves disapprove of. Further, these ads are almost always negative 
attack ads and do little to further beneficial debate and a healthy 
political dialogue. To be honest, they simply drive up an individual 
candidate's negative polling numbers and increase public cynicism for 
public service in general.

  The modified bill explicitly protects voter guides. I believe this is 
a very important point. Some have unfairly criticized the original bill 
because they thought it banned or prohibited the publication and 
distribution of voter guides and voting records. While I disagree with 
those individual's conclusions, the sponsors of the modified bill 
sought to clarify this matter.
  Let me state that voter guides are completely protected in the 
modified bill. Any statements to the contrary are simply not true.
  Not only are statements criticizing the bill on this point 
inaccurate, but the bill--as I have stated--in fact protects voter 
guides. I want to read the provision in its entirety so that there will 
be no questions regarding this matter:

       (C) Voting record and voter guide exception.--The term 
     express advocacy shall not include a printed communication 
     which is limited solely to presenting information in an 
     educational manner about the voting record or positions on 
     campaign issues of 2 or more candidates and which:
       (i) is not made in coordination with a candidate, or 
     political party or agency thereof;
       (ii) in the case of a voter guides based on a 
     questionnaire, all candidates for a particular seat or office 
     have been provided with an equal opportunity to respond;
       (iii) gives no candidate any greater prominence than any 
     other candidate; and
       (iv) does not contain a phrase such as ``vote for'', 
     ``reelect'', ``support'', ``Cast your ballot for'', ``(name 
     of candidate) for Congress'', ``(name of candidate) in 
     1997'', ``vote against'', ``defeat'', or ``reject'', or a 
     campaign slogan or words which in context can have no 
     reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat 
     of 1 or more candidates.

  I hope that this clear and concise language dispels any rumors that 
this modified bill will adversely, in any way, affect voter guides.


                               title iii

  Title III of the modified bill mandates greater disclosure. Our bill 
mandates that all FEC filings documenting campaign receipts and 
expenditures be made electronically and that they then be made 
accessible to the public on the Internet not later than 24 hours after 
the information is received by the Federal Election Commission.
  Additionally, current law allows for campaigns to make a ``best 
effort'' to obtain the name, address, and occupation information of the 
donors of contributions above $200. Our bill would eliminate that 
waiver. If a campaign can not obtain the address and occupation of a 
donor, then the donation can not and should not be accepted.
  The bill also mandates random audits of campaigns. Such audits would 
only occur after an affirmative vote of at least four of the six 
members of the FEC. This will prevent the use of audits as a purely 
partisan attack.
  The bill also mandates that campaigns seek to receive name, address 
and employer information for contributions over $50. Such information 
will enable the public to have a better knowledge of all who give to 
political campaigns.


                                title iv

  Title IV of the modified bill seeks to encourage individuals to limit 
the amount of personal money they spend on their own campaigns. If an 
individual voluntarily elects to limit the amount of money he or she 
spends in his or her own race to $50,000, then the national parties are 
able to use funds known as ``coordinated expenditures'' to aid such 
candidates. If candidates refuse to limit their own personal spending, 
then the parties are prohibited from contributing coordinated funds to 
the candidate.
  This provision serves to limit the advantages that wealthy candidates 
enjoy and strengthen the party system by encouraging candidates to work 
more closely with the parties.


                                title v

  Lastly, the bill codifies the Beck decision. The Beck decision states 
that a non-union employee working in a closed shop union workplace and 
who is required to contribute funds to the union, can request and be 
assured that his or her money not be used for political purposes.
  I personally support much stronger language. I believe that no 
individual--a union member or not--should be forced to contribute to 
political activities. However, I recognize that stronger language would 
invite a filibuster of this bill and would doom its final passage. As a 
result, I will fight to preserve the delicately balanced language of 
the bill and will oppose amendments offered by both sides of the aisle 
that would result in killing this important measure.
  Mr. President, what I have outlined is a basic summary of our 
modifications to the original bill. I have heard many of my colleagues 
say that they could not support S. 25, the original McCain-Feingold 
bill for a wide variety of reasons. Some opposed spending limits. 
Others opposed free or reduced rate broadcast time. Yet others could 
not live with postal subsidies to candidates. And others complained 
that nothing was being done about labor.
  I hope that all my colleagues who made such statements will take a 
new and open minded look at this bill. Gone are spending limits. Gone 
is free broadcast time. Gone are reduced rate TV time and postal 
subsidies. And we have sought to address the problem of undue influence 
being exercised by labor unions. All the excuses of the past are gone.
  Mr. President, I know our legislation is not perfect. I know that if 
given the opportunity to offer amendments, many Members will do exactly 
that, and the legislation may well be improved as a result. I welcome 
those amendments. But first we are required to vote for or against 
tabling our amendment. And I appeal to my colleagues to vote against 
tabling.

[[Page S832]]

  I know that many on this side of the aisle do not agree with all the 
provisions I have outlined. But I know that many recognize that there 
is a problem with the way we finance our elections, and are distressed 
over the public's disdain for the system. It is a problem we must 
address. So let us do so. Let any senator offer an amendment to our 
legislation. I may agree with some. I may disagree with others. But by 
means of the amendment process we may begin building a consensus. Then 
we can all sit down, in good faith, and do what the people want us to 
do: come together on a consensus proposal to repair this terribly 
inequitable, unnecessarily expensive and, at times, corrupt campaign 
finance system.
  This is our opportunity. If we opt for gridlock over results, we will 
only fuel the cynicism of the American electorate. I hope we will do 
what is right and take such steps as necessary to pass meaningful 
campaign finance reform.

                          ____________________