[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 13 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S837-S846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 1664. A bill to reform Federal election campaigns; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
THE FEDERAL ELECTION ENFORCEMENT AND DISCLOSURE REFORM ACT
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the year 1996 witnessed both a record
high in the amount of money spent in pursuit of federal office--a
staggering $1 billion, an increase of 73 percent just since 1992--and
the second worst turnout in American history. In 1996, some $220
million was spent on Senate races alone--an average of $4.5 million per
campaign. Members of Congress combined currently raise an average of
about $1 million a day. It has been estimated that if these trends
continue, by the year 2025 it will take $145 million to finance an
average Senate campaign. This is truly a ridiculous situation.
When I came to the Senate last year, I volunteered to serve on the
Governmental Affairs Committee. Sitting in the Committee's hearings on
campaign finance abuses and listening to the sordid tale of the 1996
money chase was a most unsettling experience. What I witnessed, heard
and read made me even more convinced that we must strengthen our
campaign financing laws, now, and provide strong enforcement through
the Federal Election Commission of these laws, now, or risk seeing our
election process be swept away in a tidal wave of money.
At the conclusion of the Governmental Affairs hearings, I wrote to
the Committee Chairman to make four basic recommendations as
appropriate follow-ons to the investigation:
(1) That we refer all evidence in the Committee's possession of
alleged illegal acts to the Justice Department;
(2) That we hold additional hearings on both FEC enforcement and
``gray areas'' in current law, such as the Pendleton Act and the
definition of campaign coordination;
(3) That we mutually work for passage of McCain-Feingold as the best
first step in curing our system-wide campaign finance problem; and
(4) That, to the maximum extent feasible, the Majority and Minority
work to produce a joint final report, with bipartisan conclusions and
recommendations.
While the jury is still out on my first three suggestions, clearly
the final one--concerning a bipartisan committee report--will,
unfortunately, not be adopted. The separate, partisan reports which are
apparently to be released this week represent a lost opportunity to
present a strong, united case for reform.
Regardless of what action the Senate takes, or fails to take, on
McCain-Feingold, we need to turn to additional reforms in order to
further improve our electoral process. I am pleased today to introduce
the Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act which is
aimed at dealing with two of the biggest problems confronting our
current federal campaign system: the inability of the Federal Election
Commission (FEC), as currently constituted and funded, to adequately
enforce election laws; and the significant gaps in existing campaign
finance disclosure requirements.
Let me be very clear that I continue to believe that enactment of
McCain-Feingold, even in its reduced form, is an essential step for the
Senate to take this year in beginning the process of repairing a
campaign finance system which is totally out of control. Banning soft
money and imposing disclosure and contribution requirements on sham
issue ads aired close to an election, as provided for under McCain-
Feingold, are absolutely vital reforms, without which the campaign
finance system will only grow less accountable, and more vulnerable to
the appearance, if not the fact, of undue influence by big money.
Nonetheless, I recognize that the issues raised by McCain-Feingold,
in all of its forms, have become highly politicized and polarized, and
continue to face a filibuster which threatens the Senate's ability to
act on this legislation. Consequently, in addition to continuing to
urge Senate adoption of McCain-Feingold, I want to broaden the scope of
debate, and to begin the process of seeking common ground on important
reforms which are, by and large, outside of the purview of McCain-
Feingold.
As previously discussed, one of the most glaring deficiencies in our
current federal campaign system is the ineffectiveness of its supposed
referee, the Federal Election Commission. The FEC, whether by design or
through circumstance, has been beset by partisan gridlock, uncertain
and insufficient resources, and lengthy proceedings which offer no hope
of timely resolution of charges of campaign violations.
Thus, the first major element of my bill is to strengthen the ability
of the Federal Election Commission to be an effective and impartial
enforcer of federal campaign laws. Among the most significant FEC-
related changes I am proposing are the following:
Alter the Commission structure to remove the possibility of partisan
gridlock by establishing a 7-member Commission, appointed by the
President based on qualifications, for single 7-year terms. The
Commission would be composed of two Republicans, two Democrats, one
third party member, and two members nominated by the Supreme Court.
Give the FEC independent litigating authority, including before the
Supreme Court, and establish a right of private civil action to seek
court enforcement in cases where the FEC fails to act, both of which
should dramatically improve the prospects for timely enforcement of the
law.
Provide sufficient funding of the FEC from a source independent of
Congressional intervention by the imposition of filing fees on federal
candidates, with such fees being adequate to meet
[[Page S838]]
the needs of the Commission--estimated to be $50 million a year.
A second major component of the Federal Election Enforcement and
Disclosure Reform Act is to create a new Advisory Committee on Federal
Campaign Reform to provide for a body outside of Congress to
continually review and recommend changes in our federal campaign
system. The Committee would be charged, ``to study the laws (including
regulations) that affect how election campaigns for Federal office are
conducted and the implementation of such laws and may make
recommendations for change,'' which are to be submitted to Congress by
April 15 of every odd-numbered year. As with the FEC, the Advisory
Committee would receive independent and sufficient funding via the new
federal candidate filing fees.
The impetus for the Advisory Committee is two-fold: (1) To build a
``continuous improvement'' mechanism into the Federal campaign system,
and (2) to address the demonstrable fact that Congress responds slowly,
if a all, to the need for changes and updates in our campaign laws. In
both instances, the conclusion is the same: we cannot afford to wait
twenty-five years or until a major scandal develops to adapt our
campaign finance system to changing circumstances.
The final section of my bill seeks to enhance the effectiveness of
campaign contribution disclosure requirements. As Justice Brandeis
observed, ``Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and
industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants;
electric light the most effective policeman.'' This is certainly true
in the realm of campaign finance, and perhaps the most enduring legacy
of the Watergate Reforms of a quarter-century ago is the expanded
campaign and financial disclosure requirements which emerged. By and
large, they have served us well, but as with everything else, they need
to be periodically reviewed and updated in light of experience.
Therefore, based in part on testimony I heard during last year's
Governmental Affairs Committee investigation and in part on the FEC's
own recommendations for improved disclosure, my bill will make several
changes in current disclosure requirements.
Specifically, I am recommending two reforms which will make it more
difficult for contributors and campaigns alike to turn a blind eye to
current disclosure requirements by, first, preventing a campaign from
depositing a contribution until all of the requisite disclosure
information is provided; and second, requiring those who contribute
$200 or more to provide a signed certification that their contribution
is not from a foreign national, and is not the result of a contribution
in the name of another person.
In addition, my legislation adopts a number of disclosure
recommendations made by the FEC in its 1997 report to Congress,
including provisions: requiring all reports to be filed by the due date
of the report; requiring all authorized candidate committee reports to
be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a calendar year
cycle; and mandating monthly reporting for multi candidate committees
which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising or spending, in
excess of $100,000 in the current election cycle.
In developing this legislation, I have been pleased to have the input
and advice from a variety of individuals and organizations interested
in the subject of campaign finance reform. In particular, while none of
them bear any responsibility for the finished product, I would like to
acknowledge and thank the Reform Party and its founder Ross Perot, and
chairman Russ Verney, Common Cause, and its president Ann McBride and
vice president Meredith McGehee, and the Federal Election Commission
and its assistant general counsel Susan Propper for their insights.
It is easy to be pessimistic when considering campaign finance reform
efforts. The public and the media are certainly expecting this Congress
to fail to take significant action to clean up the scandalous campaign
system under which we now run. But ladies and gentlemen of the Senate,
I suggest that we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. We may think
we will be able to win the next re-election because the level of
outrage and the awareness of the extent of the vulnerability of our
political system have perhaps not yet reached critical mass. But I am
confident that it is only a matter of time, and perhaps the next
election cycle--which will undoubtedly feature more unaccountable soft
money, more sham issue ads of unknown parentage, more circumvention of
the spirit and in some cases the letter of current campaign finance
law--before the scales are decisively tilted in favor of reform.
We will have campaign finance reform. The only question is whether
this Congress will step up to the plate, and fulfill its
responsibilities, to give the American public a campaign system they
can have faith in and which can preserve and protect our noble
democracy as we enter a new century.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary of the Federal Election Enforcement and Disclosure Reform Act
I. FEC Reform
A. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) would be
restructured as follows:
The Commission will be composed of 7 members appointed by
the President who are specially qualified to serve on the
Commission by reason of relevant--
--two Republican members appointed by the President;
--two Democratic members appointed by the President;
--one member appointed by the President from among all
other political parties whose candidates received at least 3%
of the national popular vote in the most recent Presidential
or U.S. House or U.S. Senate elections; in the event no third
party reaches this threshold, the President may consider all
third parties in making this appointment; and
--two members appointed by the President from among 10
nominees submitted by the U.S. Supreme Court. One of these
two members would be chosen by the Commission to serve as
Chairman, and the other would serve as Vice Chairman.
Relevant knowledge (for purposes of qualification for
appointment to the FEC) is defined to include:
--A higher education degree in government, politics, or
public or business administration, or 4 years of relevant
work experience in the fields of government or politics, and
--A minimum of two years experience in working on or in
relation to Federal election law or other Federal electoral
issues, or four years of such experience at the state level.
Commissioners will be limited to one 7 year term.
B. The FEC would be given the following additional powers:
Electronic filing of all reports required to be filed with
the FEC would be mandatory, with a waiver permitted for
candidates or other entities whose total expenditures or
receipts fall below a threshold amount set by the Commission
(similar to Section 301(a) of modified McCain-Feingold bill).
The requirement for the submission of hard (paper) copies of
such reports would be continued.
The Commission would be authorized to conduct random audits
and investigations in order to increase voluntary compliance
with campaign finance laws (same as Section 303 of modified
McCain-Feingold bill).
The FEC would be authorized to seek court enforcement when
the Commission believes a substantial violation is occurring,
failure to act will result in ``irreparable harm'' to an
affected party, expeditious action will not cause ``undue
harm'' to the interests of other parties, and the public
interest would best be served by the issuance of an
injunction (same as Section 303 of S. 25).
The Commission would be authorized to implement expedited
procedures for complaints filed within 60 days of a general
election (same as Section 309 of S. 25).
Penalties for knowing and willful violations of the Federal
Election Campaign Act would be increased (same as Section 305
of S. 25).
The Commission would be expressly granted independent
litigating authority, including before the Supreme Court
(same as Section 304 of HR 493).
Private individuals or groups would be authorized to
independently seek court enforcement when the FEC fails to
act within 120 days of when a complaint is filed. A ``loser
pays" standard would apply in such proceedings.
The Commission would be authorized to levy fines, not to
exceed $5,000, for minor reporting violations, and to publish
a schedule of fines for such violations.
Candidates for the Senate would be required to file with
the FEC rather than the Secretary of the Senate (same as
Section 301(b) of modified McCain-Feingold bill).
C. The FEC would be provided with resources in the
following manner:
Consistent with its expanded duties, the FEC would be
authorized to receive $50 million in FY1999 and FY2000, with
this amount indexed for inflation thereafter.
The funding would be derived from a ``user fee'' imposed on
federal candidate and party committees. The FEC would
establish a fee schedule and determine the requisite fee
[[Page S839]]
level to fund the operations of the FEC and the new Advisory
Committee on Federal Campaign Reform. This determination will
include a waiver for the first $50,000 raised by campaigns.
ii. advisory committee on federal campaign reform
A. A new Advisory Committee on Federal Campaign Reform
would be created.
B. The Committee would be composed of 9 members, who are
specially qualified to serve on the Committee by reason of
relevant knowledge, to be appointed as follows: 1 appointed
by the President of the United States, 1 appointed by the
Speaker of the House, 1 each appointed by the Majority and
Minority Leaders of the U.S. House and Senate, 1 appointed by
the Supreme Court, 1 appointed by the Reform Party (or
whatever third party's candidate for President received the
largest number of popular votes in the most recent
Presidential election), and 1 appointed by the American
Political Science Association. Committee members would elect
the Chairman.
C. Committee members would each serve four-year terms, and
would be limited to two consecutive terms.
D. The appointees by the Supreme Court, the Reform Party
(or other third party), and the American Political Science
Association must be individuals who, during the five years
before their appointment, have not held elective office as a
member of the Democratic or Republican Parties, have not
received any wages or salaries from the Democratic or
Republican Parties, or have not provided substantial
volunteer services or made any substantial contribution to
the Democratic or Republican Parties, or to a Democratic or
Republican Party public office-holder or candidate for
office.
E. Relevant knowledge (for purposes of qualification for
appointment to the Committee) is defined to include:
A higher education degree in government, politics, or
public or business administration, or 4 years of relevant
work experience in the fields of government or politics, and
A minimum of two years experience in working on or in
relation to national campaign finance or other electoral
issues, or four years of such experience at the state level.
F. The Committee would be authorized to spend $1 million a
year in its first year, indexed for inflation thereafter.
Funding would be provided by the new campaign user fee
discussed above.
G. The Committee would be required to monitor the operation
of federal election laws and to submit a report, including
recommended changes in law, to Congress by April 15 of every
odd numbered year.
H. Congress would be required to consider the Committee's
recommendations under ``fast track'' procedures to guarantee
expeditious consideration in both houses of Congress.
iii. enhanced campaign finance disclosure
A. Campaigns would be prohibited from putting contributions
which lack all requisite contributor information into any
account other than an escrow account from which money cannot
be spent. Contributions placed in such an account would not
be subject to the current ten-day maximum holding period on
checks.
B. A new requirement would be placed on contributions in
excess of $200 (aggregate): a written certification by the
contributor that the contribution is not derived from any
foreign income source, and is not the result of a
reimbursement by another party.
C. The current option to file reports submitted by
registered or certified mail based on postmark date would be
deleted, thus requiring all reports to be filed by the due
date of the report.
D. Authorized candidate committee reports would be required
to be filed on a campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a
calendar year cycle.
E. Monthly reporting would be mandated for multi candidate
committees which have raised or spent, or anticipate raising
or spending, in excess of $100,000 in the current election
cycle.
F. The requirement for filing of last-minute independent
expenditures would be clarified to make clear that such
report must be received within 24 hours after the independent
expenditure is made.
G. Campaign disbursements to secondary payees who are
independent subcontractors would have to be reported.
H. Political committees, other than authorized candidate
committees, which have received or spent, or anticipate
receiving or spending, $100,000 or more in the current
election cycle would be subjected to the same ``last minute''
contribution reporting requirements as candidate committees.
(Under current law, all contributions of $1,000 or more
received after the 20th day, but before 48 hours, before an
election must be reported to the FEC within 48 hours.)
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Santorum):
S. 1665. A bill to reauthorize the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation
Canal National Heritage Corridor Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
THE DELAWARE AND LEHIGH NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR ACT AMENDMENTS OF
1998
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
reintroduce legislation I originally introduced on November 8, 1997, to
reauthorize the work of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage
Corridor Commission in Pennsylvania. The new bill makes some technical
changes which deal with method of appointing Commission members,
ensuring that the Commission will continue to be composed of
representatives from local and state agencies who have worked on this
successful public/private partnership with the federal government over
the past 10 years. I am hopeful that the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources will hold hearings on this bill as soon as
possible. Since authorization for the Commission is set to expire in
November, 1998, it is vital that the Senate pass this legislation this
year to enable the Commission to continue its unfinished work in
eastern Pennsylvania.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN:
S . 1666. A bill to amend Federal election laws to better define the
requirements for Presidential candidates and political parties that
accept public funding, to better define the limits on the election-
related activities of tax exempt organizations, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to prevent future occurrences of some of the more egregious
campaign finance abuses that we learned of during the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee investigation into the 1996 federal
election campaigns.
What I have particularly in mind is the misuse of taxpayer money by
our presidential candidates and by various tax-exempt organizations
that intervened in both congressional and presidential elections in
1996.
Over the course of its inquiry, the Governmental Affairs Committee
compiled a compelling record that leaves little question our political
system was subverted in 1996 by overzealous presidential campaigns
working with their parties to circumvent spending limits and by
independent organizations abusing the special tax status conferred upon
them. At times, the campaigns and outside groups conducted their
business as if the election laws were written in invisible ink. Our
democratic process suffered as a result.
My proposal focuses on two specific areas of the law whose spirit and
intent were violated in 1996. They are the campaign finance statutes
regarding the public financing of presidential campaigns and the tax
code, as it applies to the political activity of tax-exempt
organizations.
Let me first make clear that I am a steadfast supporter of the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I hope the ideas that I
present today might be considered as supplemental to it, since they
complement McCain-Feingold and fill in some of the gaps that only
became apparent after our year-long Governmental Affairs Committee
investigation.
The Abuse of Public Financing for Presidential Campaigns
Under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act and the
Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, the taxpayers spent
approximately $236 million on the 1996 presidential campaigns. The
purpose of this support was to limit spending in order to protect
presidential candidates from the potentially corrupting influence of
full-time fund-raising and to reduce the flow of private money into
campaign coffers.
The two laws give public subsidies to presidential candidates and
their parties at three stages. First, the Treasury matches
contributions raised by certain primary candidates who agree to limit
their primary spending to an amount specified in the statute. Second,
political parties may receive a specified amount to fund their
presidential nominating conventions if they agree to spend no more than
that. Third, major party nominees who agree to limit their spending to
the amount they receive in public funds are eligible for full public
financing during the general election.
Both of 1996's major party candidates accepted public financing and
pledged in return to limit their spending to $37 million during the
primary season and $62 million during the general election.
[[Page S840]]
But, as the Governmental Affairs Committee's hearings demonstrated,
the candidates effectively ignored their pledges. Instead of curtailing
their fund-raising and limiting themselves to spending the amount they
agreed to, the two major party candidates continued raising massive
amounts of money which their parties then spent on TV ads that advanced
the nominees' candidacies. In other words, the public did not get the
behavior they were supposed to get in return for their $236 million.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, S. 25, would
go a long way toward preventing these abuses by banning soft money and
limiting the sources of funding available for running advertisements
using a candidate's likeness or name within 60 days of an election.
But because the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo explicitly
sanctioned Congress's ability to impose even greater restrictions on
those candidates who accept public financing, we should go beyond S.
25's proposals in regard to publicly-funded presidential candidates.
Therefore, I am introducing legislation that would underscore the
original goal of the presidential public financing laws by banning
candidates from raising soft money throughout their campaigns,
requiring them to limit fundraising to hard money during the primary
season, and prohibiting them from raising any money at all after they
are nominated. My bill would further prevent presidential candidates
from using the parties to circumvent spending limits by making illegal
their involvement in any party spending on advertising that exceeds the
amount federal law in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441a(d) explicitly authorizes for
candidate/party coordination.
I am also proposing to limit what parties seeking public financing of
their conventions can do. To get convention financing, parties would
have to agree to use only hard money to pay for advertising using the
name or likeness of the presidential candidates and would be limited in
their coordinated or independent expenditures on behalf of presidential
candidates to the amount set forth in Section 441a(d). Parties seeking
convention financing also would have to agree to a ban on soft money
and would be prohibited from soliciting or directing contributions for
tax-exempt organizations.
The Abuse of Tax-Exempt Organizations
And that leads me to an equally troubling phenomenon in the 1996
elections, which was the improper use of tax-exempts to circumvent the
tax-code and campaign finance laws so that they could conduct partisan
campaign-related activity.
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) mandates strict limits on
who may contribute to campaigns, and it imposes reporting and
disclosure requirements on organizations involved in federal elections.
The purpose is to ensure honest elections by limiting the sources of
campaign funds and publicly identifying those trying to influence
votes.
Groups with Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) status --which
confers not only tax-exempt status but also the ability to receive tax-
deductible contributions--may not intervene in any political campaign
on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. The tax code permits
organizations with Section 501(c)(4) status--which qualify for tax-
exempt status, but whose contributors cannot deduct their
contributions--to engage in non-partisan election advocacy as long as
that is not the group's primary activity.
Unfortunately, the scope of the activities some of these groups
engaged in during the 1996 elections went far beyond what Congress
intended.
The Republican National Committee, (RNC), for example, infused the
501(c)(4) organization Americans for Tax Reform, (ATR), with over $4.5
million in the weeks leading up to the 1996 election. The RNC sent that
money to ATR just in time for ATR to pay its bills for a direct mail
and phone bank campaign involving four million calls and 19 million
pieces of mail explicitly disputing the Democrats' position on Medicare
as it related to the November 5th election.
By funneling money through an outside group like ATR, the RNC was
effectively able to hide the fact that it was behind the mail and phone
calls. Recipients of the material funded by the RNC were left with the
impression that it came from a disinterested organization, not the
party itself.
The RNC also steered large amounts of money to the American Defense
Institute (ADI), a 501(c)(3) organization that runs a voter turnout
program for military personnel, who tend to vote Republican. The
Washington Post reported on October 23, 1997 that in September 1996,
ADI returned $600,000 donated to it by the RNC because, according to
the group's president, ``we didn't want to be controversial and we had
funding from other sources.'' However, as the Post reported, that money
was not returned until several days after the RNC itself sent checks
totaling $530,000 from six donors to ADI. Around that time, RNC
Chairman Haley Barbour also apparently solicited $500,000 from the
Philip Morris Companies Inc. for ADI.
The timing of these transactions raises the question of whether the
RNC and ADI substituted the donor's money for the RNC's money to avoid
publicizing the fact that the RNC was the source of ADI's funding--in
other words, to avoid disclosure requirements. Furthermore, all the
donors could take a tax deduction for their RNC-solicited ADI
contributions, forcing taxpayers to subsidize donations to a political
campaign.
On the Democratic side, the Committee heard testimony that Vote Now
96, the fund-raising arm of the 501(c)(3) get-out-the-vote organization
Citizens Vote, Inc., sought and received help from the DNC in raising
money for its work, presumably because these organizations were working
to raise the turnout among groups who tend to vote Democratic. For
example, the DNC apparently directed a $100,000 contribution to Vote
Now 96 from Duvaz Pacific Corporation after it learned the head of the
Philippine company, who had attended a DNC fund-raiser, could not
legally contribute to the party because of her foreign citizenship.
There is also significant evidence that a number of tax-exempt
groups, none of which disclosed their activities to the FEC, intervened
in elections by producing TV ads the groups claimed were issue
oriented, but which, in fact, were designed to influence specific
elections. According to a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center,
the 501(c)(4) Citizens for Reform ran $2 million worth of ads during
October and November of 1996 on behalf of several Republican
congressional candidates around the country.
All of these activities by tax-exempt, presumably non-partisan
corporations cry out for remedial action by Congress. The McCain-
Feingold proposal, S. 25, partially addresses these problems by
prohibiting party organizations from soliciting contributions for, or
directing them to, tax-exempt entities. This is a very important
restriction.
In addition, I am proposing to prohibit such organizations from
coordinating any expenditure with parties and candidates and to forbid
them to run advertisements or send direct mail identifying a candidate
within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election.
I am confident this proposal will pass constitutional muster because
the Supreme Court upheld similar restrictions on tax-exempt
organizations in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington.
In finding against a First Amendment challenge to a prohibition against
substantial lobbying by a 501(c)(3), the court said that ``tax
exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is
administered through the tax system'' and that by restricting a tax-
exempt's lobbying activities ``Congress has merely refused to pay for
the lobbying out of public monies.''
My bill also would also make clear that Section 527 organizations
must comply with federal campaign laws. Internal Revenue Code Section
527 offers tax benefits to ``political organizations,'' a term it
defines to include organizations seeking to influence Federal, State or
local elections. A number of 501(c)(4) groups active in federal
election campaigns apparently have switched their tax status to Section
527, which offers tax benefits with fewer restrictions on political
activity. At the same time, these groups claim they are not subject to
FECA because they don't engage in express advocacy
[[Page S841]]
of particular candidates, even though FECA defines the groups it covers
in essentially the same terms as Section 527. My bill would make it
clear that the taxpayers should not be subsidizing undisclosed and
unregulated political activities by groups who claim they are trying to
influence Federal elections for the purpose of the tax code--and thus
are entitled to tax-exemption--but not for the purpose of FECA--and
thus are immune from regulation. My bill makes clear that they cannot
have it both ways and that Section 527's tax benefits are available
only to groups regulated under FECA, unless a group seeking Section 527
status is engaged exclusively in State or local political activity.
It is important to emphasize that this bill would not prevent any one
or anything from engaging in any type of activity. Instead, it would
just say that if a candidate or an organization puts a hand out and
asks for a public subsidy--whether it be public financing for a
presidential candidate or tax-exemption for an organization--they have
to be willing to comply with the rules for taking that public subsidy.
After all, no person or entity has a right to public money or to be
free of taxes; it is entirely up to Congress to determine what type of
activities are so important to society that we should use public money
or tax-exemption as ways of encouraging them. In offering tax-exemption
to the 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations covered by this bill,
Congress already plainly chose to limit their involvement in partisan
campaign activity. This bill would merely build on the experience of
the 1996 elections to clarify the scope of those limitations.
There are always some who find new and clever ways to manipulate the
legal system. Their efforts peaked in our politics in the 1996 cycle
with an unparalleled flouting of the laws' requirements and
prohibitions. Based on the excuses the Committee heard last year to
justify this behavior, I have no doubt the trend will continue--unless
we find the will to radically restructure our campaign finance laws.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-
section of it appear in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1666
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ACCEPTING
PUBLIC FUNDING.
(a) Restrictions on Fundraising by Candidates.--
(1) Definition of fundraising.--Section 9002 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions in the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(13) Fundraising activity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `fundraising activity' means--
``(i) an activity or event the purpose or effect of which
is the direct or indirect solicitation, acceptance, or
direction of a contribution (as defined in section 271(b)(2))
for--
``(I) any candidate for public office,
``(II) a political committee (including a national, State,
or local committee of a political party),
``(III) an organization that--
``(aa) is described in section 501(c) and exempt from
taxation under section 501(a) (or has submitted an
application to the Secretary of the Treasury for
determination of tax-exemption under such section), and
``(bb) engages in any election-related activity, including,
but not limited to, voter registration, get-out-the-vote
activity, publication or distribution of a voter guide, or
making communications that are widely disseminated through a
broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, direct mailing, or any other type of
general public political advertising and that clearly
identify a candidate (as defined in section 301 of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a
political party,
``(IV) a political organization (as defined in section
527), or
``(V) an organization that engages in any electioneering
advertising (as defined in section 324 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971), or
``(ii) the authorization of use of a candidate's name in
connection with an activity or event described in clause (i).
``(B) Exception.--The term `fundraising activity' does not
include an activity or event the sole purpose or effect of
which is to solicit or accept a contribution (as defined in
section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(2 U.S.C. 431(8)) for the candidate participating in the
activity or event that is specifically solicited for, and
deposited in, the candidate's legal and accounting compliance
fund or that is necessary to cover any deficiency in payments
received from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, to the
extent otherwise permissible by law.''.
(2) General election.--Section 9003 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to condition for eligibility for
payments) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``, and''; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) such candidate, a member of the candidate's immediate
family (as defined in section 9004(e)), and the candidate's
authorized committee or agents or officials of the committee
shall not participate in any fundraising activity during the
expenditure report period.''; and
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``, and''; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) subject to paragraph (2), such candidate, a member of
the candidate's immediate family (as defined in section
9004(e)), and the candidate's authorized committee or agents
or officials of such committee shall not participate in a
fundraising activity during the expenditure report period.''.
(3) Primary election.--Subsection (b) of section 9033 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligibility
for payments) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``, and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the candidate, a member of the candidate's immediate
family (as defined in section 9004(e)), and the candidate's
authorized committee or agents or officials of such committee
shall not participate in a fundraising activity during the
matching payment period unless such activity has as its sole
purpose and effect the solicitation or acceptance of
contributions (as defined in section 301(8) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8))).''.
(b) Restriction on Coordinated Disbursement.--
(1) Definition of coordinated disbursement.--Section 9002
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by
subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(14) Coordinated Disbursement.--
``(A) In general.--The term `coordinated disbursement'
means a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance,
deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made in
connection with any broadcasting, newspaper, magazine,
billboard, direct mail, phone bank, widely distributed
electronic mail, or similar type of general public
communication or advertising by a person (who is not a
candidate or a candidate's authorized committee) in
cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request
or suggestion of, a candidate, a member of the candidate's
immediate family (as defined in section 9004(e)), the
candidate's authorized committees, or a committee of a
political party.
``(B) Special rule.--In the case of a candidate who
designates a committee of a political party as the
candidate's authorized committee, the term `coordinated
disbursement' shall include disbursements made by the
committee in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or
at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or a member of
the candidate's immediate family (as defined in section
9004(e)) in excess of an amount equal to the aggregate of the
limit under section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) and the appropriate limit
under section 315(b)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(b)(1)).
``(C) Exceptions.--The term `coordinated disbursement' does
not include--
``(i) a disbursement that is an expenditure subject to the
limits under section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)); or
``(ii) a disbursement for a bona fide newscast, news
interview, news documentary (if the appearance of the
candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or
subjects covered by the news documentary), editorial, or on-
the-spot coverage of bona fide news events.''.
(2) General election.--Subsection (a) of section 9003 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to condition for
eligibility for payments) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``, and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) agree not to participate in a coordinated
disbursement during the election report period.''.
(3) Primary election.--Section 9033(b) (as amended by
subsection (a)(3)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``, and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) the candidate and the candidate's authorized
committees shall not participate in a coordinated
disbursement (as defined in
[[Page S842]]
section 9002(14)) during the matching payment period except
to the extent that the disbursement is a contribution subject
to the contribution limits of section 315 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a).''.
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR POLITICAL PARTIES ACCEPTING PUBLIC
FINANCING FOR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING
CONVENTIONS.
(a) Requirements.--Title III of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 324. REQUIREMENTS FOR POLITICAL PARTIES ACCEPTING
PUBLIC FINANCING FOR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING
CONVENTIONS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) Committee.--The term `committee' shall include a
national, State, district, or local committee of a political
party, an entity that is directly or indirectly established,
financed, maintained, or controlled by any such party
committee or its agent, an agent acting on behalf of any such
party committee, and an officer or agent acting on behalf of
any such party committee or entity.
``(2) Electioneering advertising.--
``(A) In general.--The term `electioneering advertising'
means a communication--
``(i) containing a phrase such as `vote for', `re-elect',
`support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of individual) for
President', `(name of individual) in (calendar year)', `vote
against', `defeat', `reject', or a campaign slogan or words
that in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to
recommend the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly
identified candidates such as `(name of candidate)'s the One'
or `(name of candidate'); or
``(ii) referring to 1 or more clearly identified candidates
in a communication that is widely disseminated to the
electorate for the election in which the identified
candidates are seeking office through a broadcasting station,
newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, direct
mailing, or any other type of general public communication.
``(B) Voting record and voting guide exception.--The term
`electioneering advertising' does not include a printed
communication that--
``(i) presents information in an educational manner solely
about the voting record or position on a campaign issue of 2
or more individuals;
``(ii) is not made in coordination with an individual,
political party, or agent of the individual or party;
``(iii) in the case of a voter guide based on a
questionnaire, provides each individual seeking a particular
seat or office an equal opportunity to respond to the
questionnaire and have the individual's responses
incorporated into the voter guide;
``(iv) does not present an individual with greater
prominence than any other individual; and
``(v) does not contain a phrase such as `vote for', `re-
elect', `support', `cast your ballot for', `(name of
individual) for President', `(name of individual) in 1997',
`vote against', `defeat', or `reject', or a campaign slogan
or words that in context can have no reasonable meaning other
than to urge the election or defeat of 1 or more clearly
identified individuals.
``(3) Eligible political committee.--The term `eligible
political committee' means a national committee of a
political party entitled to receive payments under section
9008 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a presidential
nominating convention.''.
``(b) Limits on Electioneering Advertising.--During the
matching payment period (as defined in section 9032(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and the expenditure report
period (as defined in section 9002(12) of such Code), an
eligible political committee shall not--
``(1) make disbursements for electioneering advertising in
connection with an individual seeking nomination for
election, or election, to the office of President or Vice
President except from funds that are subject to the
limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this
Act; or
``(2) transfer of funds that are not subject to the
limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this
Act to a State, district, or local committee of a political
party that will be used to make disbursements for
electioneering advertising in connection with an individual
seeking nomination for election, or election, to the office
of President or Vice President.
``(c) Limitation of Coordinated and Independent
Expenditures.--In the case of an eligible political
committee, the limitation under section 315(d)(2) (relating
to coordinated expenditures by committees of a political
party) shall apply to the aggregate of expenditures,
disbursements for electioneering advertising, and independent
expenditures made by the national committee in connection
with a candidate for President of the United States.
``(d) Prohibition of Coordinated Disbursements.--During the
matching payment period (as defined in section 9032(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and the expenditure report
period (as defined in section 9002(12) of such Code), an
eligible political committee shall not participate in a
coordinated disbursement (as defined in section 9002(14) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) with respect to an
individual seeking nomination for election, or election, to
the office of President or Vice President.
``(e) Prohibition of Certain Donations.--An eligible
political committee and any officer or agent acting on behalf
of such committee shall not solicit any funds for, or make or
direct any donation to, an organization that--
``(1) is described in section 501(c) and exempt from
taxation under section 501(a) (or has submitted an
application to the Secretary of the Treasury for
determination of tax-exemption under such section), and
``(2) engages in any election-related activity, including,
but not limited to, voter registration, get-out-the-vote
activity, publication or distribution of a voter guide, or
making communications that are widely disseminated through a
broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, direct mailing, or any other type of
general public political advertising that clearly identify a
candidate (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a political party.
``(f) Prohibition of Soft Money.--
``(1) National committees.--
``(A) In general.--An eligible political committee
(including a national congressional campaign committee of a
political party) and any officers or agents of such
committees, shall not solicit, receive, or direct to another
person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds, or
spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations,
prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
``(B) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to an
entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed,
maintained, or controlled by an eligible committee (including
a national congressional campaign committee of a political
party), or an entity acting on behalf of a national
committee, and an officer or agent acting on behalf of any
such committee or entity.
``(2) State, district, and local committees.--
``(A) In general.--An amount that is expended or disbursed
by a State, district, or local committee of a political party
that has an eligible political committee (including an entity
that is directly or indirectly established, financed,
maintained, or controlled by a State, district, or local
committee of a political party and an officer or agent acting
on behalf of such committee or entity) for Federal election
activity shall be made from funds subject to the limitations,
prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
``(B) Federal election activity.--
``(i) In general.--The term `Federal election activity'
means--
``(I) voter registration activity during the period that
begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a
regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the
date of the election;
``(II) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or
generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an
election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on
the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or
local office also appears on the ballot); and
``(III) a communication that refers to a clearly identified
candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a
candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or
identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a
Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is
express advocacy).
``(ii) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election
activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by
a State, district, or local committee of a political party
for--
``(I) campaign activity conducted solely on behalf of a
clearly identified candidate for State or local office if the
campaign activity is not a Federal election activity
described in clause (i);
``(II) a contribution to a candidate for State or local
office if the contribution is not designated or used to pay
for a Federal election activity described in clause (i);
``(III) the costs of a State, district, or local political
convention;
``(IV) the costs of grassroots campaign materials,
including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name
or depict only a candidate for State or local office;
``(V) the non-Federal share of a State, district, or local
party committee's administrative and overhead expenses (but
not including the compensation in any month of an individual
who spends more than 20 percent of the individual's time on
Federal election activity) as determined by a regulation
promulgated by the Commission to determine the non-Federal
share of a State, district, or local party committee's
administrative and overhead expenses; and
``(VI) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office
facility or equipment for a State, district, or local
committee.
``(3) Fundraising costs.--An amount spent by a national,
State, district, or local committee of a political party
(that has an eligible political committee) to raise funds
that are used, in whole or in part, to pay the costs of a
Federal election activity shall be made from funds subject to
the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of
this Act.''.
(b) Increased Contribution Limit.--Section 315(a)(1) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
[[Page S843]]
(A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in
subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) to a political committee established and maintained
by a State committee of a political party that is entitled to
receive payments under section 9008 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 for a Presidential nominating convention in any
calendar year that, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Federal election campaign act of 1971.--Section
315(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441a(d)(2)) is amended by striking ``The national
committee'' and inserting ``Subject to section 324(b), the
national committee''.
(2) Internal revenue code of 1986.--Subsection (b) of
section 9008 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to payments for presidential nominating conventions) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and section 324 of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971'' after ``section'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and section 324 of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971'' after ``section''.
SEC. 3. REQUIRED DISCLAIMER FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.
Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Required Disclaimer for Presidential Candidates.--In
the case of an expenditure by a candidate for President or
Vice President eligible under section 9003 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 or under section 9033 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to receive payments from the Secretary
of the Treasury for an advertisement that is broadcast by a
radio broadcast station or a television broadcast station or
communicated by direct mail, such advertisement shall contain
the following statement: `Federal law establishes voluntary
spending limits for candidates for President. This candidate
____ agreed to abide by the limits.' (with the blank filled
in with `has' or `has not' as appropriate).''.
SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY TAX-EXEMPT
ORGANIZATIONS.
Subsection (c) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to exemption from tax on corporations,
certain trusts, etc.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following new
subsection:
``(o) Special Rules for Organizations Exempt Under
Paragraph (3) or (4) of Subsection (c).--An organization
described in paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (c) shall be
denied exemption from taxation under subsection (a) if such
organization--
``(1) solicits or accepts a contribution (as defined in
section 271(b)(2)) from a committee of a political party or
an authorized committee of a candidate (as defined in section
301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
431)),
``(2) makes or directs a contribution to a committee of a
political party or an authorized committee of a candidate,
``(3) makes a disbursement for electioneering advertising
(as defined in section 324 of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971), except to the extent that--
``(A) the disbursement constitutes an independent
expenditure (as defined in section 301(17) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(17)), or
``(B) the advertising is--
``(i) described in section 324(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971,
``(ii) otherwise permitted by law, and
``(iii) made more than--
``(I) 60 days before the date of a general, special, or
runoff election in which the identified candidates are
seeking office, or
``(II) 30 days before the date of a primary or preference
election or a convention or caucus of a political party that
has authority to nominate a candidate for the office for
which the identified candidates are seeking election, or
``(4) participates in a coordinated disbursement (as
defined in section 9002(14)).''.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS OF POLITICAL COMMITTEE AND POLITICAL
ORGANIZATION.
(a) Definition of Political Committee.--Section 301(4) of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(4))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) a political organization (as defined in section
527(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and subject to
section 527 of such Code) unless the activities of the
organization are for the exclusive purpose of influencing or
attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election,
or appointment of any individual or individuals to any State
or local public office or office in a State or local
political organization.''.
(b) Definition of Political Organization.--Paragraph (e)(1)
of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to political organizations) is amended by striking
``incorporated) organized and operated'' and all that follows
through the period and inserting ``incorporated)--
``(A) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of
directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making
expenditures, or both, for an exempt function, and
``(B) that is a political committee described in section
301(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
431(4)) except to the extent that the activities of the
organization are for the exclusive purpose of influencing or
attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election,
or appointment of any individual or individuals to any State
or local public office or office in a State or local
political organization.''.
SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act,
or the application of a provision or amendment to any person
or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions and amendment to any person
or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the
amendments made by this Act take effect on the date that is
30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.
The Federal Election Commission and the Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall--
(1) promulgate regulations as necessary to enforce this
Act; and
(2) in the promulgation of regulations under paragraph (1),
provide an exception to any provision that the Commission or
Commissioner determines necessary to serve the public
interest.
____
Section-by-Section of Lieberman Campaign Finance Reform Bill
The Lieberman campaign finance reform proposal responds to
two significant problems highlighted during the Governmental
Affairs Committee's recently concluded campaign finance
investigation. First, it would amend the presidential public
financing laws to ensure that taxpayers--who spent $236
million on the 1996 elections in an effort to limit spending
on the presidential campaign and keep candidates for the
presidency above the fundraising fray--get what they pay for.
Second, it offers amendments to the tax code, with the goal
of limiting the ability of tax-exempt organizations to
circumvent existing restrictions on their involvement in
partisan politics. The following provides a section-by-
section explanation of the bill's provisions.
Section 1: Requirements for Presidential Candidates Accepting Public
Financing
Section 1 imposes two new requirements on candidates
seeking public financing for their presidential primary or
general election campaigns: (a) they must limit their
fundraising; and (b) they must agree not to try to evade
spending limits on their own campaigns by using the parties
or outside groups to make expenditures for them.
(a) Fundraising Restrictions: Subsection 1(a) imposes
fundraising restrictions on candidates accepting public
financing:
(1) Definition of ``Fundraising Activity'': Subsection
1(a)(1) defines the term ``fundraising activity'' to include
efforts to raise money for: (a) candidates, (b) political
committees (like the DNC or RNC), (c) tax-exempt
organizations that engage in any election-related activity,
which is defined to include voter registration, get-out-the-
vote activities, the publication or distribution of voter
guides, or the making of widely disseminated communications
that mention candidates or political parties, (d) political
organizations as defined by Section 527 of the tax code, or
(e) any organization that engages in ``electioneering
advertising,'' a term the bill defines in Section 2 below.
``Fundraising activity'' in this section also includes the
candidate's authorization to use his name in connection with
any of the activities just described. Because the election
laws explicitly allow presidential candidates to seek private
contributions to defray their legal and accounting costs or
if the public financing fund does not have enough money in it
to give candidates their full allotment of public funds, the
subsection excludes raising contributions for those purposes
from its definition of ``fundraising activity.''
(2) Restrictions on Fundraising During the General
Election: Subsection 1(a)(2) provides that a publicly-funded
general election candidate for the presidency, members of his
immediate family, the candidate's authorized committee, and
agents and officials of that committee may not engage in any
fundraising activity from the date of the candidate's
nomination until the general election.
(3) Restrictions on Fundraising During the Primary
Campaign: Subsection 1(a)(3) provides that from January 1 of
an election year until the date of the convention of the
party whose nomination the candidate seeks, a primary
election candidate receiving federal matching funds must
limit his fundraising activities to the solicitation or
acceptance of hard money (money regulated and limited by the
Federal Election Campaign Act). This restriction also applies
to members of the candidate's immediate family, the
candidate's authorized committee, and agents and officials of
that committee.
(b) Restrictions on Spending Through the Parties and
Outside Groups: Subsection 1(b) seeks to prevent candidates
for the presidency from circumventing limits on their own
campaigns by working with parties or outside groups to spend
party money to advance their candidacies.
[[Page S844]]
(1) Definition of Coordinated Disbursement: Subsection
1(b)(1) defines the term ``coordinated disbursement'' as
spending by a person or entity other than a candidate or his
authorized committee for broadcast, print, direct mail or
other similar type of public communication if the spending
person or entity consults or coordinates with a candidate or
party about the disbursement. ``Coordinated disbursements''
encompass any type of communication or advertising, and are
not limited to those including words of express advocacy. The
term does not encompass, however, any spending a political
party makes under Section 441a(d), which explicitly allows
parties to coordinate a set amount of spending with their
candidates, or disbursements for bona fide newscasts,
editorials, and the like. In addition, in the case of a
presidential candidate who designates a political party as
his authorized campaign committee, the term encompasses only
coordinated spending by the political party that exceeds the
combined limit allowed under the public financing laws and
Section 441a(d).
(2) Prohibition on Participating in Coordinated
Disbursements During General Election: Subsection 1(b)(2)
prohibits publicly-funded general election candidates from
participating in any coordinated disbursements.
(3) Prohibition on Participating in Coordinated
Disbursements During Primary Election: Subsection 1(b)(3)
prohibits primary candidates receiving federal matching funds
from participating in coordinated disbursements unless the
coordinated disbursement is a contribution subject to the
election law's contribution limits.
Section 2: Requirements for Political Parties Accepting Public
Financing for Presidential Nominating Conventions
Section 2 imposes five new requirements on political
parties accepting public financing for their presidential
nominating conventions: (a) they must agree to use only hard
money to fund advertisements using a presidential candidate's
name or likeness in a presidential election year; (b) they
must agree to limit their express advocacy expenditures--
whether they are made in coordination with their
presidential candidate or independently of them--to the
amount set in Section 441a(d); (c) they must agree not to
participate in coordinated disbursements with respect to
their presidential candidates; (d) they must agree not to
solicit any funds for or make any donations to tax-exempt
groups; and (e) they must agree to a ban on soft money:
(a) Definition of Electioneering Advertising: Section 2
defines ``electioneering advertising'' to include a
communication that either uses words like ``vote for'' or
``vote against'' the candidate, or that refers to one or more
clearly identified candidates in a communication that is
widely disseminated through a broadcast station, newspaper,
magazine, direct mail or any other type of general public
communication. The provision explicitly excludes printed
voter guides from the term ``electioneering advertising,'' as
long as the voter guide presents information in an
educational manner about two or more candidates' positions on
issues, is not coordinated with candidates or political
parties, provides equal prominence to all candidates covered
by the guide, and does not contain phrases like ``vote for''
or ``vote against'' any candidate.
(b) Restrictions on Electioneering Advertising by Parties:
Section 2 provides that throughout the presidential election
year, parties accepting public convention financing must use
only hard money to pay for electioneering advertising
featuring presidential candidates. In addition, it prohibits
them from avoiding this restriction by transferring funds to
State parties for the purpose of running such ads.
(c) Limits on Coordinated and Independent Expenditures:
Section 441a(d) provides that political parties can spend a
set amount of money in coordination with their presidential
candidates to further those candidates' chances for election.
Under Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v.
Federal Election Commission, parties also have the right to
make unlimited ``independent expenditures''--that is,
expenditures that expressly advocate a candidate but are not
made in consultation with the candidate. Section 2 of the
Lieberman bill would require parties accepting convention
financing to agree to limit all categories of their
expenditures for their presidential candidates--whether they
be coordinated expenditures, independent expenditures or
expenditures for electioneering advertising--to the amount
set in Section 441a(d).
(d) Prohibition on Coordinated Disbursements: Section 2
provides that parties accepting public convention financing
may not participate in coordinated disbursements involving
presidential candidates during a presidential election year.
Note that because the definition of ``coordinated
disbursement'' excludes Section 441a(d) expenditures, parties
still may spend a specified amount in coordination with their
presidential candidates.
(e) Prohibition on Donations to Tax-Exempt Organizations:
Section 2 provides that parties accepting convention
financing may not solicit any funds for, or direct any
donations to, IRS Code Section 501(c) organizations that
engage in any election-related activity, which is defined to
include voter registration, get-out-the-vote activities, the
publication or distribution of voter guides, or the making of
widely disseminated communications that mention candidates or
political parties.
(f) Prohibition on Soft Money: Section 2 requires parties
accepting convention financing to agree to a ban on soft
money. The language for the ban is taken from S. 25, the
McCain-Feingold bill.
Section 3: Required Disclaimer for Presidential Candidates
Section 3 requires candidates for the presidency to add the
following statement to any broadcast or direct mail
advertisement: ``Federal law establishes voluntary spending
limits for candidates for President. This candidate ____
agreed to abide by the limits.'' The blank line is to be
filled in with either ``has'' or ``has not,'' as appropriate.
Section 4: Limitations on Political Activity by Tax-Exempt
Organizations
Section 4 makes more explicit the precise limits on the
political activities of organizations with tax-exempt status
under Section 501(c)(3) or (c)(4) of the tax code. It
provides that such organizations shall lose their exemption
if they:
(a) solicit or accept a contribution from a political party
or a candidate;
(b) make or direct a contribution to a political party or a
candidate;
(c) make a disbursement for electioneering advertising
(defined in Section 2, above) if the advertising is made 60
days or less before a general election or 30 days or less
before a primary election, unless the disbursement
constitutes an independent expenditure that is otherwise
permitted by law; or
(d) participate in a coordinated disbursement (defined in
Section 1(b)(1), above).
Section 5: Ensuring that Section 527 Organizations Comply with the
Federal Election Laws
A number of 501(c)(4) organizations active in federal
election-related activity apparently have started switching
their status to Section 527, a different provision of the tax
code that offers tax benefits with fewer restrictions on
political activity. At the same time, these organizations
claim that they are not subject to FECA because they are not
engaging in express advocacy. Section 5 amends the
definitions of the term ``political organization'' in Section
527 and ``political committee'' in FECA to make clear that
the tax benefits of Section 527 are available only to
organizations whose activities are regulated under FECA,
unless the organization focuses exclusively on State or local
political activity.
Section 6: Severability
Section 6 provides that a declaration that any provision of
the legislation is unconstitutional shall not affect the rest
of the legislation.
Section 7: Effective Date
Section 7 provides that the legislation takes effect 30
days after enactment.
Section 8: Authority to Promulgate Regulations
Section 8 provides the FEC and the IRS with authority to
(a) promulgate regulations as necessary to enforce the
legislation and (b) provide exceptions to any of the
legislation's provisions if necessary to serve the public
interest.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 1667. A bill to amend section 2164 of title 10, United States
Code, to clarify the eligibility of dependents of United States Service
employees to enroll in Department of Defense dependents schools in
Puerto Rico; to the Committee on Armed Services.
department of defense schools legislation
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President. I would like to draw attention to a
problem in our drug control program. It concerns something that the
Department of Defense (DoD) is not doing. And frankly it's embrassing.
Today, the men and women of federal law enforcement constantly put
their lives at risk in an effort to fight the increasing flow of
illicit drugs into our country. Not only do we face the threat of an
increase of drugs in our children's schools and on our streets, but our
law enforcement officers continue to face a rising tide of violence at
our borders and in our cities as a result of the drug trade. We
continue to see the flow of narcotics across the Southern tier of the
U.S. to include Puerto Rico. Law enforcement personnel, with their
commitment to the mission to fight the war on drugs, work many long
hours, sometimes late into the evening and are subject to changes in
their schedules at a moment's notice. The families of these officers
also feel the pressures of the job they perform. This brings me to the
point I would like to make.
The front lines of the U.S. Customs Service do not involve just a
problem of gun-toting drug thugs. Agents face more than long hours and
risky situations. While they deal with all these things, they must
shoulder the additional burden of coping with bureautic bumbledom. This
added load is a result of DoD officiousness and unwillingness to
cooperate. The language of instruction in Puerto Rico public schools is
[[Page S845]]
Spanish and not English. Therefore, the only affordable English-
language school option for U.S. Customs personnel is the DoD school.
However, current legislation and DoD policy is creating a hardship for
Customs employees and their families. This unnecessarily affects our
counter-drug efforts by undermining morale.
It is understanding that the children of these law enforcement
personnel have been attending DoD schools in Puerto Rico for more than
20 years. Throughout the years, changes in legislation and DoD policy
have placed numerous restrictions on Customs and other Federal civilian
agencies. Customs has recently augmented its workforce in Puerto Rico
under its Operation Gateway initiative in light of the continuing and
heightened threat of narcotics smuggling and money laundering in the
Caribbean Basin. I supported this initiative.
This session I will also stress the need for better coordination of
our interdiction strategy, particularly the need to develop a
``Southern Tier'' concept. This initiative will strive to focus
resources in a more comprehensive way to protect our southern frontier.
Puerto Rico is crucial to this strategy. Current legislation and DoD's
policy requirements are, however, obstacles to the effective
implementation of this aggressive enforcement initiative in terms of
recruitment and retention of Customs employees because, as I stated
earlier, there are no English speaking public schools in Puerto Rico.
In my view, it is unfair that Customs agents and Inspectors in Puerto
Rico--the men and women who deal daily with difficult and dangerous
situations--should find their attention distracted by something like
this.
The U.S. Customs Service interdicts more drugs than any other
Government Agency. Based on the size of the workforce of Customs in
Puerto Rico, their critical law enforcement mission, the difficulty in
recruiting, and the negative effect this policy is having on their
employees and families (over 150 children of Customs employees are
currently enrolled in the program), I would like to see a swift
solution to these problems.
Recently, a Customs' Special Agent was killed in an accident while
assisting the U.S. Secret Service on a Presidential detail. This
highlights another problem. My legislation would also address a concern
raised by this case. It happens that the children of this agent
currently attend classes in the DoD school in Puerto Rico. It is my
understanding that a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury was sent
to the Secretary of Defense requesting that these children be able to
continue to attend classes in the DoD school program for the remainder
of their education. So far, DoD has dragged its feet and has not
resolved the matter. What is unfortunate is that at the end of the
year, these children will no longer be eligible to attend the DoD
school.
My staff has communicated with DoD to resolve these problems. But DoD
has not been very responsive. I personally wrote the Secretary of
Defense to work out a solution. I got a response from a low-level
bureaucrat who responded just like, well, a bureaucrat. The answer was,
``nothing can be done'', that the solution is to ``change the
legislation''.
Mr. President, I plan to do just that. Today, I am introducing
legislation that would clarify the eligibility of Customs Service
employee dependents to enroll in the Department of Defense Schools in
Puerto Rico. This bill is essential in order to address the current
problems that I have described for these employees and their families.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that our efforts
to protect our country from illicit drugs is effective and adequately
supported. I hope that my colleagues will look at this legislation and
join me in sponsoring this bill. It is enough of a burden on the
families of the dedicated men and women who labor to protect our
borders without further weighing them down with senseless red tape.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1667
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF CUSTOMS SERVICE
EMPLOYEE DEPENDENTS TO ENROLL IN DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS IN PUERTO RICO.
(a) Clarification.--Section 2164(c) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) A dependent of a United States Customs Service
employee who resides in Puerto Rico but not on a military
installation may enroll in an educational program provided by
the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) in Puerto Rico.
``(B) Notwithstanding the limitation on duration of
enrollment set forth in paragraph (2), a dependent described
in subparagraph (A) who is enrolled in an education program
described in that subparagraph may be removed from the
program only for good cause (as determined by the Secretary).
``(C) In the event of the death in the line of duty of an
employee described in subparagraph (A), a dependent of the
employee may remain enrolled in an educational program
described in that subparagraph until--
``(i) the dependent completes the secondary education
associated with such educational program; or
``(ii) the dependent is removed for good cause (as so
determined).''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and
apply to academic years beginning on or after that date.
______
By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S.J. Res. 41. A joint resolution approving the location of a Martin
Luther King, Jr., Memorial in the Nation's Capital; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
LEGISLATION ON PLACEMENT OF THE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. MEMORIAL
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the 104th Congress passed legislation,
introduced by myself and my distinguished colleague Senator Warner, to
authorize the establishment of a monument to Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. on federal land in the District of Columbia.
Today I rise, once again for myself and Senator Warner, to introduce
legislation that would give effect to the recommendation of the
Department of Interior that this Memorial be situated in Area I of the
Capital. Area I comprises, in the words of the Interior Department,
``the central Monumental Core of the District of Columbia and its
environs,'' that is, the Mall and its surrounding areas. The Department
has determined that a commemorative work belongs in Area I only if it
is determined to be of preeminent historical and lasting significance
to the Nation. It comes as no surprise that the King memorial has been
found to meet these criteria, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
approving the Department's recommendation. I ask unanimous consent that
the text of a January 29, 1998 letter from Don Barry, Acting Assistant
Interior Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, to Vice President
Gore transmitting this recommendation be included in the Record.
Mr. President, it is particularly apt that Senator Warner and I
introduce this legislation in February, which has been designated Black
History Month. To place the King Memorial alongside monuments to
America's greatest leaders would acknowledge the nation's historic debt
to Dr. King, to his philosophy of nonviolence, and to his dream of
Americans living together in racial harmony. The National Capital
Memorial Commission agrees. After holding a hearing on July 29, 1997,
on the question of the location of the King Memorial, the Commission
informed Assistant Secretary Barry that, in his words:
Dr. King, the central figure of the Civil Rights movement,
a man who strove to advance the cause of equality for all
Americans, and a man who dedicated himself through nonviolent
means to promote the principles of justice and equality, who
paid the ultimate price for his beliefs, has had a profound
effect on all Americans which will continue through history.
Situation of the King Memorial in Area I would also place Dr. King's
legacy in historical context. Americans are already aware of the
achievements of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the veterans of our foreign wars, and other
Area I honorees in preserving the liberties, freedoms, and rights that
Americans hold dear. Dr. King and his legacy hold a vital place along
this continuum, and fully deserve the honor that the Secretary of the
Interior seeks to accord them.
Mr. President, while we have come a long way since Dr. King's death
toward
[[Page S846]]
the goals of equality and racial harmony for which he lived, and gave,
his life, we still have a long way to go. A King Memorial in Area I
would serve as a signpost along the road toward these goals for those
who were not alive when Dr. King lived, and as a reminder that the
goals toward which he strove must be attained in order for America to
remain strong and true to its governing principles.
In closing, let me pay tribute to Alpha Phi Alpha, the oldest
African-American fraternity in the United States, to which Dr. King and
many other prominent African-Americans, such as former Supreme Court
Justice Thurgood Marshall, belonged. Under the King Memorial plan
enacted into law last Congress, Alpha Phi Alpha will coordinate the
funding and design of the King Memorial, which will be funded entirely
through private donations, at no cost to the public. Alpha Phi Alpha's
efforts in this area--and its support of this legislation--reflect its
desire that Dr. King's legacy remain alive. I urge the Senate to carry
its burden in this effort, and to pass the Interior Department's
recommendations into law as soon as possible.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, January 29, 1993.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Public Law 104-333, Section 508, 110
STAT. 4157, (1996), authorized the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity
to establish a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., in the
District of Columbia pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act,
40 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1001-1010 (1994 & Supp. I 1995).
The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity has requested that the
memorial be located in Area I, the area comprising the
central Monumental Core of the District of Columbia and its
environs, which is defined in section 1002(e) of the
Commemorative Works Act by a referenced map. Section 1006(a)
of that Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior,
after consultation with the National Capital Memorial
Commission, may recommend locating a commemorative work in
Area I only if the Secretary determines that the subject of
the memorial is of preeminent historical and lasting
significance to the Nation. If a determination of preeminence
and lasting significance is made, this section further
provides that the Secretary shall notify the Congress and
recommend that the memorial be located in Area I.
Following its public meeting on July 29, 1997, the National
Capital Memorial Commission advised me that Dr. King, the
central figure of the Civil Rights movement, a man who strove
to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, and a man
who dedicated himself through nonviolent means to promote the
principles of justice and equality, who paid the ultimate
price for his beliefs, has had a profound effect on all
Americans which will continue through history.
I have considered the advice and find the subject to be of
preeminent historical and lasting significance to the Nation.
The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity should be granted the
authority to consider locations within Area I as potential
sites for the memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.
In accordance with section 1006(a) of the Act, notice is
hereby given that I have, through my designee, consulted with
the National Capital Memorial Commission, and recommend that
the memorial be authorized a location within Area I. Under
section 1006(a) of that Act, my recommendation to locate the
memorial in Area I shall be deemed disapproved unless, not
later than 150 days after this notification, the
recommendation is approved by law.
No sites have been considered in advance of this
recommendation. Enclosed is a draft of a joint resolution to
authorize location of this memorial in Area I. We recommend
that it be referred to the appropriate Committee for
consideration.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there
is no objection to the enactment of the enclosed draft joint
resolution from the standpoint of the Administration's
program.
Sincerely,
Don Barry,
Acting Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
____________________