[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 13 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S861-S863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the debate that we begin today on 
campaign finance reform must be prefaced with one question: To what 
extent, if any, should the Federal Government regulate political speech 
in our country?
  The President has endorsed Senator McCain and Senator Feingold's 
campaign finance reform legislation. However, I cannot.
  Campaign finance reform debate is not just about politicians and 
their campaigns. At the core of this issue is the First Amendment. The 
government must tread lightly in attempts to place limitations on 
speech. The government can no more dictate how many words a newspaper 
can print than it can limit a political candidate's ability to 
communicate with his or her constituents
  The McCain-Feingold legislation bristles with over a dozen different 
restrictions on speech--provisions that, I believe, flagrantly violate 
the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
  I cannot overemphasize this point. George F. Will, in a Washington 
Post editorial stated of the McCain Feingold bill:

       Nothing in American history--not the left's recent campus 
     speech codes,' not the right's depredations during the 1950s 
     McCarthysim or the 1920s `red scare,' not the Alien and 
     Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First 
     Amendment posed by campaign `reforms' advancing under the 
     protective coloration of political hygiene.'

  Mr. President, I would point out that the 1996 presidential system of 
campaign finance clearly reveals that two significant problems exists 
with our current election process:
  1. Too much money is spent on campaigns; and 2. Current laws are not 
enforced.
  Unfortunately, McCain-Feingold would do little to end the vicious 
cycle of fundraising. In fact, if anything, it would only prolong the 
campaign calendar. Since McCain-Feingold contains restrictions on 
express advocacy'' financed by soft money only 60 days before an 
election--that will mean that money will simply be raised earlier in 
the calendar year, and the election season will seem virtually 
unending.
  And what is ``express advocacy?'' If this proposal ever becomes law, 
we can change the name of the Federal Election Commission to the 
Federal Campaign Speech Police. Every single issue advertisement will 
be taped, reviewed, analyzed and litigated over. The Speech police will 
set up their offices in all 50 states to ensure the integrity of 
political advertising. Is that what we in this chamber really want? I 
don't think so. But that is what will inevitably happen if we adopt 
McCain-Feingold.
  Mr. President, the political tactics and schemes of the 1996 
Presidential election campaign reveal the abuses involved in our 
current system. Bottom-line, our current election laws are not being 
enforced.
  It's interesting to note that where the lack of law enforcement has 
become the most apparent is in the one area that receives guaranteed 
federal funding via a tax subsidy--federal presidential elections.
  As grand jury indictments amass with regard to Democratic fundraising 
violations in the 1996 Presidential election, we learn more and more 
about President Clinton's use of the perquisites of the Presidency as a 
fund-raising tool. It's important to recall some of those abuses as we 
begin our debate on campaign reform. And please keep in mind my point 
here is existing campaign laws are not being enforced.
  First, the Lincoln bedroom. During the five years that President 
Clinton has resided in the White House, an astonishing 938 guests have 
spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom, and generated at least $6 
million to the Democrat National Committee.

  Presidential historian, Richard Norton Smith, stated that there has 
``never been anything of the magnitude of President Clinton's use of 
the White House for fundraising purposes. . .it's the selling of the 
White House.''
  Presidential Coffees. President Clinton hosted 103 ``presidential 
coffees.'' Guests at these coffees, which included a convicted felon 
and a Chinese businessman who heads an arms-trading company, donated 
$27 million to the Democrat National Committee.
  President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, recently turned 
over a large number of documents that show figures for both expected 
and actual donations from nearly every White House coffee. Mr. Ickes 
gave the President weekly memorandums which included projected monies 
he expected each ``Clinton coffee'' would raise. He projected each 
would raise no less than $400,000.
  Here's a comparison: President Bush hosted one ``presidential 
coffee.'' No money was raised. The cost was $6.24.
  Foreign Contributions. Investigations by both the Senate Government 
Affairs Committee and the Department of Justice into campaign abuses in 
the 1996 presidential campaign have revealed that the Democrats 
recklessly accepted illegal foreign donations in exchange for 
presidential access and other favors. A few examples:
  First John Huang. John Huang, raised millions of dollars in illegal 
foreign contributions for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), 
which the DNC has already returned.
  Huang, despite being wholly unqualified according to his immediate 
boss, received an appointment to the Department of Commerce, where he 
improperly accessed numerous classified documents on China.
  Huang made at least 67 visits to the White House, often meeting with 
senior officials on US trade policy.

[[Page S862]]

  Senator Specter stated that the activities of Mr. Huang at the 
Commerce Department had ``all the earmarks of. . .espionage.''
  Second Charlie Trie.
  Longtime friend of Bill Clinton, raised and contributed at least 
$640,000 contributions to Clinton, Gore and the DNC.
  Shortly thereafter, Clinton signed an executive order to increase the 
size of the US Commission on Pacific Trade and appointed Trie to the 
Commission.
  On January 29th of this year, the Department of Justice indicted Trie 
on charges that he funneled illegal foreign contributions to the 1996 
Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in order to buy access to top 
Democratic Party and Clinton Administration officials.


                            money laundering

  Vice President Gore was present at an event at a Buddhist Temple 
where $80,000 in contributions to the DNC were laundered through 
penniless nuns and monks.
  Vice President Gore offered differing characterizations of the 
Buddhist Temple event. First, the vice-president described the event as 
a ``community outreach.'' He later characterized it as a ``donor-
maintenance'' event where ``no money was offered or collected or raised 
at the event.''
  However, last week, the Department of Justice determined otherwise. 
On February 18, veteran Democratic fundraiser Maria Hsia was charged in 
a six-count indictment by the Justice Department for her part in 
raising the illegal contributions for the Democrat National Committee 
at the Buddhist Temple event.
  These abhorrent abuses in our current campaign laws must end. Healthy 
reform can begin with this debate. So my point is that current laws are 
not being enforced.
  Mr. President, there is clearly one area where reform is certainly 
needed. During the 1996 election, the AFL-CIO spent $35 million to 
defeat Republican candidates. Where did the AFL-CIO get the resources 
to fund this campaign? From the dues of both union and nonunion 
members.
  Were these hard-working Americans asked by their unions how those 
dues should be spent? We all know the answer--No. The leaders of the 
AFL-CIO, headquartered here in Washington, just sat down and decided 
they would use their members' dues to target Republicans, whether those 
due-paying workers liked it or not.
  I believe this practice should end. I applaud Senator Lott for 
offering a sensible alternative. The Lott Substitute requires full 
public disclosure. Just as someone cannot donate money to a campaign in 
someone else's name under existing law, the Lott Amendment would close 
the loophole for labor unions by requiring that members approve of ads 
that their dues are spent on.
  Mr. President, it is my intention to offer amendments to this bill 
that will address several issues related to campaign finance reform. 
One of those amendments will address what I believe is a fundamental 
inequity in the rules governing Senatorial activities.
  The amendment I will offer will conform the rules that we have for 
transportation and lodging in connection with a charitable event with 
the rules that exist for transportation and lodging in connection with 
a political event, such as a political fundraiser something we all 
know.
  Under rules we adopted in 1995, private entities cannot reimburse 
Members for the cost of transportation and lodging to a charitable 
event. But, members are still permitted to be privately reimbursed if 
they travel to a fundraising event for another member. In other words, 
lobbyists and PAC Committee contributions can be used to reimburse 
members for taking a night off and flying to Hollywood for political 
fundraisers.
  Under the Senate Ethics Committee's Interpretative Ruling No. 193, a 
Senator may accept travel expenses from an official of a district's 
political party organization in return for his appearance at a rally 
sponsored by the organization.
  Now, Mr. President, every Member of this body has at one time or 
another made a campaign appearance for his or her party or for a 
candidate of his party. Often, that means flying to another Member's 
home state, attending a party function; maybe making a speech and 
sharing a meal; maybe attending an entertainment or sports function. 
And the entire cost is almost always covered by lobbyists and other 
political contributors.
  So we have a situation where a Senator can travel all over the 
country attending political fundraisers and have lodging and 
transportation reimbursed, but a Senator can't attend charity events--
events that raise money for very worthwhile causes such as breast 
cancer detection--and have those costs reimbursed. Does that make 
sense?
  Why is it all right for a political action committee to host a $500 a 
plate political fundraiser, or give a campaign check for $5,000 to an 
elected official, but there can be no solicitation of corporations and 
other individuals to participate in a charitable event that only 
benefits a small community or state? I believe this whole notion of 
preventing Senators and corporations from sharing in raising money for 
a worthy cause outside the Beltway, but allowing $5,000 and $10,000 
political gifts smacks of sheer hypocrisy.
  Since we adopted this change in our rules, it has become far more 
difficult for Senators to participate in charitable events. A recent 
article in Roll Call pointed out that charitable golf and ski events 
have dried up as a result of our rule change. But as Roll Call notes: 
``But Members and their staff can still flock to sports tournaments or 
wine and dine with lobbyists--as long as it's part of a fundraiser.''
  Mr. President, the amendment I intend to offer will end this 
hypocrisy.
  My amendment simply provides that Senators would be permitted to be 
privately reimbursed for the costs of lodging and transportation in 
connection with charitable fund-raising events in the same manner they 
can be reimbursed for political travel.
  This is a very simple amendment. It merely conforms the charitable 
travel rules with the political travel rules.
  Mr. President, I believe one of the most important responsibilities 
of a public official is to promote worthwhile charitable causes. Not 
everything that can be done for the public good derives from 
government. Private charities play a vital role in servicing many of 
the needs of our citizens.
  In my own case, for the past 4 years, my wife Nancy and I have been 
the honorary chairs of a fishing tournament in Alaska which has raised 
$830,000 for a mammogram machine for the Fairbanks Breast Cancer 
Detection Center and a mobile detection van.
  And as a result, the center has been was able to provide free breast 
cancer examinations and mammograms for 25,000 women who from 81 
villages in Alaska.
  The units we've been able to finance have been vital in helping 
preserve the health of Alaska's women, especially the women in the 
small villages.
  The State's cancer mortality is the third highest in the nation--one 
in eight Alaska women will develop breast cancer. Breast cancer 
screening can reduce these amounts by 30 percent.
  I believe that without the money raised from these two fundraisers, 
the health of Alaska's women would be severely marginalized. I am proud 
of the work that my wife Nancy has done to get these units operating. 
If we change the rules on charitable events, I am convinced that 
neither of these units would have become a reality.
  What we have here is a situation that discriminates against distant 
States.
  Mr. President, even though Senators are permitted to attend 
charitable events, the rules relating to transportation and lodging 
clearly discriminate against charitable events in distant States.
  Large national charitable organizations have the clout and resources 
to hold events in Washington, D.C. where Members can easily attend.
  But if you are a small organization, like the Fairbanks Breast Cancer 
Detection Center or you are not going to have the resources or the 
capability to have your event held in the Nation's Capital. And if 
Senators cannot receive transportation and lodging reimbursement, 
events like mine and events sponsored by other Senators in their home 
states are just going to disappear because it costs too much to get to 
Alaska and other small States.
  Mr. President, I think we have a very clear choice here. Do we want 
to establish the same lodging and transportation rules for charitable 
fund raisers

[[Page S863]]

as we have for political fundraising? Or do we want to make it harder 
to raise money for worthy charities, while at the same time continuing 
the unlimited reimbursement for political fundraising.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support my amendment when it 
is offered. And I want to assure my colleagues that should my amendment 
fail, I will offer an amendment to conform the transportation and 
lodging rules with the charitable rules so that Members will have to 
pay out of their own pockets to participate in fund raisers for other 
political candidates.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that sensible campaign reform will come 
forth during this debate--reform that:
  does not violate free speech rights; provides greater enforcement for 
current laws; and ends loopholes that circumvent the intent of campaign 
laws.
  Any reform taken by this Body must not infringe upon individual 
liberties. Reform should limit the elected official --not the 
electorate. The American public deserves no less.
  I defer to my good friend from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1667 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________