[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S884-S919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is occurring equally divided on the 
bill until 4 p.m.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask to yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the bipartisan 
compromise amendment offered by Senators McCain and Feingold. This 
would be reasonable but limited reform of our campaign finance system, 
reform that is long overdue.
  This legislation would effectively change two very important issues 
with respect to campaign finance reform. First, it would ban soft 
money, those unlimited, unregulated gifts by corporations, wealthy 
individuals, and unions to political parties. The soft money issue has 
created a great crisis within the electoral system of the United 
States.
  Second, the bill would require those who run broadcasts which 
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate within a 
certain window, 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, 
to play by the same rules applying to candidates and others who 
participate in political campaigns. Thus, organizations funding such 
broadcasts would have to disclose the individuals and political action 
committees which fund their advertisements.
  This would curtail what has become an explosion throughout our 
American political system. Phony issue advertisements are 
unconstrained, cropping up suddenly, without attribution, to strike at 
candidates.
  These are two very important reforms which must be implemented to 
preserve the integrity of our political system by inspiring within the 
American people confidence that we, in fact, are conducting elections 
and not auctions for public offices. I believe these provisions are 
very, very important.
  Again, I commend both Senators McCain and Feingold for their efforts. 
I also commend my colleagues from the States of Vermont and Maine. 
Senator Jeffords and Senator Snowe are proposing another amendment 
which would help break the current gridlock we have on this 
legislation. The Snowe-Jeffords proposal also addresses the issue of 
phony advertising through better disclosure of those who are 
participating in campaigns. I think their efforts are commendable.
  Frankly I prefer a much more robust form of campaign finance reform. 
I believe that at the heart of our problem is the Supreme Court 
decision of Buckley v. Valeo, which more than 20 years ago held that 
political campaign expenditures could not be limited. Frankly, I think 
the decision is wrong. Justice White, who dissented from that opinion 
and, by the way, was the only Member of that Court with any practical 
political experience, declared quite clearly that Congress has not only 
the ability but the obligation to protect the Republic from two great 
enemies--open violence and insidious corruption.
  Indeed, the Court in Buckley did accept part of that reasoning by 
outlawing unlimited contributions to political campaigns, but they 
maintained that unlimited expenditures were constitutionally 
permissible.
  I believe that we should go further than this bill proposes today. 
Indeed, we have practical examples within the United States of systems 
that do constrain contributions and expenditures in political 
campaigns.
  I was interested to note that in Albuquerque, NM, since 1974, the 
mayor's campaign has been limited to an expenditure of $80,000, 
equivalent to the salary of the mayor. I know as I go around my home 
State of Rhode Island, people often ask why a candidate would spend 
more money in a campaign than he or she would receive in salary to hold 
that office. In Albuquerque, they took the rather interesting step of 
capping expenditures to the pay of the mayor.
  It turns out that for the last 23 years, the Albuquerque system 
worked well. Unfortunately, last year the Albuquerque law was 
challenged in court under the Buckley v. Valeo theory. Up until last 
year, the municipal law was a model of not only good campaign finance 
practice but of also good electoral politics. A former mayor, who held 
the position during the challenge said, ``No one's speech was 
curtailed, no candidates were excluded, the system worked well.''
  I hope we can adopt on another day robust campaign finance reform 
that would begin to revise the Buckley v. Valeo decision. But today we 
are here

[[Page S885]]

to support McCain-Feingold, to take a limited step forward to ensure 
that we go after the two most pressing problems currently facing our 
political system: the prevalence of soft money and the explosion of 
issue advertising by third parties. These unaccountable groups 
surreptitiously enter the race, deal their blow and leave.
  I believe if we support today the McCain-Feingold formula, we can, in 
fact, take a step forward to ensure that our political system is 
recognized by people as legitimate and positive. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank both the 
Senator from Arizona and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for 
their yeoman's work, their perseverance and their energy on behalf of 
this cause.
  I am one who, in a very short period of time, has had to raise very 
large amounts of money for political campaigns. And I am one who has 
watched and seen the evolution of soft money and what that soft money 
has wrought upon the American political system.
  So I rise today to join with my colleagues in very staunchly 
supporting the McCain-Feingold legislation.
  Since the 1996 election, Members of Congress and the public have 
repeatedly called for reform of what is, without question, a broken 
system.
  Congress had ample opportunity to pass this bill last October, but, 
shamefully, after so much talk, there was still no action to back it 
up. It should be no source of pride for this body to know that the 
public believes that Congress is all talk and no action on an issue 
that has dominated the Washington agenda for the last year and a half.
  Now we have an opportunity to put our votes where our mouths are when 
it comes to campaign spending reform and, if nothing else, vote to ban 
soft money.
  It is interesting to read the newspapers where Member of Congress 
after Member of Congress admits to the vicissitudes and the problems of 
soft money. For the first 6 months of 1997, the Republican Party raised 
$21.7 million and the Democrats $13.7 million. Both of these figures 
are increases over the 1995-1996 cycle, and both are sure to rise in 
the coming months.
  While many in this body would like to see stronger legislation, and 
some would like to see no legislation at all, it is important to note 
that McCain-Feingold is essentially a stripped-down bill, pared to 
address a number of the most pressing issues. The most important aspect 
is soft money.
  Last fall, we had a healthy debate about the amounts of soft money 
flowing in and out of party coffers, so I am not going to speak at 
length about that. But without reform, we can expect soft money 
expenditures to rocket up with no brakes.

  The Court's decision in the Colorado case opens the door to unlimited 
independent party spending on behalf of candidates running for office 
as long as those expenditures are not coordinated with the candidates.
  Prior to the Colorado decision, parties long supported their 
candidates with hard money. Those were the regulated dollars. In our 
case, limited to $1,000 contribution per election.
  Increasingly, though, candidate advocacy has fallen to soft money, 
and that is money contributed in unlimited, unregulated amounts from 
seldom-disclosed sources.
  Increasingly, the form that soft money takes is in scurrilous, 
vituperate ads that are often far different than reality. I believe 
that goes for both sides of the aisle. I think it is a scourge on our 
American political system.
  We have an opportunity today to say we ban soft money and to limit 
express advocacy to a certain length of time prior to the election so 
that the opportunity for untrue, false and often defamatory ads is 
greatly reduced. If this bill were to do nothing else, I think that 
would be an enormous contribution to the political culture of a 
campaign.
  One of the reasons, Mr. President, I did not cast my hat in the 
California gubernatorial campaign is because of the specific nature of 
campaigns today. There is very little that is uplifting about them.
  The McCain-Feingold bill bans soft money and prohibits parties from 
funneling money to outside groups and would prohibit party officials 
from raising money for such groups.
  Instead, these groups--and there are similar advocacy groups on both 
sides--would have to raise money from individual contributors or from 
PACs to raise money.
  There is nothing in the bill barring these groups from continuing to 
participate in campaigns, but the bill does prohibit these outside 
groups from serving as de facto party adjuncts funded by the parties.
  Also, this bill does nothing to prevent individuals from making 
unlimited contributions to advocacy groups, it merely requires them to 
report their contributions.


                          unregulated spending

  This brings me to the critical issue of unregulated spending. This 
is, essentially, unlimited and undisclosed soft money spent outside the 
party system.
  A study released last fall by the Annenberg Public Policy Center 
estimated that over two dozen independent groups spent between $135 
million to $150 million on so-called issue advertising during the 1996 
election cycle.
  Of the ads that were reviewed, 87 percent mentioned clearly 
identified candidates and a majority of those ads were negative.
  Most of the time we don't know where these ads come from or who pays 
for them. All we see are vicious personal attack ads which pop up on 
television during a campaign and, occasionally, a follow-up newspaper 
article or report claiming credit and detailing the particulars of the 
attack.
  Let me give you some examples of what I am talking about:
  This is an issue ad that ran in the last Virginia Senate election. It 
was placed by a group called Americans for Term Limits:

       Announcer: It's a four letter word. It's a terrible thing. 
     It's really a shame it's so widespread. It's here in 
     Virginia. The home of Washington and Jefferson . . . of all 
     places. The word is D-E-F-Y. Defy. That's what Senator X is 
     doing. He's defying the will of the people of Virginia and 
     America. By a five to one margin, the people who pay Warner's 
     salary support Congressional term limits. Yet Warner is 
     defying the people's will on term limits--on important and 
     needed reform. Senator X has refused to sign the U.S. Term 
     Limits Pledge and has promised to fight against enactment of 
     Congressional term limits. An 18-year Congressional 
     incumbent, Senator X, is defying the clearly expressed wishes 
     of the people he's supposed to represent. Call Senator X and 
     ask him to stop defying the will of the people on term 
     limits. Your action can make a difference. Tell Senator X to 
     sign the U.S. Term Limits Pledge.

  The AFL-CIO ran the following ad in its much publicized campaign:

       Announcer: Working families are struggling. But Congressman 
     X voted with Newt Gingrich to cut college loans, while giving 
     tax breaks to the wealthy. He even wants to eliminate the 
     Department of Education. Congress will vote again on the 
     budget. Tell Congressman X, don't write off our children's 
     future.

  Both of these ads are clearly designed to get voters to support one 
candidate--or in both of these to oppose a specific candidate--and both 
mention candidates by name.
  Yet, both are artfully crafted to elude campaign disclosure laws 
because neither use the ``magic words'' that would make them express 
advocacy and subject to campaign finance laws. The ``magic words'' 
outlined in a footnote on the Buckley case are ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' 
``support,'' ``cast your ballot for,'' ``Smith for Congress,'' ``vote 
against,'' ``defeat,'' and ``reject.''
  McCain-Feingold modernizes the definition of express advocacy and 
adds to its current definition the criterion of using a candidates name 
in advertisements within 60 days of an election.
  What this means is that campaign advertisements that use a 
candidate's name within 60 days of the election would be considered 
express advocacy and could not be funded with unregulated and 
undisclosed money.
  Instead, groups wanting to expressly advocate the election or defeat 
of an identified candidate would have to abide by federal campaign 
finance laws, raise hard money to fund their attacks and disclose the 
donors.
  Will this have a dramatic impact? The answer is unequivocally yes.

[[Page S886]]

  Candidate ads that name names and run within 60 days of the election 
will be recognized for the express advocacy they are and would be 
subject to funding limits and reporting requirements. issue ads meant 
to educate voters on the issues will still be permitted as long as they 
do not cross the line.
  Last month, a Wisconsin court looked at exactly this issue: if the 
state can crack down on advertisements clearly designed at influencing 
the election, but that stop short of requesting voters to support or 
oppose candidates.
  The debate in the Court mirrors exactly what the issue is here. 
Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle said in a Washington Post 
article:

       The heart of this issue is if you run an ad that any 
     reasonable person who looks at it recognizes to be a 
     political ad, just before an election, in which you call a 
     particular person names, and use phrases like ``send a 
     message'' to that person but do not use the magic words 
     ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' whether you can then avoid 
     all the basic campaign finance laws that we have in the 
     state.

  That is what we're looking at here and that is exactly the issue we 
have before us.


                   Other Noteworthy Areas in the Bill

  There are some other areas of the bill which, I believe, enhance 
accountability for how campaign money is spent.
  Requiring candidates to attest to the content of ads they fund. I 
would like to see this go one step further and require candidates to 
attest to the veracity of independent ads that are run on their behalf. 
The problem lies not with the candidates, but with these anonymous 
attack ads.
  Leveling the playing field between self-financed candidates and 
candidates who rely on contributions. This bill prohibits parties from 
making coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates who spend more 
than $50,000 of their own money. I would like to see a mechanism 
whereby we would raise individual contribution limits for candidates 
running against self-financed candidates.
  Lowering the disclosure requirement for contributions to candidates 
from $200 to $50.
  Requiring that any person (including political committees, i.e. 
unions, corporations, and banks) making independent expenditures over 
$10,000 (aggregate) prior to 20 days before an election, file a report 
with the FEC within 48 hours.
  Requiring that any person (including political committees, i.e. 
unions, corporations, and banks) making independent expenditures over 
$1,000 within 20 days of an election report that expenditure to the FEC 
within 24 hours.
  Requiring individuals making disbursements of over $50,000 annually 
(aggregate) file with the FEC on a monthly basis.


                               Conclusion

  It is important to note that nothing in this bill prohibits any type 
of speech. We are all aware of the Court's guarantee in Buckley that 
spending is the equivalent of speech. With the exception of banning 
parties receiving soft money, nothing in this bill limits how much can 
be spent on campaigns.
  This legislation seeks to hold candidates accountable for what they 
say, how they say it and, most importantly, how far unregulated special 
interests are allowed to go in paying to impact elections.
  This bill gives Congress the opportunity to make a real difference. I 
hope we will have that chance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes allocated to the Senator have 
expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. 
Let me, again, tell him how grateful I am for the work he has done on 
the issue of campaign finance reform and the clarity which he has 
brought into the debate which I think the American people now 
understand.
  I say that in the context now of the discussion that goes on in this 
Chamber, and I also look at the news of the day. The media, I think, 
has really attempted to work up a bit of a feeding frenzy, showing all 
kinds of angles as to how this issue might have divided Congress, that 
it has divided the members of the same party, that there is a cry of 
outrage across the land as people stand up ready to storm the Capitol 
in protest over this issue. But despite the media's efforts and despite 
their hype, the public really does not care about this issue. In the 
most recent Gallup poll, where people were asked about the most 
important problems facing the country, campaign finance reform did not 
appear in the top five items on the list. In fact, in all honesty, Mr. 
President, it did not appear at all.

  The same stands true for the latest CBS News poll and the latest 
Time/CNN poll, and even the latest Battleground poll by Ed Goaes and 
Celinda Lake, which is a bipartisan effort to balance out the issues so 
you cannot question that it might be distorted one way or the other. 
After extensive research of all of the major polling groups, the issue 
of campaign finance reform did not show up as a concern amongst almost 
every American.
  What is important to the American people are issues like crime, 
economic health, health care, education, Social Security and the moral 
decline of our country. What people really care about is whether their 
kid will get to school and back safely and whether the schooling they 
are going to get once they get there is good and of high quality.
  They care about keeping their jobs and trying to make ends meet while 
they watch a good portion of their hard-earned money go to Washington 
to support what they think is a wasteful Federal bureaucracy.
  They care about their future, whether they can save enough money to 
someday retire and whether they have affordable health care. What they 
do not care about is campaign finance reform. It isn't a real issue at 
all. It is an issue created here inside the beltway to try to divide 
and in some instances to conquer.
  Let us just suppose for a minute that people really did care about 
campaign finance reform, that they sat around the dinner table at night 
and said, ``Well, dear, how was your day at the office? And, oh, by the 
way, shouldn't we reform campaign finance?'' I doubt that that question 
has been asked at any dinner table in America since the last election--
after hundreds of millions of dollars were spent by some interests only 
to generate a passing question about how the system works.
  What Americans really do need to know are the details of the campaign 
laws that are currently on the books. You know, once you begin to 
explain the laws that are out there today, their eyes glaze over and 
they say, ``Well, isn't that enough?'' And I think they need to know 
about some appalling campaign practices that were used by this 
administration in their reelection.
  Now, we had a committee spend millions of dollars here searching out 
these allegations. I use the word ``allegations.'' My guess is the only 
result from it was that it diverted our attention away from other 
scandals besetting this administration for some period of time.
  They need to know what Congress wants to do to reform campaign 
finance laws and to level the playing field so that neither political 
party has an unfair advantage over the other. They need to know what we 
are going to do to make all political contributions voluntary so that 
no person, union or nonunion worker, is forced to pony up their money 
for political purposes without their expressed consent or permission.
  Is it possible that today in America people are forced to contribute 
money that goes to political purposes they do not want? Oh, yes, Mr. 
President, you bet it is. And that is the issue in an amendment before 
us. I do not care how the other side tries to whitewash it, the bottom 
line is hundreds of thousands of American working men and women who are 
members of unions, when given the opportunity to give voluntarily, walk 
away from the forced contribution that goes on currently within their 
unions.
  Americans need to know what we are going to do to give them complete 
and immediate access to campaign contribution records about who gives 
and to whom. This prompt and full disclosure of so-called ``soft 
money'' campaign donations will make the names of the donors 
immediately public and allow voters to decide if the candidate is 
looking after their best interests.

[[Page S887]]

  So I have suggested to you today what I think Americans want to know 
and, most importantly, what Americans do not want to know or do not 
care to know or sense no urgency in knowing.
  However, under the McCain-Feingold plan, there would be an across-
the-board ban of soft money for any Federal election activity, Mr. 
President. I feel this is a grave mistake for the political process. 
Report it? You bet. Report it promptly? You bet. Let the American 
people know they have a right to know. To ban it? Well, let us talk 
about that for a moment.
  Let me first recognize my colleagues who have worked hard on this 
issue, and let me also recognize that I think they are people with a 
deep concern. I have great respect for them. I have respect for their 
tenacity and their diligence as they brought this issue to the floor. 
But I just flat disagree with them. And I think a good many other of my 
colleagues disagree with them. And I think there is a substantial basis 
for that disagreement.
  As for the ban on soft money, I have several major reservations on 
how this measure would ultimately impact the current campaign finance 
system, not improving it, but creating such a hardship on this 
country's State and local political parties that it would force them to 
spend more time concentrating on raising money in order to exist.
  Under the McCain-Feingold proposal, the ban on soft money, any State 
and local party committees would be prohibited from spending soft money 
for any Federal election activity.
  Right now, State and local parties receive so-called ``soft money'' 
from their national political parties. Here in Washington, both the 
Republican National Committee and the Democrat National Committee 
receive money from donors. Some of that money is then distributed to 
the respective political parties in counties and locales around this 
country. There are thousands of State, county and local party officials 
who receive this financial aid.
  Then, under certain conditions--and they are clear within the law--
the money is used for activities such as purchasing buttons and bumper 
stickers and posters and yard signs on behalf of a candidate. The money 
is also used for voter registration activities on behalf of the party's 
Presidential and vice Presidential nominees. The money is also used for 
multiple candidate brochures and even sample ballots.
  Let us talk about election day. You go down to the local polling 
site. Maybe it is a school or a church or an American Legion hall. 
Sometimes there is a person standing out there who hands you a sample 
ballot listing all of the candidates running for office in your party 
and the other party. And it is quite obvious some people at that point 
are not yet informed. They tend to vote their party. This is an 
assistance. No subterfuge about it. It is very up front. It is very 
clear and it is what informing the public and the electorate is all 
about.

  But under the McCain-Feingold proposal, it would be against the law 
to use soft money to pay for a sample ballot with the name of any 
candidate who is running for Congress on the same ballot that the State 
and local candidates were on.
  Under McCain-Feingold, it would be against the law to use soft money 
to pay for buttons, posters, yard signs, and brochures that include the 
name or the picture of a candidate for Federal office on the same item 
that has the name or the picture of a State or a local candidate office 
on it. What you are talking about is setting up a morass of laws to be 
implemented and to be enforced that becomes nearly impossible to do.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield the 
Senator from Idaho the additional 5 minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Under McCain-Feingold, it would be against the law to use 
soft money to conduct a local voter registration drive for 120 days 
before the election. These get-out-the-vote drives, which have proven 
to be effective tools for increasing all of our parties' interests and 
the public's interests, would simply be banned.
  Why would we want to ban all that I have mentioned? Because under 
these new laws in McCain-Feingold's plan State and local officials 
would have to use hard money instead of soft money. And already by what 
I have said, the public is confused. What is hard money? What is soft 
money? How does it get applied? We have the FEC that is out there now 
trying to make rulings on something that happened 3, 4, 5 years ago. 
What we are talking about is timely reporting, not creating greater 
obstacles for the process.
  Most importantly, what we are talking about, Mr. President, is free 
speech. It is what the majority leader has called very clearly the 
greatest scandal in America. Well, the greatest scandal in America is 
not campaign financing. The greatest scandal in America is trying to 
suggest that there is a scandal when it does not exist, a scandal that 
under anyone's measurement just does not meet the muster.
  Poll America. I have mentioned that polling. And it does not work. 
Back home in my State, when I suggested at town meetings that campaign 
finance is an issue, they scratch their heads and say, ``Why?'' Most 
importantly, today, now they are coming out and saying, ``No. And, 
Senator Craig, let me tell you why it wouldn't work. Because I, as an 
individual, am a member of a small group, and I can contribute 
collectively and that small group's voice can become louder. And if I 
am able to make my voice louder, then I can affect, under the first 
amendment of the Constitution, my constitutional right as a free 
citizen of this country by the amplification of my voice, my ideas, and 
my issues in the election process.''
  Of course, our colleague and leader on this issue, Mitch McConnell, 
has made it so very clear by repeating constantly what the courts of 
our country have so clearly said--that the right to participate in the 
political process, the right to extend one's voice through contribution 
is the right of free speech.
  So no matter how you look at what is going on here on the floor, no 
matter how pleading the cries are that major reform is at hand, let me 
suggest a few simple rules. Abide by the laws we have--and 99 percent 
of those who enter the political process do--abide by those laws, and 
you do not walk on the Constitution and you guarantee the right of 
every citizen in this country, whether by individual power or by the 
collective power of individuals coming together, the insurance of free 
speech.
  Why has the Senate rejected this issue in the past? And why will they 
reject it Thursday when we finally vote on this once again? Because we 
will not trample on free speech. We recognize what Americans across the 
board have said to us: Provide limited instruction, which we already 
have in major campaign finance reform over the last several decades, 
and then we trust that we will be able to extend our voice in the 
political process, and through that our freedoms, our constitutional 
freedoms, will be guaranteed, and the political process will not be 
obstructed by the bureaucracy that is trying to be created here today 
by McCain-Feingold.
  Let us look at the reality of this situation. Because of these new 
restrictions, local party officials--say like the Republican party 
chairman in Custer County, ID,--will be forced to seek out hard money 
donations from local businesses and individuals to fund these political 
activities.
  In a county of a little better than 4,000 people, this party 
official--who is more than likely a volunteer--now has to spend more of 
his or her time fund-raising, not to mention the fact that those with 
more money stand a better chance of winning an election.
  Party affiliation will become insignificant.
  In other words, raising hard money will become a bigger concern for 
these State and local officials than ever before. And, whomever raises 
the most money can then fund more political activities.
  Mr. President, what kind of campaign finance reform is this? What are 
we trying to accomplish? We've just added more laws to a system that is 
already heavily burdened with regulations, forced thousands of State 
and local party officials to go out and raise money, and created more 
confusion for the voters. If the point of the McCain-

[[Page S888]]

Feingold plan is to reform the campaign finance system, the last thing 
you want to do is ban soft money.
  Instead, full and immediate public disclosure of campaign donations 
would be a much more logical approach.
  With the help of the latest technology, we could post this 
information on the Internet within 24-hours. Let us open the records 
for everyone to see.
  Anyone interested in researching the integrity of a campaign, or in 
finding out the identity of the donors, or in looking for signs of 
undue influence or corruption would only have to have access to a 
computer. They could track a campaign--dollar for dollar--to see first 
hand where the money is coming from.
  But Mr. President, what bothers me the most about the McCain-Feingold 
proposal is not what is in the bill, but what has been left out.
  As I said, it is--what the majority leader once called--``the great 
scandal in American politics * * * and the worst campaign abuse of 
all.'' That is the forced collection and expenditure of union dues for 
political purposes.
  Mr. President, this is nothing short of extortion.
  Let me make myself clear, I fully support the right of unions and 
union workers to participate in the political process. Union workers 
should and must be encouraged to become involved and active in the 
electoral process. It is no only their right but their civic 
responsibility.
  Back in my home state of Idaho, I meet with union workers in union 
halls, on the streets, and in their homes. And I hear their complaints, 
their anger and their outrage over how their dues are being spent and 
mishandled by national union officers.
  They say to me ``Senator Craig, every month I am forced to pay dues 
that are used for political purposes I don't agree with. But what can I 
do? If I speak out, they'll call me a trouble maker!''
  During the 1996 elections alone, union bosses tacked on an extra 
surcharge on dues to their members in order to raise $35 million to 
defeat Republican candidates around the country. It is likely they used 
much more of the worker's money than they reported, but I am sure we 
will never find out the truth.
  But under the Paycheck Protection Act, union workers will have new 
and exapanded rights and the final say on how their money is being 
spent. The legislation not only protects the rights of union workers, 
but also makes it clear that corporations adhere to the same measure.
  Unions and corporations would have to get the permission in writing 
from each employee prior to using any portion of dues or fees to 
support political activities. And, workers will have the right to 
revoke their authorization at any time.
  Finally, employees would be guaranteed the protection that if their 
money was used for purposes against their will, it would be a violation 
of Federal campaign law. Mr. President, this is commonsense legislation 
and it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for his leadership 
on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Just briefly, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his 
outstanding contribution to this debate. We are grateful for his 
knowledgeable presentation. I thank him very much. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 10 minutes, the first 5 minutes to the Senator 
from California and the following 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Others have spoken to the merits of the McCain-Feingold bill. They 
have done so quite eloquently. And I want to share in that praise. 
Reining in special-interest money is absolutely necessary. Why do I say 
that? Because this is a Government of, by, and for the people. We 
learned that in school. It is one of the first things we learned, that 
Government is of, by, and for the people--not a Government of, by, and 
for the special interests and the people who are very wealthy and the 
people who could put on pin-striped suits and come up here and lobby 
us. It is a Government of, by and for the people. It is not for sale. 
It must not be for sale. We have an obligation to make sure that it is 
not. We have an obligation to make sure that there isn't even a 
perception that it is for sale.

  Now, for those who say they don't see the difference between a $5 
check, a $25 check, even a $1,000 check versus a $50,000 corporate 
check or a $100,000 check and even a $1 million check which is allowed 
under the current system, for those who don't see the difference, I say 
to them that to me, to this Senator, you are simply not credible. You 
are not credible. Even if there isn't one bit of a desire on the part 
of someone giving a $1 million check, it sure looks that way. So we 
have to have rules in place so that we are not perceived as being a 
Government that is for sale. That is the soft money. Those are the huge 
dollars that Senators McCain and Feingold are trying to stop.
  By the way, those are the huge dollars that play a big role in 
campaigns today. Right now in Santa Barbara, CA, there is a very 
important race going on. Congressman Walter Capps died while in office 
and there is a spirited race to replace him, two good candidates 
fighting it out on the issues. Mr. President, money is flowing in from 
outside California into this race. Money is flowing in from people 
outside my State to influence an election in my State and it is flowing 
in huge amounts, and it is flowing into negative advertising. Mr. 
President, that does not lift the debate.
  We heard from the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, 
about the need to raise enormous sums of money. She talked about her 
own decision not to run for Governor because of that. Let me tell you 
something I have said on this floor before. To raise the amount of 
money that she would have needed, or I need today to run for the U.S. 
Senate, would come to $10,000 a day for 6 years including Saturday and 
Sunday. Now, for 3 years when I got here I couldn't bear to ask anyone 
for a penny because I had just come from a very tough race and I didn't 
want to ask anybody for any money, so I didn't get started for 3 years. 
That means I have to raise $20,000 a day for 3 years to make this 
budget. It takes time. It takes effort. It is hard. It takes you away 
from the things you want to do, not to mention the time to think about 
creative ways to solve the problems that matter to real people.
  Now I agree with Senator Craig that when you ask people what they 
care about the most, they don't list campaign finance reform. They list 
education, crime, sensible gun control, Social Security, the 
environment, HMO bill of rights, pensions. But if you ask them, do you 
want your Senator to be free of conflicts or potential conflicts when 
he or she votes on the economy, votes on HMO reform, votes on the 
minimum wage, votes on sensible gun control, they will say, of course, 
I want my Senator to do what is in his or her heart; I don't want my 
Senator to be conflicted in this either in fact or in perception.
  We have a job here to do. My constituents do care. My constituents do 
write me about this. My constituents do show up at my community 
meetings and they want me to be strong for campaign finance reform. I 
get sick, Mr. President, when I hear people come on this floor or on 
television and say huge money in politics is the American way. They 
have actually said that--it is the American way. I don't think that is 
the American way. I don't think it is right to say that huge money in 
politics is the American way. I think our founders would roll over in 
their graves. They didn't write a Constitution so that the privileged 
few could get access or the perception of access. They founded this 
Nation based on a Government of, by and for the people. I feel sick 
when I hear free speech equated with money. Yes, I know the Supreme 
Court said that. But I disagree vehemently with that decision. If 
someone wealthy has more free speech than someone who is of modest 
income or poor, there is something wrong.
  So I want to say to my friend, Russ Feingold, and my friend, John 
McCain, thank you for your persistence. I say to Senators Snowe, 
Jeffords, and Chafee, thank you for

[[Page S889]]

working with us. I think we will have a victory here.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, 5 minutes was 
yielded to the Senator from Michigan.
  It is the understanding of the Chair that the time was yielded to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. The time was yielded to the Senator from Michigan, but the 
Senator from Massachusetts wanted to inquire if we could lock in a 
sequence if possible. Would it be possible to ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to proceed for 5 minutes following the Senator from 
Michigan?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from 
Massachusetts sought consent to follow the 5 minutes allocated to the 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, this is off the other 
side's time?
  Mr. KERRY. Unless the Senator wants to be good enough to give it to 
me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It appears that is the case.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We are under divided time from now until the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have no problem, provided it is coming off Senator 
Feingold's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The time will be so charged.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. McCain-Feingold takes direct aim at closing the loopholes 
that swallowed up the election laws. In particular, it takes aim at 
closing the soft money loophole which is the 800-pound gorilla in this 
debate.
  As much as some want to point the finger of blame at those who took 
advantage of the campaign finance laws during the last election, there 
is no one to blame but ourselves for the sorry state of the law. The 
soft money loophole exists because we in Congress allow it to exist. 
The issue advocacy loophole exists because we in Congress allow it to 
exist. Tax-exempt organizations spend millions televising candidate 
attack ads before an election without disclosing who they are or where 
they got their funds because we in Congress allow it.
  It is time to stop pointing fingers at others and take responsibility 
for our share of the blame. We alone write the laws. We alone can shut 
down the loopholes and reinvigorate the Federal election laws.
  When we enacted the Federal Election Campaign Act 20 years ago in 
response to campaign abuses in connection with the Watergate scandal, 
we had a comprehensive set of limits on campaign contributions. 
Individuals aren't supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate per 
election or $20,000 to a political party. Corporations and unions are 
barred from contributing to any candidate without going through a 
political action committee.
  At the time that they were enacted, many people fought against those 
laws, claiming that those laws--the $1,000, the $2,000 restrictions and 
the other ones--were an unconstitutional restriction of the first 
amendment rights to free speech and free association. The people who 
opposed the current limits on laws which are supposed to be there but 
which have been evaded through the loopholes, the people who opposed 
the law's limits, took their case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme 
Court ruled in Buckley that the campaign contribution limits were 
constitutional. I repeat that, because there has been a lot of talk on 
the floor about limits on campaign contributions being violations of 
free speech. The Supreme Court in Buckley specifically held that limits 
on campaign contributions were constitutional.

       It is unnecessary to look beyond the act's primary 
     purpose--to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption 
     resulting from large individual, financial contributions--in 
     order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for 
     the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of 
     private financing of elections, a candidate lacking 
     immense personal or family wealth must depend on financial 
     contributions from others to provide the resources 
     necessary to conduct a successful campaign . . . To the 
     extent that large contributions are given to security 
     political quid pro quo's from current and potential office 
     holders, the integrity of our system of representative 
     democracy is undermined . . . Of almost equal concern is . 
     . . the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming 
     from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse 
     inherent in a regime of large individual financial 
     contributions. . .

  That is the Supreme Court speaking on limiting contributions and 
saying that Congress has a right to stem the appearance of corruption 
which results from the opportunities for abuse which are inherent in a 
regime of large individual financial contributions.
  Then the court said:

       Congress could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of 
     the appearance of improper influence ``is also critical . . . 
     if confidence in the system of representative government is 
     not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.''

  Now the question is, what are we going to do about it? What are we 
going to do about the unlimited money? Now the test is us. It is time 
to quit shedding the crocodile tears, quit pointing the fingers. It is 
time for us to act. It is our responsibility legislatively and it is a 
civic responsibility.
  I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his 
leadership, along with Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement the Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the rising cost of seeking political office 
is nothing less than outrageous. Last year (1996), House and Senate 
candidates spent more than $765 million --a 76 percent increase since 
1990 and a six-fold increase since 1976. In the same time frame, the 
more telling figure for our purposes, the average cost for a winning 
Senate race went from a little more than $600,000 to $3.3 million. And 
some of us involved in 1996 races raised and spent a great deal more.
  And over the last 3 election cycles ``soft money,'' which is money 
not regulated by federal election contribution laws, and which largely 
fuels the barrage of negative attack ads, has increased exponentially. 
In the 1988 cycle, the major parties alone raised a combined $45 
million in soft money. In 1992 that amount doubled--and in the 1995-96 
cycle that figure tripled again, to a staggering $262 million. Initial 
FEC reports show this sorry trend continues in the current cycle.
  And if Congressional Quarterly and other sources are correct, the 
Majority's draft of the campaign fundraising investigation of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee report, due out later this week, will 
bluntly declare that in 1996 the federal campaign finance system 
``collapsed.''
  The draft of the Minority's portion of that report, according to the 
same sources, apparently continues that theme, stating that our 
dependence on large contributions from wealthy persons and 
organizations is so great that ``the democratic principles underlying 
our government are at risk.'' It goes on to state, as reported by 
Congressional Quarterly:

       ``We face the danger of becoming a government not of the 
     people, but of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. . . . 
     Activities surrounding the 1996 election exposed the dark 
     side of our political system and the critical need for 
     campaign finance reform.''

  Is it any wonder, Mr. President, that Americans believe that their 
government has been hijacked by special interests--that the political 
system responds to the needs of the wealthy, not the needs of ordinary, 
hard-working citizens--and that those of us elected may be more 
accountable to those who financed our campaigns than to average 
Americans? Many of them sense that Congress no longer belongs to the 
people. We are witnessing a growing sense of powerlessness, a corrosive 
cynicism. The reasons for this cynicism and disconnect are clear. More 
than anything, Mr. President, they are the exorbitant cost of campaigns 
and the power of special interest money in politics--the special 
interest money used to campaign for elective office. Special interest 
money is moving and dictating and governing the process of American 
politics, and most Americans understand that.
  An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that by a margin of 77 percent 
to 18 percent the public wants campaign finance reform, because ``there 
is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to 
excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the 
expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times poll found 
that an astonishing 91 percent favor a fundamental

[[Page S890]]

transformation of the existing system. The evidence of public 
discontent could not be more compelling.
  In the 1996 Presidential and Congressional elections we witnessed an 
appalling no-holds-barred pursuit of stunning amounts of money by both 
parties and their candidates. And I must admit that in my own re-
election campaign, despite an agreement between my opponent and me to 
limit expenditures, the amounts raised and spent were staggering.
  The American people believe--with considerable justification--that 
the scores of millions of dollars flowing from the well-to-do and from 
special interest organizations are not donated out of disinterested 
patriotism, admiration for the candidates, or support for our electoral 
system. They have seen repeatedly that public policy decisions made by 
the Congress and the Executive Branch appear to be influenced by those 
who make the contributions.
  Who can blame them, Mr. President, for believing either that those 
contributions directly affect the decision-making process, or, at the 
least, purchase the kind of access for large donors that enables them 
to make their case in ways ordinary Americans seldom can?
  It is no surprise that those who profit from the current system--
special interests who know how to play the game and politicians who 
know how to game the system--continue to try to block genuine reform. 
If we want to regain the respect and confidence of the American people, 
if we want to reconnect people to their democracy, we must get special 
interest money out of politics. That process begins here with the bill 
before us.
  One reason the results of the Governmental Affairs Committee's work 
may have less impact than it should is the perhaps unavoidable need of 
each party to highlight the sins of the other. But I am not interested 
today in assigning blame, Mr. President. As our distinguished 
colleague, the ranking minority Member of the Committee, Senator Glenn 
has said, ``There is wrong on both sides.'' Indeed, the minority draft, 
again as reported by Congressional Quarterly, says the investigation 
showed that:

       Both parties have become slaves to the raising of soft 
     money. Both parties have been lax in screening out illegal 
     and improper contributions. Both parties have openly sold 
     access for contributions.

  Mr. President, the creative minds of campaign managers and candidates 
alike have found ways to undermine every reform over the years. To 
attack the problem by a piecemeal approach will not work. One man who 
knew all about abuse of the campaign finance system, Richard Nixon, 
once said that campaign finance reform cannot work if it ``plugs only 
one hole in a sieve.''
  Thanks to a unanimous consent agreement last fall, we are here today, 
finally, to have the first real debate and meaningful action in this 
Congress on a proposal for campaign finance reform advanced by my good 
friends, Senators John McCain of Arizona and Russell Feingold of 
Wisconsin. I supported their original bill, because it assembled a 
package of meaningful reforms that seemed to Bridge the party divide 
that has too often poisoned this debate and prevented any real change. 
And, although its scope is now reduced, I continue to support this 
version of the bill, because it does move us forward. Throughout my 
years in this body my goal has been the same as John McCain's and Russ 
Feingold's: to get special interest money and special interest access 
out of politics.
  As we begin this debate, most of the pundits tell us that true reform 
again has no chance. My friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
McConnell) has assured us all repeatedly that McCain-Feingold is dead. 
Yesterday, however, The Washington Post, said that ``the success of 
this venture depends on the stubbornness of the advocates.'' I am proud 
to count myself among this group which is determined to see that real 
reform begins now. And that means continuing to work in the coming days 
with all those on both sides of the aisle with the fortitude to keep 
reform alive.
  In a recent speech, Bill Moyers quoted a distinguished Republican, 
former Senator Barry Goldwater, who said some ten years ago that the 
Founding Fathers knew that ``liberty depended on honest elections,'' 
and that ``corruption destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional 
liberty, an independent legislature free from any influence other than 
that of the people.'' The Senator continued:

       To be successful, representative government assumes that 
     elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not 
     by those who give the most money. Electors must believe their 
     vote counts. Elected officials must owe their allegiance to 
     the people, not to their own wealth or to the wealth of 
     interest groups who speak only for the selfish fringes of the 
     whole community.

   Those who join John McCain and his hardy band could do no better 
than to follow Barry Goldwater's advice today.
  Today's version of McCain/Feingold still correctly identifies a 
number of glaring deficiencies in the current campaign finance system 
and seeks to remedy them. This bill should pass, Mr. President. The 
American people want these reforms.
  Mr. President, because it so fascinates those on the other side of 
this issue, I'd like to take a moment to explain briefly why the so-
called First Amendment objections to a soft money ban do not hold 
water. Simply put, as a distinguished group of 124 law professors from 
across the country has pointed out, there is nothing in Buckley v. 
Valeo that even suggests a problem in restricting, or even banning, 
soft money contributions. Last September, those distinguished 
constitutional scholars, led by New York University Law School 
Professors Ronald Dworkin and Burt Neuborne, joined in a letter to the 
sponsors of this amendment.
  We need to remember that this 1976 Supreme Court decision expressly 
reaffirmed the right to ban all hard money, corporate and union 
political contributions in federal elections, stating that Congress had 
a basis for finding a ``primary governmental interest in the prevention 
of actual corruption or the appearance of corruption in the political 
process.'' And the Court recognized the potential for corruption 
inherent in the large campaign contributions that corporations and 
labor organizations could generate.
  These esteemed scholars point out that the most vital statement of 
the Supreme Court came in 1990, in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of 
Commerce. The scholars tell us, and I quote,

     the Court found that corporations can be walled off from the 
     electoral process by forbidding both contributions and 
     independent expenditures from general corporate treasuries. 
     Surely the law can not be that Congress has the power to 
     prevent corporations from giving money directly to a 
     candidate, or from expending money on behalf of a candidate, 
     but lacks the power to prevent them from pouring unlimited 
     funds into a candidate's political party in order to buy 
     preferred access to him after the election.

  Accordingly, these professors continue--and again, I am quoting--
``closing the loophole for soft money contributions is in line with the 
longstanding and constitutional ban on corporate and union 
contributions in federal elections and with limits on the size of 
individual's contributions that are not corrupting.''
  There have also been a number of references in this debate to the 
1996 Supreme Court case of Colorado Republican Federal Campaign 
Committee vs. FEC. These same scholars have said that

     any suggestion that [the Colorado Republican case] cast doubt 
     on the constitutionality of a soft money ban is flatly wrong. 
     [The Colorado Republican case] did not address the 
     constitutionality of banning soft money contributions, but 
     rather expenditures by political parties of hard money, that 
     is, money raised in accordance with FECA's limits. Indeed, 
     the Court noted that it ``could understand how Congress, were 
     it to conclude that the potential for evasion of the 
     individual contribution limits was a serious matter, might 
     decide to change the statute's limitations on contributions 
     to political parties.''

  Mr. President, I suggest to you that these definitive findings on the 
First Amendment issue have settled the argument. We can now move 
forward to a healthy and productive debate within the boundaries our 
Constitution sets before us.
  I will acknowledge that, in my judgment, this amendment does not go 
far enough. Its useful reforms are by no means all we need. That is 
why, Mr. President, I, along with Senators Wellstone, Glenn, Biden and 
Leahy, introduced S. 918, the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections Act'' last 
June.
  Like the bill before us, S. 918 also bans soft money and takes 
steps--stronger steps than we can take today--truly to rein in those 
phony issue ads that are only thinly veiled,

[[Page S891]]

election-oriented advocacy ads, many of which are purely negative 
attacks. It would also strengthen the Federal Election Commission, 
reduce the costs of campaigning in many ways, such as by requiring free 
air time for candidates--and it would effectively reduce the length of 
campaigns. Our bill contains nearly all the other solid reforms 
included in the original McCain-Feingold bill.
  But fundamentally, the Clean Money bill creates a totally new, 
voluntary, alternative campaign finance system that removes virtually 
all private money--and all large private contributions--from federal 
election campaigns for those who choose to participate.
  Let me briefly summarize our proposal: Any Senate candidate who 
demonstrates sufficient citizen support by collecting a set number of 
$5 qualifying contributions from voters in his or her state is eligible 
for a fixed amount of campaign funding from a Senate ``Clean Election 
Fund.'' To receive public funds, a Clean Money candidate must forego 
all private contributions (including self-financing) except for a small 
amount of ``seed money'' (to be used to secure the qualifying 
contributions raised in amounts of $100 or less), and he or she must 
limit campaign spending to the allotted amount of ``clean money'' 
funds. Additional matching funds, up to a certain limit, will be 
provided if a participating candidate is outspent by a private money 
candidate or is the target of independent expenditures.
  ``By placing a premium on organizing rather than fundraising,'' as 
Ellen Miller of Public Campaign has pointed out, Clean Money Campaign 
Reform shifts ``the priorities of electoral work back toward those that 
ought to matter most in a representative democracy: issue development 
and advocacy, canvassing, and get-out-the-vote drives.''
  And most important, once elected, Clean Money office holders are free 
to spend full-time on the jobs they were elected to do. The days of 
dialing for dollars would truly be over.
  This reform effort began in the State of Maine where in November 
1996, a statewide Clean Money, Clean Elections initiative passed by a 
margin of 56 to 44 percent. Last June Vermont's state legislature 
adopted a similar measure by a two-thirds margin in the Senate and by 
better than six to one in the House. Other efforts are underway across 
the nation. In my home State of Massachusetts, 2,000 volunteers 
collected 100,000 signatures for a Clean Money initiative--well over 
the number needed to place it on the ballot this fall. In thirteen 
other states, from John McCain's Arizona to Connecticut, from Georgia 
to Oregon, coalitions of effective grassroots advocates are all working 
hard for Clean Money reform.
  I believe the day is coming, Mr. President, when the Congress will 
have no choice but to approve this fundamentally simple reform. It will 
finally put an end to the senseless money chase and totally eliminate 
the influence of private money in our campaigns--and thereby let the 
people buy back their politicians.
  That day is not yet here. I am a realist. Although the grassroots 
work in the vineyards of state legislatures and state initiative 
campaigns is on the march, we are not close enough to reach that goal 
in this chamber today. But today we can make a down payment on the debt 
we owe the people who sent us here by supporting McCain-Feingold. I 
support it without reservation.
  I congratulate and thank both sponsors of this bill for their efforts 
in putting together this bill and fighting for it. It is good 
legislation. It is needed legislation. It heads us in the right 
direction.
  I commend Senator Feingold for his hard work, his determined 
bipartisanship, and his commitment to making our political process a 
cleaner, better and more democratic system. The junior Senator from 
Wisconsin, who joined this body after a race in which he was outspent 
three to one, has worked tirelessly to make real progress possible.
  And I especially commend the work of Senator McCain. All of us 
understand the stamina it takes to assume a mission of this kind, and 
to stick with one's convictions despite opposition from friends. John 
McCain has always excelled as a patriot, and with this legislation, he 
has done so again. He courageously pursues a just cause. I am proud, 
once again, to stand with John McCain and support his amendment.
  Mr. President, one reason the nay-sayers are again predicting defeat 
for reform is their reliance on smokescreens like the so-called 
``paycheck protection'' proposal that is clearly designed as a poison 
pill to sink this reform. We cannot let that effort deter us. Nor can 
we ignore the plain fact that it is being pressed by the big business 
lobbyists whom my friend Russ Feingold has called ``the Washington 
Gatekeepers,'' the ones who in many cases decide who get the largest 
contributions. These folks, as the Senator points out, are the ones 
``who transfer the money to the politicians and produce the legislative 
votes that go with it.''
  The American people must not--and I believe they will not--be fooled 
by these attempts at sabotage. This is not a complex issue. All of us 
face a stark, but simple choice--a choice between the disgraceful 
status quo and an important step forward. Despite the efforts to muddy 
the waters, we can and should prevail--especially if all those hearing 
and reading about this debate will let their voices be heard now by 
contacting their own Senators.
  Mr. President, I want to strongly emphasize one point--the single 
most important point today, in fact the only important point today--as 
we approach this vote on this amendment. Do not be deceived by this 
complicated explanation or that complex rationale. Do not be misled by 
diversions and red herrings. Understand this vote for what it is. This 
is the most important vote the 105th Congress will have cast to date on 
campaign finance.
  It is, in essence, stunningly simple. Because this vote will show 
which Senators are for real campaign finance reform and which Senators 
are against real campaign finance reform.
  There is no place to run, and no place to hide. If a Senator is for 
real campaign finance reform--for reducing the influence of special 
interest money on the key decisions of our democracy--he or she will 
vote for the McCain-Feingold amendment. If a Senator votes against this 
amendment, no one will need further evidence that, despite all the 
lofty rhetoric about constitutionality, about freedom of speech, about 
personal rights, and all the rest, that Senator is not committed to 
real campaign finance reform. If McCain-Feingold prevails on this vote, 
the effort goes on. If the opponents of reform defeat this amendment, 
they have prevailed for the 105th Congress.
  Perhaps yesterday's New York Times said it best:

       It is too early to predict how this fight will turn out. 
     But when it ends, Americans will know where each Senator 
     stands on protecting his or her own integrity and the 
     integrity of government decision-making from money delivered 
     with the intention to corrupt.

  I urge all my colleagues to support the McCain-Feingold amendment.
  Mr. President, this is without any question the most important vote 
we will have had in this Congress and no one should mistake that this 
vote is about the First Amendment or that this vote is about one 
genuine alternative versus another. It is really a choice between those 
who want to keep campaign finance reform alive, those who really want 
to vote for campaign finance reform, and those who don't.
  Every conversation on the Hill reflects that. There are countless 
quotes that have appeared from individuals on the other side of the 
aisle in the House or Senate, talking to their colleagues about how 
this is really a vote about institutional power and the capacity to 
stay in power and be elected. The simple reality is that all Americans 
are coming to understand is that Republicans have a stronger finance 
base, they have raised more money, more easily, they pour more money 
into campaigns, and money is what is deciding who represents people in 
the United States of America.
  Last year, the House and Senate candidates spent $765 million, a 76 
percent increase over 1990 and a sixfold increase from 1976. We have 
seen voting in America go down from 63 percent in 1960 to 49 percent in 
the last election because increasingly Americans are separated from a 
Government that they know is controlled by the money.
  The fact is that in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where I ran for 
re-election last year I spent $12 million to run for the U.S. Senate. I 
had

[[Page S892]]

never spent more than $2.5 or $3 million on media alone in a previous 
race. That is a measure of the escalating costs of campaigning under 
the system in place today.
  In a recent speech, Bill Moyers quoted Barry Goldwater, a leader of 
the conservative movement in this country, who reminded us 10 years ago 
that the Founding Fathers knew that ``liberty depended on honest 
elections'' and that ``corruption destroyed the prime requisite of 
constitutional liberty, an independent legislature free from any 
influence other than that of the people'' to be successful.
  Senator Goldwater also said ``. . . Representative government assumes 
that elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not by 
those who give the most money. Electors must believe their vote counts. 
Elected officials must owe their allegiance to the people, not to their 
own wealth or to the wealth of interest groups who speak only for the 
selfish fringes of the whole community.''
  So that is what this vote is about today.
  Mr. President, to those who hide behind the First Amendment, let me 
make it clear that there is nothing in the First Amendment that 
prohibits a ban on soft money or prohibits what we seek to do in this 
legislation.
  Simply put, a very distinguished group of 124 law professors from 
across the country has pointed out that there is nothing in the 1976 
Supreme Court decision of Buckley v. Valeo that even suggests a problem 
in restricting or banning soft money contributions. Last September, 
those distinguished constitutional scholars sent a letter to the 
sponsors of this amendment and they said we need to remember that the 
Buckley decision expressly reaffirmed the right to ban all hard money, 
corporate and union political contributions in Federal elections. And 
it stated that Congress specifically has a basis for finding a 
``primary governmental interest in the prevention of actual corruption 
or the appearance of corruption in the political process.'' More than 
twenty years ago, Mr. President, the High Court recognized the 
potential for corruption inherent in the large campaign contributions 
that corporations and labor organizations could generate.
  In the more recent 1990 Supreme Court case of Austin v. Michigan 
Chamber of Commerce, these scholars pointed out, ``the Court found that 
corporations can be walled off from the electoral process by forbidding 
both contributions and independent expenditures from general corporate 
treasuries.''
  Mr. President, it is clear not only in that language, but in the 
language of Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC--
which the other side often tries to cite to the contrary --there is a 
certainly a legitimate basis for banning soft money consistent with the 
other restraints that the Court has already found permissible with 
respect to hard money. The Supreme Court said there that it could 
indeed understand how Congress might ``conclude that the potential for 
evasion of the individual contribution limits was a serious matter,'' 
and might indeed ``decide to change the statute's limitations on 
contributions to political parties.'' And it's absolutely inconsistent 
that we should be allowed to set limits on campaign contributions, 
which we are allowed to--that we are allowed to have Federal limits on 
the total amount of contributions somebody can make--$25,000--and not 
be able to restrict in the context of soft money, the same kinds of 
contributions.

  So, Mr. President, this is about power and money. And most people in 
America understand precisely what is going on here. Our colleagues have 
an opportunity to vote for reform, and I hope they will embrace that 
today. If they don't, it will be clear who stands in the way of that 
reform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this has been a great debate. I think 
about the abilities of those of us in this body to participate in 
unlimited debate, and I think it is a great thing. Great and free 
debate is a characteristic of American society. Unfortunately, people 
use the freedom and the money they raise sometimes to run negative ads. 
I certainly see nothing in McCain-Feingold that would stop that kind of 
activity from happening. But this is an important vote. As a matter of 
fact, I consider it a very fundamental and crucial vote for America.
  In my 1996 campaign, just over a year ago, in the primary, I faced 
seven Republican candidates. Two of them were multimillionaires, and 
two of those individuals spent $1 million-plus out of their own pockets 
to further their dream of being elected to this great body. They used 
most of it to attack me. I was attorney general, I was leading in the 
polls, and I took most of the brunt of that. Two other individuals in 
that race raised or spent themselves over a half-million dollars to 
attempt to put their message out to the Alabama people. I spent 
approximately a million dollars during that primary. I was outspent $5 
million to $1 million in that primary. And then in the general 
election, there was also a very vigorous and contested general 
election. My opponent spent approximately $3 million, as I recall, in 
that race.
  One of the key parts of that race and one of the things that was most 
interesting and painful to me was that I was attacked and received a 
volume of attack ads from money that really was raised by the Alabama 
Trial Lawyers Association. You see, in Alabama, there is a contested, 
bitter fight over the attempt by many in the Alabama legislature to 
reduce the aberrationally high verdicts in plaintiff litigation in the 
State. It embarrassed the State and there was a bitter fight over it.
  The Trial Lawyers Association, which wanted to continue to file those 
lawsuits and receive those big verdicts opposed that legislation. It 
was bitterly fought over. Tort reform passed the house of 
representatives twice but twice it failed in the Alabama State Senate. 
My opponent was the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, where 
most of those bills died. He was also, himself personally, a plaintiff 
trial lawyer. He had a plaintiff trial lawyer lawsuit filed during the 
election. He was suing somebody for fraud during the election. That was 
an important issue. It was an issue that the people of Alabama needed 
to discuss and know about. The Trial Lawyers Association raised, I 
guess, what you would call ``soft money'' in the amount of around a 
million dollars to express their views and to oppose me because I took 
a different view.
  Earlier today, I saw somebody with a chart that had an ad similar to 
the ad that was run against me. It complained about an attorney 
general--obviously, in a different State--and it said, ``if you don't 
like what he did, call his office and complain.'' This was their 
attempt to get around some of the campaign expenditure rules and laws 
that existed in our country. We faced those ads and were frustrated by 
them.
  When I came here to this body, I was prepared to consider what we 
could do to fix that situation. Frankly, I was not happy with having 
such a sum of money being raised and used against me in my campaign. I 
have given it a lot of thought. I talked to the manager, the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, and others. I 
have done some research. I have considered the Constitution and what I 
believe is fair and just and consistent with the great American 
democracy of which we are a part. Based on that, I have concluded that 
we must fundamentally recognize the primacy of the first amendment, 
which provides to all Americans the right of free speech. That includes 
the right to spend money to project your views, as the Supreme Court 
has said. To limit that is a historic event and an unhealthy event, in 
my opinion.
  They say, ``Jeff, we are not trying to limit people's free speech; we 
just want to limit your speech during a campaign, just during an 
election cycle.'' When do people want to speak out most if it is not 
during a campaign? Isn't it then that people are most focused on the 
issues and have the greatest opportunity to change the direction of 
their country? Isn't that when they want to speak out? It certainly is. 
If you want to limit free speech, I say to you that the last place you 
want to limit it, is during a campaign cycle. That would be terribly 
disruptive of freedom in America.

[[Page S893]]

  Now, they say, ``Well, it really doesn't interfere with the first 
amendment.'' But I was on this floor, Mr. President, early last year--
in March of last year, as I recall--when the Democratic leader and 
other Members of this body proposed--and people have forgotten this--a 
constitutional amendment to amend the first amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution, to justify their attempt to control free debate in 
America during an election cycle. It was an attempt to reduce the 
expenditures during that election cycle and give this Congress, 
incumbent politicians, the right to restrict their opponents' ability 
to campaign against them. I thought that was a thunderous event.

  I said at the time that I considered that a retreat from the 
principles of the great democracy of which we are a part--as a matter 
of fact, the largest retreat in my lifetime, maybe the largest retreat 
in the history of this country. And, amazingly, 38 Senators voted for 
it. You have to have two-thirds, and that was not nearly enough to pass 
this body. But I was astounded that we would have that. But at least 
those people who favored the amending of the first amendment were 
honest about it. They knew what they were attempting to do with 
election campaign finance reform, and that is to affect the ability of 
people to raise money to articulate their views during an election 
cycle and that a constitutional change was needed to effect such a 
change.
  So, Mr. President, I have a lot of issues that could be discussed 
here. I am not going to go into any others. I simply say that I believe 
this is a historic vote. I think it does, in fact, reflect our 
contemporary view of the importance of the right of free speech. We 
have had the American Civil Liberties Union and other free speech 
groups opposing McCain-Feingold because they are principled in that 
regard. But others who have, in the past, been champions of free speech 
curiously are now attempting to pass this legislation, which I think 
would restrict the ability of Americans to speak out aggressively and 
criticize incumbent officeholders and attempt to remove them from 
office and express their views in a way they feel is important.
  So, Mr. President, those are my thoughts on the matter. I will be 
opposing this legislation. As to the question of union contributions, 
dues being used against the will of the members, against their own 
views on political issues, I think that is something we could legislate 
on. Somebody said such a change would be a ``poison pill'' for campaign 
finance reform. Well, it is a poison pill to me. I am not going to 
support any campaign reform that is going to allow somebody's money to 
be taken and spent on political issues they may oppose.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for 
his important contribution. It seems to me that it shows real 
principle. When you have been through a campaign and you have had 
independent expenditures or issue advocacy--either one--used against 
you and you didn't like it, but you fully recognize that it is 
constitutionally protected speech, that is commendable. So I thank the 
Senator from Alabama for his important contribution to this debate.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator 
from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin. Mr. 
President, I think the previous speakers have demonstrated--speaking of 
the Senator from Alabama--that this debate is more than just about 
money. It really is about our core values and what kind of people we 
are in this country.
  The argument made on this floor that money is equal to speech is to 
suggest then that the poor can't speak as loudly as the rich. The 
reality check is that money magnifies speech, particularly in these 
times when money can buy technology and access to the mass media in 
ways that were not available, of course, when the Constitution was 
written. To suggest that money is equal to speech is the same thing as 
saying that the rich and the poor have equal rights to sleep under 
bridges. We have heard that analogy before. We know that is abject 
nonsense. So it is, in my opinion, abject nonsense to suggest that in a 
context in which money buys elections the poor have the same rights as 
the rich. That does not comport with reality.
  The reality check is--and the people know that to be the case; they 
know that right now--money plays such a role as to buy elections and 
that elections dictate the direction of our democracy. And so this 
debate really is about a crisis of inestimable proportion going to the 
core of what kind of democracy we are going to enjoy in this country.
  I am very pleased that the Senate is again turning its attention to 
S. 25. It is certainly not a perfect bill. It does not solve all of the 
problems created by the current state of the law. However, it at least 
brings us a little bit closer to the sort of comprehensive campaign 
finance reform that I believe we all desperately need. We have, in my 
opinion, a responsibility to restore the faith of the American people 
in the political process that our democracy is as equally open to the 
poor as it is to the wealthy, that every citizen has the same and equal 
right to participate in the process of elections and, therefore, the 
same and equal rights to dictate the direction of our Government.
  At the present time, too many people feel removed from the decisions 
that affect them in their lives. Many do not believe they are capable 
of influencing their Government's policies. A League of Women Voters' 
study found that one of the top three reasons that people fail to vote 
is the belief that their vote will not make a difference. We saw an 
expression of the cynicism during the 1994 elections when just 38 
percent of all registered voters cast their ballots. We saw it again in 
1996 when only 49 percent of the voting age population turned out to 
vote--the lowest proportion in some 72 years.
  I have noticed in my own State of Illinois a falloff in voter 
participation and turnout. In 1992, Mr. President, I won my election 
for the Senate with 2.6 million votes, which represented 53 percent of 
the total vote. By 1996, when Senator Durbin ran, he won with 2.3 
million votes, which was 55 percent of the total votes. Senator Durbin, 
in other words, won by a greater margin but with fewer votes cast. And 
if our citizens continue to participate in the electoral process in 
fewer and fewer numbers, the United States runs the risk of 
jeopardizing its standing as the greatest democracy on Earth.

  Now, campaign finance is diminishing our democracy. Consider for a 
moment the fact that 59 percent of the respondents in the Gallup/USA 
Today poll agreed with the statement ``Elections are for sale to 
whoever can raise the most money'' while only 37 percent agreed with 
the statement ``Elections are won on the basis of who's the best 
candidate.'' What is causing this perception? The people are aware that 
we are spending more on congressional campaigns than we ever have 
before. The Federal Election Commission has reported that congressional 
candidates spent a record-setting total of $765.3 million in the 1996 
elections. That represents an incredible 71 percent increase over the 
1990 level of $446.3 million. And those numbers do not even take into 
account the massive expenditures of ``soft money'' by political parties 
on behalf of House and Senate candidates.
  The average winning campaign for the House cost over $673,000 in 
1996. That's a 30 percent increase over 1994, when the average House 
seat cost its occupant $516,000. In 1996, 94 candidates for the House 
spent more than a million dollars to get elected. Winning Senate 
candidates spent an average of $4.7 million in 1996. In that year, 92 
percent of House races and 88 percent of Senate races were won by the 
candidate who spent the most money. Forty-three of the 53 open-seat 
House races and 12 of the 14 open-seat Senate races were won by the 
candidate who spent the most money.
  One of the major factors responsible for these huge costs increases 
in the avalanche of negative advertising that has muddied the political 
landscape in recent years. Political figures have come to rightly 
expect that they will be attacked from every imaginable angle come 
election time and are raising more and more money to fend off charges 
that often have nothing to do with the people's business. Moreover, 
politics has become so vicious and negative over the last few years 
that able public officials are leaving public service and potentially 
outstanding candidates are choosing not to run at all.

[[Page S894]]

 These individuals know that politicians today have to spend a large 
portion of their time raising money, and that is simply not an 
attractive job description for many people capable of making 
outstanding contributions to our government. For example, in explaining 
his retirement from government service, former Senator Paul Simon, one 
of the most able individuals ever to sit in this chamber, cited 
fundraising responsibilities as a burden that he no longer wished to 
bear.
  All of the problems associated with the immense role that money plays 
in the electoral system have been exacerbated in recent years by an 
increase in the number of wealthy candidates contributing outlandish 
sums to their own campaigns. In 1994, for example, one candidate for 
the Senate spent a record $29 million, 94 percent of which was his own 
money. During the 1996 election cycle, candidates for federal office 
contributed $161 million to their own campaigns. One presidential 
candidate helped finance his campaign with $37.4 million of his own 
money. Fifty-four Senate candidates and 91 House candidates put 
$100,000 or more of their own money into their campaigns, either 
through contributions or loans. It is true that in 1996 only 19 of 
those candidates won their elections, but the fact remains that the 
current system allows such candidates to drive up the costs of 
campaigns and make it more difficult for average citizens to contend 
for political office. If we allow this trend to continue, it won't be 
long before only the wealthiest Americans will be able to fully 
participate in the political process.
  The time has come to reduce the role that money plays in our 
electoral system. Besides providing elected officials with more time to 
tend to the people's business, doing so will result in fewer negative 
ads, for if a candidate has less money to spend or faces a spending 
limit, he or she will have to be more careful about how expenditures 
are made. The capacity to run fewer ads would help ensure that 
candidates focus on establishing a connection with the voters by using 
television and radio time to discuss their stands on the issues, 
instead of running negative ads.
  S. 25 and an amendment to the bill that I understand its 
distinguished authors plan to introduce takes significant steps in the 
right direction. The bill would ban ``soft money" contributions to 
national political parties and would bar political parties from making 
``coordinated expenditures'' on behalf of Senate candidates who do not 
agree to limit their personal spending to $50,000 per election. The 
proposed amendment would create a voluntary system to provide Senate 
candidates with a 50 percent discount on television costs if they agree 
to raise a majority of their campaign funds from their home states, to 
accept no more than 25 percent of their campaign funds in aggregate PAC 
contributions, and to limit their personal spending to $50,000 per 
election.
  Ideally, S. 25 would place an absolute limit on the ability of 
candidates to fund their own campaigns. In Buckley v. Valeo, the 
Supreme Court ruled that limitations on candidate expenditures from 
personal funds place direct and substantial restrictions on their 
ability to exercise their First Amendment rights. It may be time to 
revisit the Buckley decision by passing legislation tailored closely 
around what the Court said. Putting the issue back in front of the 
Court would give it the opportunity to clarify how the position it took 
in 1976 is supposed to govern campaign finance law in the very 
different era in which we now live.
  In Buckley, the Court struck down a provision of the 1971 Federal 
Election Campaign Act that barred presidential candidates from spending 
more than $50,000 out of personal resources. As three distinguished law 
professors at the University of Chicago have stated, it is possible 
that, with a new set of legislative findings, the Court might uphold a 
statute that imposed significantly more generous limits. . . [T]he 
Court might find that with a much more generous (though not unlimited) 
opportunity for candidates to spend their own money, the infringement 
of individual freedom is less severe--perhaps not ``substantial,'' in 
the Court's language.
  One argument for such a provision is that an important element of the 
democratic process is requiring that candidates demonstrate support 
from a broad range of individuals. Legislation of this type would be 
similar in intent to laws requiring candidates to obtain a minimum 
number of petition signatures in order to secure a place on the ballot. 
Such legislation would arguably be consistent with Buckley, for in that 
case the Court recognized that the government has ``important interests 
in limiting places on the ballot to those candidates who demonstrate 
substantial popular support.'' Given the crucial role that money plays 
in today's elections, it is not unreasonable to ask the Court to extend 
its interpretation of what constitutes ``substantial popular support'' 
into the realm of campaign financing.
  The most effective approach to comprehensive campaign finance reform 
would be legislation establishing overall campaign spending limits. If 
the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley is regarded as prohibiting the 
enactment of mandatory caps on overall campaign spending, then we 
should at least create a system that offers candidates cost-reducing 
benefits in exchange for their voluntary compliance with such caps. The 
Court has made clear that such a voluntary system would be 
constitutional. Overall spending limits would not only open up our 
system to greater competition, they would help to shift the focus of 
elections from advertising to issues. Until we cap runaway campaign 
spending, we will only be working at the margins of a problem that is 
turning our electoral system--one of the pillars of our cherished 
democracy--into a grotesque circus of saturation (and frequently 
negative) advertising and round-the-clock fundraising.
  S. 25 may not effect the type of far-reaching reforms that I would 
like to see, but I strongly approve of its goals and spirit. The time 
has come for us to send a signal that we share our fellow citizens' 
concerns regarding the enormous role that money has come to play in our 
political system. Passing S. 25 would send that signal and would place 
us on the road toward creating a system in which the people's 
priorities would be our own. I therefore urge my colleagues to support 
the bill.
  I commend my colleagues, the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator 
from Arizona, for their perseverance in this important area and say to 
the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona, this may be 
one stage in the battle. But it seems to me that we have an absolute 
responsibility to cure this corrupt system. And it is a corrupt system. 
It is full of mousetraps. It favors people who are wealthy over people 
who are working class, ordinary citizens, and it is having a 
diminishing effect on our democracy and the people's faith in it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the last 5 years we have been 
debating the issue of campaign finance reform and for the last 5 years 
we have failed to fix the system that most Americans agree is broken. I 
have voted for campaign reform legislation several times now, and each 
time it has been killed off by filibuster. Today we are once again 
presented with the opportunity to do what is right and stop the rising 
tide of special interest money that is drowning the democratic process.
  We last debated the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in 
October. Since that time the bipartisan group of Senators committed to 
reform has continued to work together to build a coalition and to craft 
a measure that is fair and offers meaningful change. I have been proud 
to support that effort.
  Changing the status quo has been an uphill battle. The opponents of 
reform cleverly disguise their argument. They wrap themselves in the 
flag and posture as protectors of ``free speech.'' They make 
complicated and convoluted arguments about ``threats to the 
Constitution.'' but here's what they are really saying: if you have 
more money, you are entitled to more influence over campaigns and 
elections. People out there find this argument to be a cynical charade 
and it's time to stop playing games.
  The opponents of reform are just not listening. The American people 
have been calling for reform for years, and now the call is louder than 
ever.

[[Page S895]]

Eighty-nine percent of the American people believe fundamental changes 
are needed in the way campaigns are funded. We were elected to 
represent the American people. We cannot continue to ignore their 
wishes.
  The campaign system is clogged with money, and there is no room left 
for the average voter. The last time we debated reform, I told a story 
of a woman who sent my campaign a small contribution of fifteen 
dollars. With her check she enclosed a note that said, ``please make 
sure my voice means as much as those who give thousands.'' With all due 
respect, this woman is typical of the people who deserve our best 
representation. Sadly, under the current campaign system, they rarely 
do.
  In 1996, $2.4 billion was raised by parties and candidates. Let me 
say that again: $2.4 billion flowed into campaigns all across the 
country and dictated the terms of our elections. And as if that weren't 
enough, hundreds of millions more were spent on so-called ``issue 
advocacy''. Nobody knows exactly how much more because these ads, even 
though they are political, are unregulated.
  Currently there is no disclosure requirement for these expenditures, 
there is no ban on corporate or union money, and there is no limit on 
how much can be spent. ``Issue ads'' frequently take the form of 
negative attacks made against candidates by groups that no one has ever 
heard of. Because of the current weak laws, the American people don't 
know who are making these charges, what their agenda is and who is 
paying for it. The bill we are considering today would change that by 
strengthening the definition of political advertising to include these 
sorts of expenditures. We need more accountability, not less.
  My first Senate campaign was a grassroots effort. I was out spent 
nearly three-to-one by a congressional incumbent. But because I had a 
strong, people-based effort, I was able to win. I am proud of the 
contributions I have received for my campaign.
  And I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I hope to offer 
an amendment to implement full disclosure of campaign contributions. 
Under current law, the names and addresses of contributors who give 
more than $50 at a time or $200 in aggregate must be disclosed. My 
amendment would drop those numbers down to zero. Under my amendment 
every contribution to a PAC or a campaign must be disclosed.
  Having full disclosure for campaign contributions is like listing the 
nutritional facts on a candy bar: the public deserves to know what it's 
made of.
  But I also want to make a pledge. Whether or not my amendment passes, 
I still intend to tell my constituents everything about who is 
contributing to my campaign. I will make full disclosure of all my 
contributions, no matter how big or how small. This is my commitment, 
this is my pledge. I challenge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, the opponents of reform miss the point. In America, 
money does not equal speech. More money does not entitle one to more 
speech. The powerful are not entitled to a greater voice in politics 
than average people. In America, everyone has an equal say in our 
Government. That is why our Declaration of Independence starts with, 
``We, the people.''
  Mr. President, I believe we have made this debate way too 
complicated. This issue boils down to one basic question: Are you for 
reform, or against is? Are you with the people, or against them on the 
need for a more healthy democracy? The votes we are taking today will 
show the answers to these questions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 27 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank Senator McConnell for his 
leadership on this issue. I also thank Senator Feingold and Senator 
McCain.
  I would like to point out to the American people, this is not a 
debate between good people and bad people. I note, however, that many 
who are for this bill have stated that those who are against it are 
hiding behind the first amendment. I don't propose to hide behind it. I 
propose to stand up today and defend it. Let me read to you, for the 
Record, what the first amendment to the Constitution says:

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
     abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
     right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
     the Government for a redress of grievances.

  We are talking about the whole second half of this amendment, about 
how people petition Government for the redress of grievances, how they 
speak about Government. It is amazing to me that some of those who are 
for this bill point out how money is buying offices. My friend, the 
Senator from Washington, pointed out how she was outspent 3 to 1, but 
she is here! I notice Senator Feinstein is here. She had an opponent 
who spent, I think, nearly $30 million of his own money! I do not yet 
know of a President Ross Perot, though he's one of the biggest 
advocates of this and spent millions of his own trying to make his 
case.
  The point is, this is a legitimate issue for the people to decide. 
Then the attack is made on soft money, and PACs have become a very bad 
word. Do people remember that PACs were created as an outgrowth of 
Watergate, to clean up campaign finance? This is a product of 
Watergate. If you break down what it is a PAC is--some of them I don't 
really like because they stand for things I don't like. But some of 
them I do like; for example, the National Right to Life PAC. They talk 
about wealthy people? I look at that organization and I see humble 
folks who are defending a principle that is sacred to them. These are 
not wealthy people, but they are enjoying their right to speak.
  I want to make one other candid admission to the American people. 
Republicans spend an awful lot of time attacking the Democrat use of 
union money, compulsory union dues that are used in attacks on 
Republicans. We attack their major asset. The Democrats attack the 
Republicans' major asset, which is in some cases the use of PACs, or 
soft money. Any campaign finance reform that does not include both of 
these elements will disserve the American people and I will not vote 
for those things, because at the end of the day what will happen to 
America is what happened to Oregon in a recent election cycle.
  We had a well-meaning public interest group that, through our 
initiative system, instituted a campaign finance law not unlike McCain-
Feingold. It applied to State candidates. Let me tell you what 
happened. Contributions to candidates directly, were severely 
restricted and, in a nutshell, candidates could not raise enough money 
to communicate with the people whose attention they were trying to get. 
But the money wasn't taken out of politics; it simply left direct 
democracy, which is disclosable to the public, and it went back into 
the smoke-filled rooms. Then various groups colluded and figured out 
how they could influence elections, not with a candidate, but about a 
candidate. And they did it with the luxury of knowing that they were 
not accountable to the American people, they could not be held 
accountable, so they could say or do anything they wanted.

  So what we went through in Oregon, before our State supreme court 
declared it all a violation of the first amendment, was a cycle whereby 
candidates, were terribly frustrated, and so were our citizens. In the 
end, I have to say, what we should be encouraging is not a return to 
the smoke-filled rooms; we should be encouraging people to contribute 
directly to candidates and to fully disclose it.
  I have to say that I have experienced this also on a personal level; 
I have run for the U.S. Senate twice. The first time I ran, I put a lot 
of my own money into the race. And, folks, I didn't win. And then I ran 
again, and I did win, and I won with the contributions of perhaps more 
individual contributions than have ever been raised by an Oregon 
candidate for Federal office in our history. So you cannot buy 
elections.
  During my first election I had one conservative PAC director tell me 
that

[[Page S896]]

during January of 1996 it was the best time he could remember in 
Washington because there were no liberals here. They were all in 
Oregon, beating the stuffings out of me. They said horrible things 
about me. I didn't like it. It wasn't fun. But you know what, I am 
standing here today defending their right to say it. But don't tie my 
hands and say I can't respond to it, because you, the people of this 
country, will then be the ones disserved by all of this.
  So, if you really have concluded that we have too much political 
speech in this country, insist that this Chamber disenfranchise soft 
money and unions, and then you are talking about something. But before 
you do that, ask yourself the question, do we talk too much about 
politics in this country? Is it a bad thing that we are doing? I 
believe the answer to that is no. And if you want the proof of it, open 
up Newsweek or Time or U.S. News & World Report on any given day in any 
week and you will see the bodies of people in other countries in the 
gutters of their streets, because they have not learned how to fight 
with words and not with bullets.
  So, let's be careful as we talk about amending the most important 
document that we have. Don't fall for the easy way out, that somehow we 
are not affecting speech. We are. I have seen it in Oregon and we will 
see it in this country if this passes in this form. So I stand today 
proudly, not to hide behind the first amendment but to defend it, and 
thank the leader for this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment in its current form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his extremely 
valuable contribution to this debate. He understands this issue very 
well and has experienced both the heartbreak of defeat and the 
exhilaration of victory. I certainly share his view that we do not 
suffer from too little political discussion in this country. We ought 
to be encouraging more of it, not less. I thank the Senator from 
Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me start by recognizing the amount of work and effort that 
Senator McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, has done on this issue. 
At a time early on, I can recall in this debate when it seemed like 
this thing may take off across America, and Senator McConnell, even in 
the face of his own tough reelection, stood firm and led us, all of us 
in this body, on this issue. He is knowledgeable, to say the least, and 
has been a great leader not only leading us on this issue but, more 
important, leading the fight to protect and defend the first amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States.
  I say with great respect for my friend--I know I embarrass him a 
little bit--this has been one of the major debates in this Congress 
since I have been here, with the possible exception perhaps of the 
Persian Gulf war in 1991, but this goes to the heart of the first 
amendment. And the Senator from Kentucky stood strong day after day, 
sometimes by himself, I remember, leading a filibuster. I remember 
being here at 5 o'clock in the morning, to the marching orders of my 
leader to be out here in a filibuster. The Senator was right, and 
history will prove that he was right. So there is a great debt of 
gratitude that I think--he may not realize it at the moment, but it 
will come his way.
  I want to add a few remarks to the debate. Much has been said and 
there is not too much more to add. I was somewhat taken by some of the 
remarks of my colleagues on the other side about special interests. We 
hear a lot about that. I think you can pretty well come to the 
conclusion that if you don't like somebody's views, they are special 
interests. But if you do like their views, they are probably 
responsible policy advocates.
  This is where the whole debate gets kinds of silly. There are a lot 
of people who have special interests. The Breast Cancer Institute is a 
special interest. Social Security recipients are special interests. But 
I don't get the impression that some of our folks over there would be 
labeling them special interests in the context of what has been 
defined.
  There are many reasons why McCain-Feingold is the wrong approach, but 
I just want to focus on a couple and specifically title II.
  Under title II of McCain-Feingold, it purports to draw a new bright 
line between issue ads and independent expenditures. As so many have 
said before, I had expenditures against me. I would have loved to have 
seen them off the air, but I had the opportunity to respond to them. As 
many have said before me, however close, I made it back because I did 
have the opportunity to respond, thanks to thousands of people who were 
there to help me with contributions so that I could respond.
  Many citizen organizations have expressed strong opposition to these 
issue-advocacy provisions. The Christian Coalition, for example, in a 
letter dated January 28 of this year urged the Senate to defeat McCain-
Feingold because ``this legislation essentially requires that if a 
citizen or group plans to advocate a position or report on votes 
candidates have cast, they must operate a PAC and comply with all the 
regulatory burdens that go with it. More Government control over what 
is said and how it is said is not what campaign finance reform should 
be about.''
  They are correct in that assessment.
  The National Right to Life Committee sent letters to Senators on 
February 17 of this year saying:

       Title II of McCain-Feingold would radically expand the 
     definition of the key legal terms expenditure, contribution 
     and coordination, so as to effectively ban citizen groups 
     from engaging in many constitutionally protected issue 
     advocacy activities.

  Lest you think I am singling out groups that may be more inclined to 
be Republican, we can also take a letter dated February 19 from the 
American Civil Liberties Union--certainly one of the leading 
organizations, I would say, not exactly ideologically with the right--
they characterize title II as ``a 2-month blackout on all radio and 
television advertising before primary and general elections.''
  The ACLU continues by noting:

       Under McCain-Feingold, the only individuals and groups that 
     will be able to characterize a candidate's record on radio 
     and TV during the 60-day period would be the candidate, the 
     PACs and the media.

  That last point made by the ACLU is very interesting, Mr. President, 
because by limiting what issue groups can say during the 60 days before 
an election, McCain-Feingold would increase the power of the media, 
which may be the reason why they have been so silent in this debate.
  We are picking and choosing what part of the first amendment we want 
to protect, and of all people, the media should understand that. I 
think they do understand it and they are being very silent. I was 
particularly taken by the Senator from California a few moments ago 
when she said more money by candidates who have access to more money is 
not fair. I think that is pretty much what she said. I think I 
characterized it correctly. It is not fair or it is not right to have 
people with more money or access to more money.
  What about newspapers that have more money than other newspapers, is 
that fair? Should we restrict the New York Times and the Washington 
Post 60 days out so that they can be as fair as some small paper in 
Louisville, KY, or Wolfeboro, NH? Maybe we ought to even that out. 
There seems to be a lot of silence in regard to that. It is ironic that 
so much of the media supports these restrictions on free speech of 
political candidates and groups, and even more ironic is the silence. 
It is deafening.
  I can just imagine the cry if the Government tried to restrict the 
freedom of the press or say how many words, as the Senator said this 
morning, that Dan Rather can speak. I hear him speak so much I get sick 
of it, but it is his right to speak, and I would certainly protect that 
right, as we are doing today with our votes on the Senate floor. I hope 
Mr. Rather is taking note that we are protecting his rights to speak. 
But I hope that they will speak to protect our rights and to protect 
the rights of others to participate

[[Page S897]]

in the political process who don't have access to the national media to 
speak every day to the listeners. There are thousands of people out 
there, and they do it by contributing to a political campaign.
  Beyond the very serious issues raised by the specific issue-advocacy 
provisions in title II of McCain-Feingold, I have a more general 
concern, and this is something, Mr. President, that I think has not 
really been stated firmly in this debate.
  There is a premise, and I think it is an erroneous premise, and I say 
this to the Senator from Kentucky because I think this is something 
that may not have been brought out quite as much, that money is the 
corrupting factor here, that money in and of itself corrupts. I say to 
the Senator, does money corrupt when we do research for cancer? Does 
money corrupt when we give to charity and help millions of people? Does 
money corrupt when we ask for more money for education, indeed, higher 
education to allow kids to go to college, does that corrupt? I don't 
think so.
  Let me say it in another way. If I am in a store or any American 
citizen is in a store somewhere, and as I am walking down the aisle 
looking for something to purchase, I see a wallet on the floor. I reach 
down and pick up the wallet and there is $5,000 in the wallet and a 
name. I have two options: I can put the wallet in my pocket and walk 
out of the store, or I can take the wallet up to the counter and give 
it back to the clerk and say, ``Somebody lost their wallet. Here is the 
name. There is $5,000 in it and you can return it.''
  If you use the logic that money corrupts, everybody keeps the wallet. 
But everybody doesn't keep the wallet, and the majority of Americans 
don't keep the wallet. That is the issue here. If the shoe fits, wear 
it; if money corrupts you, maybe you shouldn't be here. I have never 
been asked for anything for the money. Nobody has ever asked me for a 
vote, and I wouldn't give it to them and I would be insulted if 
somebody thought I would, and if somebody thought I would then they 
ought not elect me and vote for me. That is how strongly I feel about 
it.
  Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. That is the 
bottom line, as the Supreme Court said in Buckley versus Valeo, 9 to 0, 
liberals and conservatives on the Court.
  We also hear a lot about how we give special access to those who give 
us money. It is never reported in any of the stories, but yes, sure, 
people give money and they might see me or Senator McConnell or Senator 
Kempthorne or Senator Feingold, sure. But how about the other people 
who we help get their Social Security checks, who we meet with every 
day or we speak to from this group or that group who we never ask for 
anything, they never give us anything; we just help them every day, day 
in and day out, hundreds of letters we answer, hundreds of people we 
help in our constituent offices in our States. Nobody talks about them. 
Nobody asks them for money. They can't give money, in most cases. They 
just want good Government and some help. We don't hear about that. If 
you put it out there and balance it out, you find there is heck of a 
lot more people with access to us who don't have money than people who 
do.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for an observation? I say to my 
friend, you know who has the most access to us is the press.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is exactly right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The most access to us. I never heard of an editorial 
writer complain about access of the press. Have you heard that?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I have not. As I promised you I would 
speak on this at 2:15 today, it took me until 2:30 to get here because 
I had four minipress conferences coming over on a number of issues, 
from Iraq to this and a couple of other issues as well.
  I, again, commend my leader and proudly, as the Senator from Oregon 
said a few moments ago, proudly support the first amendment. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me take a moment and thank the Senator from New 
Hampshire for his contribution to this debate. He has very skillfully 
presented the analogy. The wallet story, I think, is a very, very 
important addition to the debate and really says a lot about what this 
is all about. In fact, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, 
if you are going to have much of an impact on the political dialog in a 
country of 270 million people, you have to be able to amplify your 
voice, you have to be able to project your voice to large numbers of 
citizens or your voice isn't very much.
  Of course, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, Dan Rather, 
Tom Brokaw and the rest certainly have more speech than we do. Nobody 
is suggesting that we rein them in. But there are many of us who think 
their speech is not very helpful, occasionally, to the political 
process. So I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for a very important 
speech.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If I can respond, on election night, Dan 
Rather called my election the other way, and he was wrong. I would not 
have minded restricting his speech that night, but I still support his 
right to say it and glad he was wrong.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator for his answer. How much time 
remaining do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, once again, I rise to discuss an issue that 
in the recent past has generated lots of talk and not much action--
campaign finance reform. But thanks to the hard work of my colleagues--
on both sides of the aisle--we are once again at the brink of doing 
something to address the many problems we have with our system for 
financing election campaigns.
  Thanks to the tireless efforts of our colleagues, Senators McCain and 
Feingold, we now know that the question is not whether a bill will come 
to the floor, but whether we will pass the bill that they have brought 
us. Keeping that in mind, I want to speak a bit today on why I support 
the measure before us.
  As an original co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, I agree that what is 
necessary is a comprehensive overhaul of the way we conduct our 
campaign business. If we have learned anything from our experiences in 
the last few elections, it is that money has become too important in 
our campaigns. Mr. President, in the last election federal candidates 
and their allies spent over $2 billion--$2 billion--in support of their 
campaigns. The McCain-Feingold bill currently before us, I believe, is 
the sort of sweeping reform that we must pass if we are to restore 
public trust and return a measure of sanity to the way we finance 
elections.
  Now each of us has his or her own perspective on what's wrong with 
the system. For me, Mr. President, it's the explosive cost of 
campaigning. When I announced in March 1997 that I would not seek 
reelection, I said: ``Democracy as we know it will be lost if we 
continue to allow government to become one bought by the highest 
bidder, for the highest bidder. Candidates will simply become bit 
players and pawns in a campaign managed and manipulated by paid 
consultants and hired guns.'' The problem becomes clearer when you look 
at specifics. In my case, when I first was elected to the Senate, I 
spent less than $450,000--actually, $437,482--on my campaign. Back 
then, I thought that was a lot of money. If only I'd known. Mr. 
President, if I hadn't decided to retire, for next year's election I 
would have had to raise $4.5 million. Now, I know all about inflation 
but that's not inflation--that's madness. What's worse, I understand 
that if we continue on this path, by the year 2025 it will cost $145 
million to run for a single Senate seat. Can any of us imagine what our 
country will look like when the only people who can afford public 
service are people who have--or can raise--tens of millions of dollars 
for their campaigns? I can't imagine such a future, Mr. President--and 
the time is now to make sure things never get that bad. McCain-Feingold 
won't cure everything that ails the current system, but I support it 
because it represents a real, meaningful first step toward restoring a 
sense of balance in our campaigns by ensuring that people and ideas--
not money--are what matters. Specifically, I support McCain-Feingold 
because it deals with a series of disturbing issues that have grown in 
importance in recent years.

[[Page S898]]

  I also agree that a primary problem with the current system is the 
flood of ``soft money.'' But when I speak of soft money, Mr. President, 
I want to make it clear that we are talking about more than just the 
fundraising of the national parties. True--in 1996, the parties raised 
over a quarter billion dollars in soft money, which they then used in 
various ways to support their candidates at every level of the ballot. 
That's a lot of money, but it's only a small part of the total so-
called ``soft money'' picture. That's because soft money is any money 
that is not regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act. That 
includes national party money, of course, but it also includes millions 
of dollars raised and spent by independent groups on so-called ``issue 
ads.'' Thanks to the excellent work of our colleagues on the Government 
Affairs Committee, we now know that many of these so-called independent 
organizations, many claiming tax-exempt status, are established, 
operated, and financed by parties and candidates themselves--and their 
finances are totally unregulated. Therefore, McCain-Feingold is 
meaningful reform because it recognizes that the problem is not just 
``soft'' money, it is ``unregulated'' money.
  The McCain-Feingold bill is also valuable because it recognizes that 
closing the party soft money loophole is not enough. The bill also 
addresses the problem of so-called ``issue advocacy'' advertising. 
These so-called issue ads have developed as a new--and sometimes 
devious--way that unregulated money is issued to affect elections. 
Lawyers might call it ``issue advocacy'', but I'm not a lawyer so I 
call it what it really is, ``handoff funding''. ``Handoff funding'' is 
where a candidate ``hands off'' spending, usually on hard-hitting 
negative ads, to a supposedly neutral third party whose finances are 
completely unregulated and not disclosed. Now I know there are those 
who call these ads free speech. But this isn't free speech, it's paid 
speech. Of course we need to respect the Constitution, but we can't let 
people hide behind the Constitution for their own personal or partisan 
gain. McCain-Feingold draws this paid speech into the light where not 
the lawyers but the jury--the American people--can decide which issues 
and which candidates they will support.
  Mr. President, I want to respond just a moment to the claim of many 
of my Republican colleagues that McCain-Feingold's issue advocacy 
reform somehow limits free speech. That simply is not true. When this 
bill passes, not one ad that ran in the last election--not one, not 
even the worst attack ad--will be illegal. What McCain-Feingold would 
do is say to those candidates and groups who have been using ``handoff 
funding'' to puff themselves up or tear down their opponents--all the 
while claiming that they were simply, quote, ``advocating issues''--is 
that within 60 days of the election they must take credit for their 
work, dirty or otherwise. The only people whose speech will be 
prevented by this law are people who are afraid to step into the light 
and be seen for who they are. That, Mr. President, is what I call 
reform--and I think the American people would agree.
  Another critical issue addressed in McCain-Feingold--and this is one 
area, I think, where we all are in nearly unanimous agreement--is the 
question of disclosure. Currently there is too much campaign activity--
contributions and spending--that is not disclosed to the public on a 
regular, timely basis. We must commit ourselves, as does McCain-
Feingold, to providing the American people with timely and full 
disclosure to information about political spending, and the means by 
which they can access that information. Like many colleagues, I believe 
that the Internet and electronic filing is the way to make this happen; 
but I hope we will make it clear that all campaign finances--including 
third-party issue advocacy--are to be disclosed before we get too 
worried about how such disclosure would take place.
  Mr. President, all these reforms will be meaningless unless we are 
willing to do right by the Federal Election Commission. If the FEC 
really is the toothless tiger that many people said it is, we must take 
at least some of the blame for removing its teeth. Any bill that makes 
changes to the campaign finance laws without restoring the FEC's 
funding and improving its ability to publicize, investigate, and punish 
violations cannot truly claim the title of ``reform.''
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I know that we will not have an easy 
road to passage of campaign finance reform legislation. In this body 
there are a number of colleagues who are opposed to reform and aren't 
afraid to speak their minds about the quote, ``danger,'' of reform. Mr. 
President, I can't blame them. If I had the advantage of millions of 
dollars from wealthy folks and millions more from corporations and 
special interests, I would think reform was dangerous, too, and I would 
have to think twice before supporting a bill that took away that 
advantage. Their opposition--whether in the public interest or their 
self-interest--means that the debate on this issue will get more than a 
few of us into a real lather. I'll take that challenge, Mr. President. 
Just because campaign finance reform will be difficult, and might 
require each party to give up things it cares about or simply has 
gotten used to, is no reason not to pass McCain-Feingold, and soon.
  All we need to do is to roll up our selves and remember the wisdom of 
that great Kentuckian Henry Clay, who called compromise ``mutual 
sacrifice.'' Our way is clear, if not easy, but I have confidence that 
we will do what is right to restore public confidence in the way we 
fund our campaigns. I look forward to the continuing debate, and to 
demonstrate to the American people that we are serious about cleaning 
up the system by voting for comprehensive campaign finance reform.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. This debate is one of the 
most important that the Senate will conduct in this session of 
Congress, and I desperately hope it will result in passage of 
meaningful campaign finance reform.
  We are beginning another mid-term election year, and the American 
public is again bracing for the barrage of money, special interest TV 
ads, and rhetorical hyperbole that accompany modern campaigns. There is 
near universal belief in this nation that Congress should do something 
about our campaign finance laws. We hold weeks of hearings on abuses in 
recent elections; we document loophole after loophole in the fabric of 
our laws whereby special interest influence campaigns to the detriment 
of our national interests; and we see meaningful, genuine reform 
proposals twisted and maligned by those same groups who are terrified 
at their potential loss of power.
  This is an old-fashioned debate in Washington, because it's about who 
has the power and how that power will be used. The McCain-Feingold bill 
seeks to diffuse that power; to level the playing field a little bit in 
federal campaigns and reduce the amount of special interest money in 
elections. Senators McCain and Feingold have developed a genuine 
compromise plan. It is not exactly as I would have drafted--or any of 
us, if we had that chance. It is, however, the best chance we have to 
repair the broken campaign finance system.
  The modified version of the bill addresses one of the fundamental 
problems in the system--soft money contributions. By banning these huge 
sums from federal campaigns, we correct many of the problems which were 
exposed last year in hearings before the Senate Government Affairs 
Committee.
  The bill also tries to deal with the growing and disturbing impact of 
independent expenditures. I believe the sponsors of the bill have 
achieved a delicate balance in this area--curtailing the use of this 
practice, while still conforming to constitutional boundaries.
  Mr. President, there is an extraordinary need for reform of our 
election laws. Despite the apparent problems--problems that have gotten 
worse with every election--Congress has not passed reform. Our failure 
to act has contributed to a loss of confidence, not only in our 
electoral system, but in our democracy.
  The American public has lost faith in government and its 
institutions. Americans feel they don't control government because they 
believe they don't control elections.

[[Page S899]]

  If you ask people who runs Washington, most will say ``special 
interests.'' People watch state officials, Members of Congress, and 
presidential candidates chase money, and believe that's the only way to 
get your voice heard in Washington. They see televised campaign finance 
hearings, allegations of trading contributions for access, and they 
think, ``how could my voice be heard over all that cash.''
  Certainly, Congress is not alone to blame for the current system. 
Voters themselves share some responsibility. People routinely decry the 
use of negative political ads, yet continually respond to the content 
of those ads. The media, especially television stations and networks, 
have failed to adequately inform the public of important policy 
questions. Instead of covering significant issues, broadcasters often 
fall back on covering the ``horserace'' aspect of the campaign, or 
``sideshow'' disagreements among candidates.
  But the ultimate responsibility rests in this chamber, with Congress. 
For more than 30 years the growing crisis has been ignored. Year after 
year, speeches are given, bills are introduced, but no action is taken.
  We now have a rare opportunity, with public attention focused on this 
debate and this bill, to pass real campaign finance reform.
  Mr. President, we have never had a time in our nation's history when 
such a pervasive problem went unanswered by the Congress. America has 
met challenges such as this before, and adopted policies which 
strengthened our democracy. We have that opportunity with the bill 
before us.
  The McCain-Feingold bill will help restore the American public's 
faith in this institution and in all the institutions of government.
  As some of my colleagues know, Senator Brownback and I have 
introduced legislation to establish an independent commission to reform 
our campaign finance laws. This commission would be similar to the Base 
Closure Commission, which proposed a series of recommendations to 
Congress for an up-or-down vote of approval.
  But I do not believe that we should take such an approach at this 
time. It would be much better if Congress acted on its own, without the 
help of an outside body, to reform our election laws. It would 
demonstrate to the American public that Congress is serious about 
changing the way our democracy functions.
  Mr. President, before I conclude, I just want to take a moment to 
once again commend my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. Last 
year, when we debated this bill, I said that Senator Feingold truly 
follows in the tradition of the great progressive movement in 
Wisconsin. That's more even true today than it was last year. I'm proud 
to serve with him, and I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to 
pass this vital legislation.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I believe we need campaign finance 
reform, but the McCain-Feingold amendment is not the right approach at 
this time. I will say that I am disappointed that many of the people 
advocating reform are defending people who couldn't live under the laws 
we already have. Perhaps the best reform that we can make immediately 
would be for candidates to live within the laws we have now. Clearly 
this Administration did not do this in 1996.
  I am disturbed by two provisions. First, the naked attempt to muzzle 
the free speech of citizens who want to advocate on behalf of a 
candidate. This ``reform'' would limit the free speech of all American 
citizens. I hardly see that as being ``reform.'' We put too many limits 
on our citizens now, we cannot restrict their right to participate in 
the political process.
  Second, this bill does nothing to stop the loophole that unions have 
exploited for years to advocate their political positions. It does 
nothing to stop the practice of labor unions taking the dues from hard 
working citizens and spending millions of dollars on ads to defeat 
candidates. Why is it that the people who advocate reform will not 
permit union members to keep their well-earned money and spend it as 
they wish? Why do they oppose a separate, voluntary means for using the 
dues of union members? Regrettably, the answer is that the so-called 
reform advocates want to keep the liberal ads coming in waves, and cut 
off the political speech of others. I cannot support that under any 
circumstances.
  And what happens when we make reforms? Look at the results of the 
1974 law. The reforms limited personal contributions from individuals, 
yet it spawned PAC's and soft money. On public financing, the taxpayers 
were to pay for the campaigns of those running for President--so that 
they would be beyond reproach. Yet by 1996, the President and the Vice 
President spent untold hours raising soft money by the millions. From 
appearing at Buddhist Temples to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, to 
making phone calls from the Oval Office, the 1974 reforms became a 
mockery at the hands of this Administration. For them to be calling for 
campaign finance reform is like a horse thief galloping down the street 
warning citizens to lock their barns. It simply doesn't pass the 
straight face test.
  III conceived, reforms can make the system worse and that is why I 
cannot support McCain-Feingold. If we want real reforms, we will do the 
following: limit soft money; equalize PAC and individual contribution 
at $2500; speed disclosure to the public; tighten the ban on 
contributions by non-citizens; and, stop the abuses by unions taking 
dues for political purposes. Finally, we should pass the ultimate 
reform: term limits.
  These kinds of reforms would improve the system, empower the 
individual, stop some of the most flagrant abuses taking place now and 
expand more opportunities for citizen legislators to serve. This is the 
kind of approach we need.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the McCain-
Feingold bill, which will provide this country with much needed 
campaign finance reform.
  The Constitution lays out the requirements for someone wanting to run 
for office. In order to run for Senate, the Constitution tells us that 
there are 3 requirements: First, you need to be a U.S. Citizen for 9 
years. Second, you need to be at least 30 years old. Third, you need to 
live in the state whose office you're running for.
  Three simple requirements, right? Wrong.
  What the Constitution doesn't tell you is that there is a fourth 
requirement. You must have an awful lot of money, or at least know how 
to raise a lot of money.
  The Constitution doesn't tell you this because when the framers sat 
down to draft the Constitution, they could not possibly have imagined 
the ridiculously large amounts of time and money one must spend today 
if a person wants to be elected to office.
  For example, if you want to run for Senate in my home state of 
Nebraska, population 1.6 million, it will cost you several million 
dollars. This means that candidates must raise over $10,000 every week 
for 6 years to cover the cost of the average Senate campaign.
  We need to stop using partisan procedural stalling tactics and get 
serious about fixing our campaign financing laws. We need to change the 
law to give power back to working families, restore their faith in the 
process, and make democracy work again. That's why I rise in support of 
the bipartisan bill offered by Senators McCain and Feingold.
  This bill would be a strong first step toward making democracy work. 
It seeks to solve the problem of soft money (money raised in an 
election, but is outside of federal campaign finance rules), not just 
with the political parties, but with the special interest groups who 
run attack ads, who are completely unregulated by the system, and whose 
contributors are undisclosed. It would require better disclosure, and 
give more power to the F.E.C. It would create incentives to keep 
wealthy individuals from trying to buy a Senate seat.
  This is not a perfect bill, especially in the stripped-down form in 
which it has ultimately reached the floor. I feel that it could be 
improved in ways which would make it easier for average Americans to 
run, win and serve, and which would make incumbent senators a lot less 
comfortable. I feel especially strong about the need to toughen our 
system of election law enforcement, so that the politicians who break 
the law end up paying the price.
  But my colleagues and I can't make an effort to improve this bill if 
the

[[Page S900]]

other party continues with their stalling tactics and prevent us from 
debating it.
  Mr. President, Americans are frustrated. It is time to get serious 
about this debate. I know it, you know it, and the American people want 
it.
  As I've said before, in a Harris Poll last March, 83 percent of 
Americans said they thought that special interest groups had more power 
than the voters. Seventy-six percent said that Congress is largely 
owned by special interest groups.
  Our lack of action on this issue reinforces the view that Americans 
have of their Government.
  The American people are frustrated by our delay. They are frustrated 
with the political process that appears to respond to those with 
economic power and which, all too often, ignores the needs of working 
men and women.
  They are frustrated with the rising cost of campaigns, with a 
political system which closes the door to people of average means who 
also want to serve their country in the U.S. Congress.
  They are frustrated with the millions of dollars they see go into our 
campaigns. They are frustrated with our tendency to talk instead of 
act.
  Mr. President, it is time for us to show the American people, not 
with words but with action. With a single vote today, Senators can act 
to allow this issue to move front and center on the political stage. 
With this bipartisan bill, we can show the American people that we mean 
what se say when we talk.
  Last week in the Omaha World Herald, there was an op-ed piece written 
by Deanna Frisk, the President of Nebraska's League of Women Voters. In 
laying out her reasons why all Americans would benefit from fixing our 
campaign finance laws, Ms. Frisk said:

       Campaign finance reform is about creating the kind of 
     democracy we want to have: a democracy where citizens come 
     first, a democracy that is open to new faces, a democracy 
     that can respond with fresh ideas to the problems confronting 
     our country.

  Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. As members of the Senate, we 
are in a unique position to make our government work better for the 
American people.
  Let's give every 30 year old, U.S. Citizen who wants to serve his 
state as a Member of the Senate a fighting chance. Let's get rid of 
that unofficial requirement that says don't bother running for office 
if you don't have lots of time and money to invest. Let's make the 
wealthy candidate who can afford to dump loads of his own money into a 
campaign the exception, not the norm like it is today.
  Let's give the American people what they want. Let's end this 
partisan bickering and pass the McCain-Feingold bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the important 
campaign finance reform legislation that is before us today.
  Today very wealthy special interest groups can pump unlimited amounts 
of money into a political campaign. In fact, one individual or group 
can attempt to buy an election. After this bill passes, that will not 
longer be true. This is the one reform that will do the most to give an 
ordinary person an equal say in who they send to Congress.
  I support this legislation because I believe it represents the right 
kind of change. While not a perfect solution, it will help put our 
political process back where it belongs: with the people. And it will 
take power away from the wealthy special interests that all too often 
call the shots in our political system.
  Let's be clear of our goal today: we must ensure that political 
campaigns are a contest of ideas, not a contest of money. We need to 
return elections to the citizens of states like Montana and allow them 
to make their own decisions, rather than letting rich Washington, DC 
groups run attack campaigns designed to do nothing but drag down a 
candidate.
  Yet, ironically, by failing to act; by failing to pass this 
legislation; we will also be opening the door to change--the wrong kind 
of change. Our political system will continue to drift in the dangerous 
direction of special interests.
  Since the 1970s, when Congress last enacted campaign finance reform, 
special interest groups supporting both political parties have found 
creative new ways, some of questionable legality, to get around the 
intent of our campaign finance laws. Things like soft money, 
independent expenditures, and political action committees all came 
about as a consequence of well-intended campaign finance reforms.


                         montanans want reform

  During my last campaign, I walked across Montana--over 800 miles 
across the Big Sky State. One of the benefits to walking across 
Montana, in addition to the beautiful scenery, is that I hear what real 
people in Montana think. Average folks who don't get paid to fly to 
Washington and tell elected officials what they think. Folks who work 
hard, play by the rules, and are still struggling to get by.
  People are becoming more and more cynical about government. Over and 
over, people tell me they think that Congress cares more about ``fat 
cat special interests in Washington'' than the concerns of middle class 
families like theirs. Or they tell me that they think the political 
system is corrupt.


                      effect on working montanans

  Middle-class families are working longer and harder for less. They 
have seen jobs go overseas. Health care expenses rise. The possibility 
of a college education for their kids diminished. Their hope for a 
secure retirement evaporate.
  Today, many believe that to make the American Dream a reality, you 
have to be born rich or win the lottery. Part of restoring that dream 
is restoring confidence that the political system works on their 
behalf, not just on behalf of wealthy special interests.
  Now it is time for use to take a real step to win-back the public 
trust--it is time for us to pass a tough, fair, and comprehensive 
Campaign Finance Reform bill. That bill must accomplish three things.
  First, it must be strong enough to encourage the majority if not all 
candidates for federal office to participate.
  Second, it must contain the spiraling cost of campaign spending in 
this country. finally, and most importantly, it must control the 
increasing flow of undisclosed and unreported ``soft-money'' that is 
polluting our electoral system.


                 reform must reduce costs of campaigns

  Under the current campaign system, the average cost of running for a 
Senate seat in this country is $4 million. I had to raise a little more 
than that during my 1996 race. That is an average of almost $2000 a 
day.
  When a candidate is faced with the daunting task of raising $12,000 a 
week--every week--for six years to meet the cost of an average 
campaign, qualified people are driven away from the process. If we 
allow ideas to take a back seat to a candidates ability to raise 
money--surely our democracy is in danger.
  The numbers are proof enough. As campaign costs have risen, voter 
turnout has drastically fallen. Think about that. People are spending 
more and more, while fewer people are voting. Since 1992, money spent 
on campaigns has risen by $700 million dollars. In the same time 
period, turnout has dropped from 55% to an all time low of 48%.

  Mr. President, less than half the country now votes in elections. 
What does this say about our political system? It says, quite simply, 
that people no longer believe that their vote counts, that they can 
make a difference. They believe that big corporations and million 
dollar PACs have more of a say in government than the average citizen. 
That perception is the most dangerous threat facing our country today.
  Let me be clear--my first choice would simply be to control campaign 
costs by enacting campaign spending limits. However, the Supreme Court, 
in Buckley v. Valeo, made what I believe was a critical mistake.
  They equated money with free speech--preventing Congress from setting 
reasonable state-by-state spending limits that everyone would have to 
abide by.


                       what's right with the bill

  While I must admit this bill is not perfect, it will take several 
crucial actions to reign in campaign spending. First, this is the first 
bi-partisan approach to campaign finance reform in more than a decade.
  Second, the bill establishes a system that does not rely on taxpayers 
dollars to work effectively.
  The McCain-Feingold substitute would prohibit all soft money 
contributions to the national political parties

[[Page S901]]

from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.
  The bill offers real, workable enforcement and accountability 
standards. Like lowering the reporting threshold for campaign 
contributions from $200 to $50. It increases penalties for knowing and 
willful violations of FEC law. And the bill requires political 
advertisements to carry a disclaimer, identifying who is responsible 
for the content of the campaign ad.
  Every election year, in addition to the millions of dollars in 
disclosed contributions, there are the hundreds of millions in 
unreported, undisclosed contributions spent by ``independent 
expenditure'' campaigns and ``issue advocacy'' advertisements. These 
ads are funded by soft-money contributions to national political 
parties.
  Out-of-state special interest groups can spend any amount of money 
they choose, none of which is disclosed, all in the name of 
``educating'' voters--when in fact their only purpose is to influence 
the outcome of a election. More times than not, the see-sawing 30 
second bites do more to confuse than to educate.
  This lack of accountability is dangerous to our democracy. These 
independent expenditure campaigns can say whatever they wish for or 
against a candidate, and there is little that candidates can do--short 
of spending an equal or greater amount of money to refute what are 
often gross distortions and character assassinations.
  To close, Mr. President, America needs and wants campaign finance 
reform. The Senate should pass comprehensive legislation right now. 
That legislation should accomplish one clear goal: we must ensure that 
political campaigns are a contest of ideas, not a contest of money.
  An oft-quoted American put it this way: ``Politics has got so 
expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with.'' That 
statement wasn't made this year or last year, or even during our 
political lifetimes. Will Rogers said that in 1931. He was right then, 
and he's even more right today.
  I remain committed to this cause and will do everything in my power 
to ensure that the Congress passes meaningful Campaign Finance Reform, 
this year.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the American political system is profoundly 
broken. I experienced this in my recent campaign for this office, which 
was why I made it my first official act, fifteen minutes after being 
sworn in to the Senate, to cosponsor the McCain-Feingold bill.
  We have all seen the phenomenon, in our own campaigns and in others, 
where they hold the election on Tuesday, you sleep in on Wednesday, and 
by Thursday afternoon it has started all over again. There is no 
interval in which to focus exclusively on the public's business.
  I don't think that anyone in this body likes that situation. I have 
never heard a group of Senators talking among themselves about how 
wonderful the seemingly permanent campaign is. Well today we have a 
chance to do something about it. The McCain-Feingold bill won't fix 
everything, but it will be the most significant step in the right 
direction in a long, long time.
  This bill also takes on one of the greatest threats that has 
developed in recent years to the quality of our nation's public 
dialogue, the recent rash of so-called ``independent expenditure 
campaigns.''
  Political campaigns ought to be an opportunity for people who want to 
serve in public office to not only explain themselves, but to listen 
and learn. I have tried when running for office to spend as much time 
as possible listening to what the people I meet at shopping centers and 
bus stops and ice cream socials have to say. I want to hear what they 
think and I want to talk to them in a serious way about the fights that 
I want to wage on their behalf, the issues that I feel passionately 
about, and the direction I think our country ought to be headed.
  But in the past few years, new tactics have been developed by a 
variety of groups on both the left and the right who seek to insert 
themselves in between candidates and the public they seek to serve. In 
these races, the candidates at times become mere pawns in some larger 
battle for influence.
  In the race that my colleague from Oregon and I ran against each 
other, there were ads that were run that were probably meant to help 
me, and ads that were run that were meant to hurt me. I think that 
Senator Smith and I would both agree that we both would have preferred 
if all of these ads had never been aired. The McCain-Feingold bill is 
the best solution available at this time to clean up the excess of 
these independent expenditures.
  Democracy is a precious and fragile gift that has been left to us by 
previous generations, Mr. President. I don't expect that the republic 
will collapse tomorrow if we fail to pass this bill, but make no 
mistake about it, the steady erosion of the public's confidence in 
their leaders is a dangerous trend. We can make a real beginning today. 
The American people want this system fixed, and they have a right to 
expect that it will be. Let's not disappoint them again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself such time as I require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, conversations today have been including 
the notion that the American people don't care about campaign finance 
reform, and occasionally people do ask why is it important to reform 
our system of financing campaigns. I think it is pretty clear that 
people do care about this issue. Just talk to them about it. Trying to 
get it to show up on a poll is one thing, but if you talk to them, you 
will find a different story.
  That is particularly true when Americans are told the facts or learn 
the facts about our current system that it actually affects average 
Americans who may not even care a great deal about being involved in 
the political process.
  I heard today on the floor a number of opponents of our bill assert 
this issue has no impact on the average citizen. Although I recognize 
many Americans do not think this issue is the No. 1 issue in America, 
Americans do care about this issue because it does affect their daily 
lives in real ways.
  Why should Americans care about campaign finance reform? One very 
good reason to care is that as consumers, they are affected. We all pay 
for the current system of campaign financing through higher prices, 
higher prices in the pharmacy, in the supermarket, on our cable bills, 
when we fill our cars with gas and in many other ways.
  Mr. President, in support of this, I have two items I would like to 
have printed in the Record which explain that our current system of 
financing political campaigns has a very real and direct effect on 
consumers and provides further support for the need to pass meaningful 
campaign finance reform.
  Today, Common Cause released a report entitled ``Pocketbook 
Politics.'' Common Cause reveals how special interest money hurts the 
American consumer. This report examines the campaign contributions of 
special interest groups which have benefited from Federal programs and 
policies that have had a costly effect on American consumers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the executive summary from this new Common Cause report, ``Pocketbook 
Politics.''
  There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

    [From the Common Cause Follow the Dollar Report, February 1998]

  Pocketbook Politics: How Special-Interest Money Hurts the American 
                                Consumer

       In 1996 and 1997, powerful special interests--with the help 
     of generous campaign contributions--won victories in 
     Washington that resulted in higher prices in our day-to-day 
     lives and have taken a substantial bite out of the 
     pocketbooks of typical American families.
       Special-interest victories in just six areas denied the 
     American public access to cheaper, generic versions of many 
     popular brand-name drugs; halted improvements in the fuel 
     efficiency of their minivans and cars; pushed up their cable 
     bills; made them pay more to make a call from a pay phone; 
     and kept the prices of peanuts and sugar artificially high.
       Since 1991, the special interests represented in just these 
     six examples gave more than $61.3 million in political 
     contributions, including $24.6 million in unlimited soft 
     money donations to the political parties.

[[Page S902]]

       The policies these special interests supported not only 
     harm consumers, they often hurt the environment as well. 
     Environmentalists charge that the peanut price-support 
     program whose benefits go to large peanut producers and a 
     small number of landowners, has encouraged farming practices 
     that exhaust the land and result in an increased use of 
     agricultural pesticides. Sugar policies encouraged the growth 
     of sugar plantations near the environmentally sensitive 
     Florida Everglades. A stalemate on fuel efficiency standards 
     increased air pollution and aggravated global warming.
       ``Our report documents six government programs and policies 
     and their costly effect on the American family,'' Common 
     Cause President Ann McBride said. ``But what we show is just 
     a drop in the bucket. These examples don't begin to explore 
     all the agendas of all special-interest political 
     contributors, their victories on Capitol Hill and at the 
     White House, and their overall impact on the American public.
       ``But it's clear that a campaign finance system that 
     rewards deep pocket corporations and wealthy individuals 
     directly affects all Americans, robbing them of their hard-
     earned dollars and threatening to degrade the earth's 
     environment--our legacy to our children. In the insider's 
     game that determines public policy in Washington, special 
     interests and politicians hit the jackpot. But too much of 
     that jackpot comes out of the pocketbook of the American 
     consumer.''


                 pocketbook politics: executive summary

       In 1996 and 1997, powerful special interests--with the help 
     of generous campaign contributions--won victories in 
     Washington that resulted in higher prices in our day-to-day 
     lives and have taken a substantial bite out of the 
     pocketbooks of typical American families. This study examines 
     just a handful of examples where special interests won 
     victories at the expense of the American consumer.
       Bad Medicine: Since 1991, the companies belonging to the 
     Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), 
     the trade group for brand-name drug makers, have given more 
     than $18.6 million in political contributions, including $8.4 
     million in soft money donations to the political parties. 
     With the help of that influence, brand-name drug companies 
     have kept their bottom lines healthy by successfully 
     convincing Congress to let them hold on to their drug patents 
     longer. Loss of access to generic drugs costs consumers, as 
     much as $550 million a year.
       Car Fare: The American auto, iron, and steel industries 
     gave $5.7 million ion political contributions since 1991, 
     including more than $1.7 million in soft money donations to 
     the political parties. For the past three years, Congress has 
     voted for a freeze on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 
     standards, thereby sparing these special interests the burden 
     of making cars and trucks more fuel efficient, which they 
     fear might eat into their bottom lines. Supporters of higher 
     CAFE standards claim that it is possible to produce safe, 
     fuel-efficient cars that can save consumers money at the gas 
     pump. Being deprived of this fuel efficiency costs consumers 
     about $59 billion annually.
       Party Lines: Together cable and local phone companies have 
     given $22.8 million in political contributions since 1991, 
     including $8.7 million in soft money donations to the 
     political parties. The groundbreaking Telecommunications Act 
     of 1996, which was supposed to make the industries more 
     competitive and responsive to consumer needs, has actually 
     worked to shrink competition. The resulting jump in cable TV 
     bills and pay phone rates costs consumers about $2.8 billion 
     annually.
       The $1 Billion PB&J Sandwich: Together peanut and sugar 
     interests have given $14.2 million in political contributions 
     since 1991, including $5.7 million in soft money donations to 
     the political parties. In 1996, they fought to ensure that a 
     historic overhaul of domestic farm policy left their programs 
     virtually untouched. They also rebuffed congressional 
     proposals in 1997 to phase out or eliminate their programs. 
     These legislative victories have upped the price of peanuts 
     and sugar substantially, costing consumers about $1.6 billion 
     annually.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Also, Money magazine published an article in December 
making much the same point, with additional examples of how consumers 
have been hurt by decisions made by this Congress under the influence 
of campaign donations from affected industries.
  Our decisions on everything from the airline tax to sugar subsidies 
to securities laws reform to electricity deregulation are potentially 
compromised by the money chase. Anyone who cares about public 
confidence in this institution should be concerned about these examples 
of industries and individuals with a great economic stake in our 
deliberations being able to and actually, in fact, making large and 
strategically focused campaign contributions.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from 
the Money magazine article entitled ``Look Who's Cashing in on 
Congress.''
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From Money Magazine, December 1997]

Look Who's Cashing in on Congress; Tales From the Money Trail: Here Are 
Some of the Reasons You'll Pay Nearly $1,600 This Year For Legislation 
              That Benefits Corporations and the Wealthy.

                          (By Ann Reilly Dowd)

       Ordinary Americans are prohibited from climbing Mount 
     Rushmore, where the faces of four great Presidents are carved 
     in granite. But this September, just before the Senate began 
     debating campaign finance reform, Senate Minority Leader Tom 
     Daschle (D-S.D.) led a group of supporters, including 21 
     representatives of industries as diverse as airlines, 
     financial services, telecommunications and tobacco, up the 
     mountain that's been called the ``Shrine of Democracy.'' 
     Taking Washington's traditional brie-and-Chablis fund raiser 
     to unusual heights, Daschle pulled in $105,000 for his re-
     election campaign and for his party during that weekend trip 
     to his state's Black Hills. In return, the contributors not 
     only got to perch at the top of a monument off limits to most 
     mortals, but they also won access to the second most powerful 
     politician in the Senate, a man who wields enormous influence 
     over their industries' futures and their own fortunes.
       That cash-driven coziness was not exactly what our 
     forefathers had in mind when they spoke of a government of, 
     by and for the people. Increasingly, however, the soaring 
     cost of congressional races, weak campaign finance laws and 
     potentially fat returns on contributors' donations have 
     conspired to give big-spending corporations and wealthy 
     individuals unprecedented access to Washington lawmakers, 
     putting the givers in a prime position to influence the laws 
     the politicians make. ``The founding fathers must be spinning 
     in their graves,'' says Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), co-
     sponsor with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) of the leading 
     campaign finance reform bill.
       Yet after weeks of high-profile hearings on presidential 
     campaign finance abuses before a panel chaired by Sen. Fred 
     Thompson (R-Tenn.) and heated debate on the Senate floor, the 
     nation's legislators remain deadlocked over whether to fix 
     the system--let alone how to do so. Worse, public interest in 
     the subject is practically nil. For example, a recent poll 
     found only 8% of Americans have been paying close attention 
     to news about the Democrats' 1996 fund raising.
       So why should you care about the way both parties finance 
     their congressional campaigns? Because the subject isn't only 
     about politics, it's about your money. Here are two examples 
     of this year's tab:
       U.S. taxpayers will pay $47.7 billion for corporate tax 
     breaks and subsidies. That's the conclusion of an exhaustive 
     study by economist Robert Shapiro, vice president of the 
     Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington think tank 
     affiliated with the moderate Democratic Leadership Council. 
     The total cost to the average American household in 1997: 
     $483.
       Import quotas for sugar, textiles and other goods will 
     raise consumer prices $110 billion, according to economist 
     Gary Hufbauer of the nonprofit Council on Foreign Relations. 
     total cost per household: $1,114.
       All of this comes amid rising public cynicism and apathy 
     about politics. In a recent poll by the Center for Responsive 
     Politics, a nonpartisan group that studies how money 
     influences politics, nearly four in five Americans said major 
     contributors from outside U.S. representatives' districts 
     have more access to the lawmakers than their constituents do. 
     Also, about half of those polled believe that money has ``a 
     lot of influence on policies and legislation.'' Says Ann 
     McBride, president of Common Cause, a political watchdog 
     group: ``It's no accident that last year's extraordinarily 
     low voter turnout coincided with the highest-priced election 
     in history.''
       During the 1995-96 election cycle, the Federal Election 
     Commission (FEC) reports, candidates running for the House 
     and Senate raised $791 million, 68% more than a decade 
     earlier. Of the total, a quarter, or $201 million, came from 
     political action committees (PACs) run by corporations, labor 
     unions and other interest groups. Of the $444 million from 
     individuals, only 36%, or $158 million, was given in amounts 
     of less than $200.
       Even more startling, the political parties collected an 
     additional $264 million in so-called soft money in 1995-96, 
     triple the amount they raised during the last presidential 
     election campaign. While the law limits so-called hard-money 
     contributions to candidates to $1,000 per election from 
     individuals and $5,000 from PACs, there are no caps on soft 
     money, which flows from corporations, unions and individuals 
     in huge chunks. For example, according to Common Cause, in 
     the last election cycle tobacco giant Philip Morris and its 
     executives gave $2.5 million in soft money to the G.O.P., 
     while the Communications Workers of America contributed $1.1 
     million to the Democratic Party. The FEC says soft money is 
     supposed to be spent on ``party building.'' But much of the 
     cash finds its way into congressional and presidential 
     races. Says McBride: ``Soft money is clearly the most 
     corrupting money in politics today.''
       Indeed, campaigning has mostly turned into a money chase. 
     Last year, winning a Senate seat cost an average of $4.7 
     million, up 53% since 1986. Snagging a House seat ran 
     $673,739, up 89%. Some veteran senators, including Paul Simon 
     (D-Ill.) and Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), have cited their distaste 
     for endlessly dialing for dollars as one reason they

[[Page S903]]

     dropped out of politics. As for the current Capitol gang, 
     says Charles Lewis, president of the Center for Public 
     Integrity, a nonpartisan research group: ``It's a 
     misimpression to think all new members are innocents. Either 
     they are millionaires or they are willing to sell their 
     souls, or at least lease them, before they even set foot in 
     Washington.''
       Of course, lawmakers often take positions out of principle. 
     Other times, constituent or broader public interests dictate 
     their votes. But the question remains: What role does money 
     play in shaping legislation?
       MONEY has found five instances where big money and bad 
     bills collided, resulting in legislation that has--or may 
     soon--cost taxpaying consumers like you dearly. (For more 
     examples, see the table on page 132). We'll tell the tales 
     and let you judge whether it's time for campaign finance 
     reform.


                             fear of flying

       Why you may pay more for air travel: Early this year, Herb 
     Kelleher, the tough-talking chief executive of Southwest 
     Airlines, dropped to his knees in the office of U.S. Rep. 
     Charles Rangel of New York City, the top Democrat on the 
     powerful House Ways and Means Committee. ``If you'll support 
     the little guy against this measure,'' begged Kelleher, 
     referring to a proposed new flight tax that would hurt 
     discount carriers like his, ``I'll give up Wild Turkey and 
     cigarettes.''
       Though only half in jest, Kelleher's theatrics weren't 
     enough to overcome the clout of the Big Seven airlines--
     American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, TWA, United and US 
     Airways--who stood to gain from the new tax. The Center for 
     Responsive Politics estimates that during the 1995-96 
     election period, the Big Seven contributed $2.5 million in 
     PAC money to candidates and soft money to both parties, 
     almost three times what the airlines had given during the 
     last election cycle. Among their biggest recipients was House 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, where Delta is based, who 
     took in $12,000 for his congressional campaign. Then in the 
     first six months of this year, while Congress was debating 
     the airline-tax bill, the big carriers kicked in another 
     $640,000, including $6,000 more to the Speaker. By contrast, 
     Texas-based Southwest and its small airline allies have 
     contributed nothing to Gingrich and only $95,000 to 
     congressional campaigns and the parties since 1995.
       After a bruising Capitol Hill battle, the major carriers 
     emerged with much of what they wanted, tucked into the 1997 
     tax act: a gradual reduction in the airline ticket tax from 
     10% to 7.5% plus a new $1 levy, rising to $3 in 2002, on each 
     leg of a flight between takeoff and final landing. Many 
     passengers who fly on regional carriers and discounters like 
     Southwest emerged as losers, since those airlines tend to 
     make more stops. For example, after the ticket-tax reduction 
     and new segment fee are fully phased in, a family of four 
     that flies on Southwest for $225 per person from Houston to 
     Disney World, with a stop in New Orleans, will pay $25.50 in 
     additional taxes.
       For that, opponents say, the family can thank Gingrich, who 
     broke a deadlock in the Ways and Means Committee over two 
     warring proposals. One, backed by Southwest and Republican 
     Jennifer Dunn of Washington, would have preserved the flat 
     10% ticket tax. The other, supported by the Big Seven and 
     sponsored by Republican Michael (``Mac'') Collins of Georgia, 
     reduced the tax and imposed a segment fee.
       ``Let's settle this like adults and compromise in [the 
     House-Senate] conference,'' Gingrich told Dunn, who agreed to 
     shelve her proposal. The Senate sided with Southwest. But a 
     House provision favorable to the big airlines won in the 
     closed door negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Trent 
     Lott (R-Miss.) and Gingrich. Says a congressional aide whose 
     boss backed Southwest: ``We left it to Trent and Newt, and 
     Newt fought harder.'' Campaign money was not a factor, 
     insists the Speaker's press secretary, Christina Martin. 
     Instead, she says, Gingrich was guided ``by his experience, 
     his vision and the will of his constituents and the 
     Republican conference.''


                     dance of the sugarplum barons

       Why you pay 25% too much for sugar: The next time you buy a 
     bag of sugar, consider this: You are paying 40[cents] a 
     pound, 10[cents] more than you should, because a handful of 
     generous U.S. sugar magnates have managed to preserve their 
     sweet deals for 16 years. Says Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla.), who 
     led the bitter losing battle last year to dismantle the 
     program of import quotas and guaranteed loans that props up 
     domestic sugar prices, costing U.S. consumers $1.4 billion a 
     year: ``This is the poster child for why we need campaign 
     finance reform.''
       The sultans of sugar are Alfonso (``Alfy'') and Jose 
     (``Pepe'') Fanjul, Cuban emigre brothers whose Flo-Sun 
     company, with headquarters in South Florida, produces much of 
     the sugarcane in the U.S. The Fanjuls sprinkle more money 
     over Washington than any other U.S. sugar grower. According 
     to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 1995-96 
     election cycle, when the sugar program was up for another 
     five-year reauthorization, the Fanjul family, the companies 
     they own and their employees gave $709,000 to federal 
     election campaigns. Alfy served on President Clinton's 
     Florida fund-raising operation, while Pepe co-chaired 
     Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole's campaign 
     finance committee. Overall during the past election cycle, 
     the Center reports, U.S. sugar producers poured $2.7 
     million into federal campaign coffers, nearly 60% more 
     than the $1.7 million given by industrial sugar users, 
     including candy and cereal companies, who oppose price 
     supports.
       The sugar industry's investment appears to have paid off 
     handsomely. At first, two conservative firebrands, Rep. Dan 
     Miller (R-Fla.) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), seemed to have 
     enough votes to kill the price-support program. In the 
     Senate, however, then-Majority Leader Dole, determined that 
     nothing would hold up the 1996 farm bill, took a machete to 
     amendments that threatened to topple it, including Gregg's, 
     which died by 61 votes to 35.
       In the House, the sugar program was saved after six 
     original co-sponsors of the Miller amendment switched sides, 
     killing it by 217 votes to 208. One defector, Texas 
     Republican Steve Stockman, who was locked in a tight re-
     election race that he ultimately lost, received $7,500 in 
     sugar contributions during 1995 and '96, including $1,000 on 
     the day of the vote. Stockman did not return Money's phone 
     calls. Another voting for big sugar, Robert Torricelli (D-
     N.J.), now a U.S. senator, received $19,000 from sugar 
     producers. New Jersey grows no sugar, but it is home to 
     870,000 Cuban Americans, whose votes Torricelli wanted for 
     his Senate campaign. On the House floor, he argued that 
     eliminating the program would drive up world prices, hurting 
     domestic growers and helping foreign producers like Cuba. 
     Said Torricelli: ``We will lose the jobs and the money, and 
     Fidel Castro's Cuba will reap the benefits.''

                           *   *   *   *   *



                         washington power play

       How politically charged utilities are short-circuiting 
     federal deregulation efforts that could cut your electric 
     bill: If you could shop around for power instead of buying it 
     from a single local utility, you could cut as much as 24% off 
     your monthly electric bill, according to the Department of 
     Energy. For a family whose monthly electric bills average 
     $100, that would mean yearly savings of $288, nearly three 
     months of free power. But while states from California to New 
     Hampshire are moving to increase competition among utilities, 
     two deep-pocketed and determined adversaries have thus far 
     stymied federal deregulation efforts.
       Those fighting for rapid deregulation include large 
     commercial electricity users, such as Anheuser-Busch, General 
     Motors, Texaco and major retailers, as well as low-cost power 
     producers and marketers like Houston's Enron. The Center for 
     Responsive Politics estimates that during the 1995-96 
     election cycle, as Congress began considering deregulation, 
     the major commercial power users contributed $7.8 million to 
     congressional candidates and the parties, while Enron and its 
     employees gave another $1.2 million.
       On the other side of the power war are old-line, 
     monopolistic utilities led by the Edison Electric Institute 
     (EEI), their major Washington lobby. Their big fear: that so-
     called stranded costs for investments in nuclear power plants 
     and other projects they pass on to consumers in the rates 
     they pay will make it difficult to compete with low-cost 
     energy producers under deregulation. During the 1995-96 
     election period, the old-line utilities contributed $7.7 
     million to the candidates and the parties. In addition, the 
     Institute assessed its members $3 million to pay for a 
     lobbying campaign against rapid federal deregulation.
       So far, that effort seems to be working. After 14 hearings 
     on deregulation, Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the 
     Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has still not 
     introduced a comprehensive bill. Instead he is backing a 
     narrower measure sponsored by Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.) 
     that would help the old-line utilities by letting them 
     compete in any nonutility business, without allowing other 
     power companies to enter the older firms' local electricity 
     markets.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       What will these power plays mean to you? Says, Charlie 
     Higley, a senior policy analyst at Public Citizen, a consumer 
     rights group: ``Generally we are concerned that legislators 
     will strike a deal where the utilities will get the taxpayer 
     to foot the bill for their stranded costs, the big industrial 
     users will get all the breaks, and residential and small 
     business customers will get no relief or, worse yet, higher 
     costs.''


                       a midsummer's night scheme

       How Wall Street and Silicon Valley could undercut investor 
     rights: In the summer of 1995, a coalition of accounting, 
     securities and high-tech firms persuaded Congress to pass 
     sweeping legislation limiting securities litigation that 
     MONEY had warned could severely restrict investors' abilities 
     to bring successful class-action suits for securities fraud. 
     Though the Securities and Exchange Commission has concluded 
     that it is too early to tell whether the Securities 
     Litigation Reform Act has seriously eroded investors' 
     rights, the same group of industries is now promoting 
     legislation that would virtually ban investors from 
     bringing class-action suites in state courts involving 
     nationally traded securities. Warns Barbara Roper, the 
     Consumer Federation of America's securities law expert: 
     ``The big risk for investors is that the federal law will 
     end up restricting meritorious cases and that we'll lose 
     the states as an alternative venue for them.'' The 
     possible result: Wronged investors not

[[Page S904]]

     only could find such cases harder to win, but they also 
     may be prevented from filing suits in the first place.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       In 1995 and '96, securities and accounting firms, as well 
     as high-tech companies, which frequently are the targets of 
     securities fraud lawsuits, flooded Congress and both parties 
     with $29.6 million in campaign money, according to the Center 
     for Responsive Politics. By contrast, the Center estimates 
     the trial lawyers association, the biggest critic of the 
     legislation, gave $3.1 million. (The total from all trial 
     lawyers is unknown.) Says one top Democratic congressional 
     aide: ``This is completely money-driven, special-interest 
     legislation that we would never even be looking at if there 
     were campaign finance reform. Most congressmen are not being 
     bombarded with requests from local constituents to pre-empt 
     state securities laws.''


                        what congress should do

       Here are six changes recommended by advocates of campaign 
     finance reform:
       Ban soft money. This is the heart of the McCain-Feingold 
     bill to improve the way campaigns are funded. The prohibition 
     would shut down the easiest way corporations, unions and the 
     wealthy have to buy access to Congress and influence 
     legislation.
       Limit PAC contributions. Congress ought to ban PACs from 
     giving money to the campaigns of members of committees that 
     govern the PACs' industries or their interests.
       Offer cut-rate TV time. Candidates who agree to reject PAC 
     money might get free or discounted TV time.
       Reward small contributors. Tax credits for donations of 
     $200 or less might stimulate more people to give. Says Kent 
     Cooper, executive director of the Center for Responsive 
     Politics: ``It's critical that we build a wider base of small 
     contributors.''
       Streamline disclosure. Candidates should be required to 
     file their campaign receipts and expenditures electronically 
     to the Federal Election Commission. That would enable it to 
     post the data to its Website (www.fec.gov) more quickly.
       Toughen election laws and enforcement. Congress must make 
     the six-member Federal Election Commission, typically half 
     Republican and half Democrat, more effective. The panel needs 
     authority to impose civil penalties, a bigger enforcement 
     budget (now only $31.7 million) and a seventh member to break 
     ties.
       What can you do? Write to congressional leaders Gingrich, 
     Lott and McCain, as well as your own U.S. representative, 
     senators and President Clinton. Tell them you want campaign 
     finance reform that will restore accountability and integrity 
     to federal elections and the government. And while you're at 
     it, tell them you'd like the right to climb Mount Rushmore--
     without giving Tom Daschle $5,000 of your hard-earned money.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with 
the time being charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at this time I yield such time as he 
requires to the leader on this issue, the senior Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  May I ask, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 8 minutes 48 
seconds; the Senator from Kentucky controls 7 minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Since it is the McCain-Feingold amendment, I ask the 
Senator from Kentucky if we could close the debate with our comments.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am sorry; I did not hear the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Since the vote would be on our amendment, it is customary 
that we, the sponsors of the amendment, be allowed to close the debate. 
I ask if the Senator from Kentucky would agree that I could have the 
last 5 minutes before the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have absolutely no problem with that. That is 
perfectly acceptable.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Kentucky want to proceed now?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. Would you like me to go on to wrap up?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to accommodate the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. President, I think we have had a very important and useful 
debate. In many ways it has gone on for the last 10 years in various 
forms. Prior to 1995, it was the Mitchell-Boren bill. There have been 
several changes over the years, but fundamentally the issue is this: Do 
we think we have too much political discourse in this country?
  I would argue, Mr. President, that we do not have any problems in 
this country related to too much political discussion. The Supreme 
Court has made it quite clear that in order to effectively discuss 
issues in this country, one must have access to money, and, frankly, 
that should not be a shocking concept to anyone going all the way back 
to the beginning of our country when anonymous pamphlets were passed 
out supporting the American Revolution. Somebody paid for those.
  Virtually any undertaking, whether it is raising money for Common 
Cause so that they can get their message out or raising money for a 
campaign so that it can get its message out or raising money for a 
political party so it can get its message out or by some group that 
wants to be critical of any of us up to and including the time just 
prior to an election, the Supreme Court has appropriately recognized 
that in order to have effective speech you have to be able to amplify 
your voice. That is not a new concept. It has been around since the 
beginning of the country.

  So the fundamental issue, Mr. President, is this: Do we have too much 
political discourse in this country? I would argue that we clearly do 
not. The political discussion has increased in recent years for several 
reasons. No. 1, the effective means of communication costs more--nobody 
has capped inflation in the broadcast industry--and, No. 2, the stakes 
have been large.
  The Congress was for many years sort of a wholly owned subsidiary of 
the folks on the other side of the aisle. But since 1994 it has been a 
good deal more competitive, so the voices have been louder. We had a 
robust election in 1996 about the future of the country, and a good 
deal of discussion occurred. But even then, Mr. President, that 
discussion, converted to money and compared to other forms of consumer 
consumption, if you will, in this country, was minuscule. One percent 
of all the commercials in America in 1996 were about politics. So it 
seems to me, Mr. President, by any standard, we are not discussing 
these issues too much.
  The other side of the issue that must be addressed is, assuming it 
were desirable to restrict this discussion, is that a good idea? In 
order to do that, Mr. President, you have to have a Federal agency 
essentially trying to control not only the quantity but the quality of 
discourse in our country.
  The Supreme Court has already made it quite clear that it is 
impermissible for the Government to control either the quantity or the 
quality of our political discussion in this country.
  So this kind of regulatory approach to speech is clearly something 
the courts are not going to uphold. Nor should the Senate uphold that 
approach. Fundamentally that is the difference between the two sides on 
this issue.
  Do we think there is too much speech? Or do we think there is too 
little? Do we think it is appropriate for the Government to regulate 
this speech? Or do we think it is constitutionally impermissible? That 
is the core debate here, Mr. President.
  McCain-Feingold, in its most recent form, upon which we will be 
voting on a motion to table here shortly, in my view, clearly goes in 
the regulatory direction. It is based on the notion that there is too 
much political discussion in this country by parties and by groups.
  Mr. President, the political parties do not exist for any other 
reason than to engage in political discussion. They financed issue 
advocacy ads with non-Federal money. The pejorative term for that is 
``soft money,'' but it should not be a pejorative thing. The national 
political parties get involved in State elections, local elections. 
They need to be there to protect their candidates if they are attacked 
by the issue ads of someone else.

[[Page S905]]

  All of this is constitutionally protected speech. Obviously, we do 
not like it when they are saying something against us. We applaud it 
when somebody is trying to help us. But the problem is not too much 
discussion, Mr. President. America is not going to get in trouble 
because of too much discussion.
  In fact, we have killed this kind of proposal now for 10 years. It is 
unrelated to the popularity of Congress. Congress is currently sitting 
on a 55 to 60 percent approval rating, the highest approval rating in 
the last 25 years. It achieved that approval rating in spite of the 
fact that this issue was not approved last year, nor the year before, 
and, Mr. President, I am confident will not be approved this afternoon.
  So when a motion to table is made, I hope that the majority of the 
Senate will support a motion to table McCain-Feingold.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. In a moment, I will yield to the senior Senator from 
Arizona. But before I do, let me make clear what we are tabling here 
today if we table the McCain-Feingold amendment.
  The other side would have us believe it is one narrow aspect of a 
bill that has to do with certain aspects of express advocacy and 
independent advocacy. Surely, that is part of the bill. But what they 
don't talk about very much is what else would be tabled. It would 
involve the tabling of a complete ban on soft money. It would be wiping 
out the opportunity for this Congress to have a ban on soft money. What 
that means is they are also tabling a concept that has been endorsed by 
over 100 former Members of Congress who signed a letter to ban soft 
money.

  It is also a denial and tabling of an effort to ban soft money that 
has been endorsed by people like former Presidents George Bush and 
Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. In addition, if this tabling motion 
prevails, you will be wiping out provisions that actually lower the 
provisions that require candidates to report contributions of $50 and 
over, not just the ones of $200 and over. It would be wiping out 
provisions that double the penalties for the knowing and willful 
violations of Federal elections law and tabling the provisions that 
require full electronic disclosure of campaign contributions to the 
FEC.
  You will be wiping out provisions that require the Federal Elections 
Commission to make those campaign finance records available on the 
Internet within 24 hours. You will be wiping out provisions that would 
stop the practice of Members of Congress using their franking 
privileges, their mass mailing franking privileges in an election year. 
Our bill would ban that.
  The tabling motion would wipe out the provisions that require a 
candidate to clearly identify himself or herself on one of these 
negative ads.
  So the fact is this bill has many important provisions. A tabling 
motion denies the chance to do all of these things. What the opposition 
has chosen to focus on is merely a few aspects, which I think we are 
right about, but they completely ignore the many important items of 
enforcement and disclosure and the banning of soft money the McCain-
Feingold bill would achieve.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the 
Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to extend thanks, as 
is customary at the end of debates such as these, to the majority 
leader for agreeing to schedule this vote and to the minority leader 
for all of his help in this effort, Senator Daschle, the Democratic 
leader. I would like to thank Senator McConnell of Kentucky for again 
conducting the debate, which is distinguished by its lack of rancor and 
by its adherence to an honest and open difference of opinion, a 
fundamental difference but one that I believe is strongly held by both 
Senator McConnell and myself.
  As always, I want to thank my dear friend, Senator Feingold, who, in 
my view, represents the very best in public service. As he and I differ 
on a broad variety of issues, we have always agreed on the principle of 
the importance, the integrity, and the honor associated with public 
service.
  Mr. President, since last year, a number of things have been 
happening since we had votes last September. A very good manifestation 
of how this system is out of control was contained in the January 17 
Congressional Quarterly about the California House race that is taking 
place.
  I will not go into all the details. This was January 17. On March 10 
there is an election. It lists noncandidate spending in the California 
special: Campaign for Working Families, $100,000; Americans for Limited 
Terms, $90,000; Foundation for Responsible Government, $50,000; Planned 
Parenthood Action Fund, $40,000; Catholic Alliance, $40,000; California 
Republican Assembly, $16,000; and the list goes on and on and on.
  Millions of dollars are being spent in a House race in California. 
And you know what, Mr. President? Those funds and those campaigns are 
not being conducted by the candidates. They are being conducted by 
organizations that enter into these races that sometimes have no 
connection with the candidate themselves. And you know they all have 
one thing in common. They are all negative, Mr. President, they are all 
negative.

  One of the radio ads says, ``Call Bordonaro and tell him you're not 
buying Planned Parenthood. Tom Bordonaro is the definition of a 
religious political extremist.'' That came from Planned Parenthood.
  The same thing on both sides. You will never see one of these, Mr. 
President, in a so-called independent campaign that says, ``Vote for 
our guy or woman. They're very decent and wonderful people.'' Then we 
wonder why there is the cynicism and the lack of respect for those of 
us who engage in public service.
  Mr. President, since last year there have been several indictments 
that have come down. One thing I can predict to you with absolute 
certainty on this floor; there will be more indictments, Mr. President, 
and there will be more scandals and more indictments and more scandals 
and more indictments and more people going to prison until we clean up 
this system. There is too much money washing around. This money makes 
good people do bad things and bad people do worse things.
  I guarantee you, Mr. President, this system is so debasing as it is 
today that we will see lots of indictments, prison sentences and, 
frankly, these investigations reaching levels which many of us had 
never anticipated in the past.
  We have also, thanks to our tenacity, gotten a vote. For the first 
time, Members of the Senate will be on record on campaign finance 
reform. I have no doubt about what this vote is about. It is on 
campaign finance reform.
  Later, hopefully, we will have a vote on the Snowe amendment, which I 
think is a compromise which is carefully crafted and one that deserves 
the support of all of us. I believe that we are closer to the point 
that I have long espoused and advocated to my friends and colleagues 
from both sides of this issue. We are closer to the point where all 100 
of us agree that the system is broken and needs to be fixed and we need 
to sit down together and work out the resolution to this terrible 
problem which is afflicting America, which we can work out in a 
bipartisan fashion that favors neither one party nor the other.
  The American people are demanding it, the American people deserve it, 
and the American people will get it. Mr. President, we will never give 
up on this issue because we know we are right in the pursuit of an 
issue that affects the very fiber of American life and American 
Government.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to table the McCain-Feingold amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Is there a sufficient second? 
There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


               Vote on Motion to Table Amendment No. 1646

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the McCain-Feingold amendment numbered 1646.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S906]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harkin
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1646) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 1647

          (Purpose: Relating to electioneering communications)

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], for herself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Feingold, 
     Mr. Chafee, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Thompson, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1647.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 201 and insert:

               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

     SEC. 200. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Additional Statements on Electioneering 
     Communications.--
       ``(1) Statement required.--Every person who makes a 
     disbursement for electioneering communications in an 
     aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during any calendar 
     year shall, within 24 hours of each disclosure date, file 
     with the Commission a statement containing the information 
     described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be 
     filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of 
     perjury and shall contain the following information:
       ``(A) The identification of the person making the 
     disbursement, of any entity sharing or exercising direction 
     or control over the activities of such person, and of the 
     custodian of the books and accounts of the person making the 
     disbursement.
       ``(B) The State of incorporation and the principal place of 
     business of the person making the disbursement.
       ``(C) The amount of each disbursement during the period 
     covered by the statement and the identification of the person 
     to whom the disbursement was made.
       ``(D) The elections to which the electioneering 
     communications pertain and the names (if known) of the 
     candidates identified or to be identified.
       ``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated 
     account to which only individuals could contribute the names 
     and addresses of all contributors who contributed an 
     aggregate amount of $500 or more to that account during the 
     period beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar 
     year and ending on the disclosure date.
       ``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not 
     described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all 
     contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $500 or 
     more to the organization or any related entity during the 
     period beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar 
     year and ending on the disclosure date.
       ``(G) Whether or not any electioneering communication is 
     made in coordination, cooperation, consultation, or concert 
     with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or 
     any authorized committee, any political party or committee, 
     or any agent of the candidate, political party, or committee 
     and if so, the identification of any candidate, party, 
     committee, or agent involved.
       ``(3) Electioneering Communication.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `electioneering communication' 
     means any broadcast from a television or radio broadcast 
     station which--
       ``(i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
     office;
       ``(ii) is made (or scheduled to be made) within--
       ``(I) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election 
     for such Federal office, or
       ``(II) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or 
     a convention or caucus of a political party that has 
     authority to nominate a candidate, for such Federal office, 
     and
       ``(iii) is broadcast from a television or radio broadcast 
     station whose audience includes the electorate for such 
     election, convention, or caucus.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include--
       ``(i) communications appearing in a news story, commentary, 
     or editorial distributed through the facilities of any 
     broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or 
     controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate, or
       ``(ii) communications which constitute expenditures or 
     independent expenditures under this Act.
       ``(4) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `disclosure date' means--
       ``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for electioneering 
     communications aggregating in excess of $10,000, and
       ``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for electioneering 
     communications aggregating in excess of $10,000 since the 
     most recent disclosure date for such calendar year.
       ``(5) Contracts to disburse.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has contracted to make the 
     disbursement.
       ``(6) Coordination with other requirements.--Any 
     requirement to report under this subsection shall be in 
     addition to any other reporting requirement under this Act.''

     SEC. 200A. COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS AS CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 315(a)(7)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(B)) is amended by inserting 
     after clause (ii) the following new clause:
       ``(iii) if--
       ``(I) any person makes, or contracts to make, any payment 
     for any electioneering communication (within the meaning of 
     section 304(d)(3)), and
       ``(II) such payment is coordinated with a candidate for 
     Federal office or an authorized committee of such candidate, 
     a Federal, State, or local political party or committee 
     thereof, or an agent or official of any such candidate, 
     party, or committee.

     such payment or contracting shall be treated as a 
     contribution to such candidate and as an expenditure by such 
     candidate; and''.

     SEC. 200B. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS 
                   FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or for any applicable electioneering 
     communication'' before ``, but shall not include''.
       (b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 
     of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
       ``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `applicable electioneering 
     communication' means an electioneering communication (within 
     the meaning of section 304(d)(3)) which is made by--
       ``(A) any entity to which subsection (a) applies other than 
     a section 501(c)(4) organization, or
       ``(B) a section 501(c)(4) organization from amounts derived 
     from the conduct of a trade or business or from an entity 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Special operating rules.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the following rules shall apply:
       ``(A) An electioneering communication shall be treated as 
     made by an entity described in paragraph (1)(A) if--
       ``(i) the entity described in paragraph (1)(A) directly or 
     indirectly disburses any

[[Page S907]]

     amount for any of the costs of the communication; or
       ``(ii) any amount is disbursed for the communication by a 
     corporation or organization or a State or local political 
     party or committee thereof that receives anything of value 
     from the entity described in paragraph (1)(A), except that 
     this clause shall not apply to any communication the costs of 
     which are defrayed entirely out of a segregated account to 
     which only individuals can contribute.
       ``(B) A section 501(c)(4) organization that derives amounts 
     from business activities or from any entity described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be considered to have paid for any 
     communication out of such amounts unless such organization 
     paid for the communication out of a segregated account to 
     which only individuals can contribute.
       ``(3) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization' means--
       ``(ii) an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 
     under section 501(a) of such Code; or
       ``(ii) an organization which has submitted an application 
     to the Internal Revenue Service for determination of its 
     status as an organization described in clause (i); and
       ``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has contracted to make the 
     disbursement.
       ``(4) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to authorize an 
     organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from carrying out any activity 
     which is prohibited under such Code.''

          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

     SEC. 201. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.

       Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431) is amended by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(17) Independent expenditure.--The term `independent 
     expenditure' means an expenditure by a person--
       ``(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 
     clearly identified candidate; and
       ``(B) that is not provided in coordination with a candidate 
     or a candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a 
     candidate or a candidate's agent.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                Amendment No. 1648 to Amendment No. 1647

           (Purpose: To prohibit new welfare for politicians)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the 
pending Snowe amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1648 to amendment No. 1647.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be 
considered as having been read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 200. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Federal Communications 
     Commission may be expended to impose or enforce any 
     requirement or obligation with respect to the provision of 
     free or discounted television broadcast time for campaign 
     advertising unless such requirement or obligation is 
     specifically and expressly authorized by title III of the 
     Communications Act of 1934.


                           Amendment No. 1649

           (Purpose: To prohibit new welfare for politicians)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now send a perfecting amendment to the 
desk to the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1649.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the language proposed to be stricken in the bill, strike 
     all after the word ``political'' on page 2, line 23, and 
     insert the following:

     ``party.

     SEC. 3. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Federal Communications 
     Commission may be expended to impose or enforce any 
     requirement or obligation with respect to the provision of 
     free or discounted television broadcast time for campaign 
     advertising unless such requirement or obligation is 
     specifically and expressly authorized by title III of the 
     Communications Act of 1934.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect one day 
     after enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1650 to Amendment No. 1649

           (Purpose: To prohibit new welfare for politicians)

  Mr. LOTT. I now send an amendment to the desk to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1650 to amendment No. 1649.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word in the pending amendment 
     and insert the following:

     SECTION 3. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Prohibitions.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Federal Communications 
     Commission may be expended to impose or enforce any 
     requirement or obligations with respect to the provision of 
     free or discounted television broadcast time for campaign 
     advertising unless such requirement or obligations is 
     specifically and expressly authorized by title III of the 
     Communication Act of 1934.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect two 
     days after enactment of this Act.


                            Motion To Commit

  Mr. LOTT. I send to the desk a motion to commit the bill to the 
Commerce Committee with instructions to report back forthwith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] moves that the 
     Senate commit S. 1663 to the Committee on Commerce, Science 
     and Transportation with instructions that it report back the 
     bill forthwith.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1651

           (Purpose: To prohibit new welfare for politicians)

  Mr. LOTT. I now send an amendment to the desk to the instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1651 to the motion to commit the bill to 
     committee.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask the amendment be considered as having been read.
  Mr. FORD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read further as follows:

       At the end of the instructions add the following:

     ``with an amendment as follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Federal Communications 
     Commission may be expended to impose or enforce any 
     requirement or obligation with respect to the provision of 
     free or discounted television broadcast time for campaign 
     advertising unless such requirement or obligation is 
     specifically and expressly authorized by title III of the 
     Communications Act of 1934.''

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 1652 to amendment No. 1651

           (Purpose: To prohibit new welfare for politicians)

  Mr. LOTT. I now send an amendment to the desk to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1652 to amendment No. 1651.

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Federal Communications 
     Commission may

[[Page S908]]

     be expended to impose or enforce any requirement or 
     obligation with respect to the provision of free or 
     discounted television broadcast time for campaign advertising 
     unless such requirement or obligation is specifically and 
     expressly authorized by title III of the Communications Act 
     of 1934.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect one day 
     after enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LOTT. I now send a final amendment to my amendment to the desk--
--
  Mr. DASCHLE. What constitutes a sufficient second in this case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the majority leader's yielding. I ask the 
Chair, what would constitute a sufficient second, given the number of 
Senators on the floor currently?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Constitution requires one-fifth of those 
present.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope we will count carefully, because I 
think we are getting very close here to whether or not we have a 
sufficient second. I appreciate the answer of the Chair.


                Amendment No. 1653 To Amendment No. 1651

           (Purpose: To prohibit new welfare for politicians)

  Mr. LOTT. I now send a final amendment to the desk to my amendment. I 
believe the desk has that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered No. 1653 to Amendment No. 1651.
       Strike all after the word ``section'' in the pending 
     amendment and insert the following:

     1. ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Federal Communications 
     Commission may be expended to impose or enforce any 
     requirement or obligation with respect to the provision of 
     free or discounted television broadcast time for campaign 
     advertising unless such requirement or obligation is 
     specifically and expressly authorized by title III of the 
     Communications Act of 1934.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect two 
     days after enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the 
Senate is now in a posture where the tree is filled with respect to the 
pending campaign finance legislation. Senator McCain has offered his 
substitute amendment and we have had a very good discussion about the 
issue prior to the motion to table, and the time for the vote was 
agreed to and that occurred, of course, at 4 o'clock. The motion to 
table did fail, although I think we should note that it was the 
identical vote that we had on this same issue last year.
  Now our colleague, Senator Snowe, has offered her version of paycheck 
protection to the McCain-Feingold amendment, and I intend to file a 
cloture motion on that today. However, it is my hope that cloture votes 
on the Snowe amendment could occur Thursday morning, but after we have 
had debate tonight. She is prepared, I believe, to talk about her 
amendment.
  There also are a number of Senators who are very interested in 
talking about the second-degree amendment, or the amendment I offered 
to her amendment. I know Senator McCain feels very strongly that the 
FCC should not impose the requirement of free broadcast time. Senator 
Burns had indicated he wanted to speak on this. We had been hoping he 
would be here momentarily, and I am sure he will be, and he will want 
to speak on that issue, too.
  So, after a debate on this issue, we expect to have a time set for a 
vote. But I will consult with the minority leader and also with the 
sponsor of the amendment and the second-degree amendment before we 
announce a time on that.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1647.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? So ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield for a second?
  Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1646.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent to do that. Is 
there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, what is the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To be able to order the yeas and nays on 
amendment No. 1646.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Did the majority leader ask unanimous consent to do 
that? In that case, we will be compelled to object.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield for a question? My 
understanding of the majority leader's amendment is it would bar the 
FCC from allocating free television time to candidates. As the majority 
leader pointed out, that is a position that I share because I believe 
only the legislative and executive branch should be responsible for 
what basically changes the entire electoral system in this country.
  But my question to the majority leader is that, following disposition 
of his amendment, either through tabling or up-or-down vote, would the 
majority leader be amenable to a unanimous consent request that Senator 
Snowe's amendment be taken up without amendment, so that the Senate can 
vote on this issue?
  Mr. LOTT. Let me discuss this with you, Senator McCain, and with 
Senator Snowe. I want to make sure we had considered all of the 
ramifications to that. I think probably the answer may be yes, but I 
would like to make sure we have had a chance to talk it through. I am 
not making a commitment at this point.
  I think it is important that we have a full discussion on the FCC 
effort and we have a full discussion on our amendment. That will give 
us time. I presume she is not interested in having a vote this 
afternoon, so we will have some time tonight to talk about that and 
then tomorrow, after the funeral services for Senator Ribicoff, and 
then after the vote on the military construction appropriations bill, 
we will come back to this issue around, I guess, 3:30. Then, hopefully, 
we will have a vote sometime tomorrow afternoon, probably around this 
time or a little earlier. We will talk about what order that would be 
in prior to that.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the majority leader will further yield, I thank him 
for that consideration. I do believe, obviously, that we should have a 
vote on the Snowe amendment, and I appreciate his consideration of it. 
Of course, whether we were going to have a vote on the Snowe amendment 
would obviously dictate my vote and, I think, that of some of my 
colleagues, including those on the other side of the aisle who may 
share our view concerning whether the FCC should be deciding these 
things or not. Because, if it serves just to kill our ability to vote 
on the Snowe amendment, then obviously that may not be something that I 
would want to support. But I appreciate the majority leader's 
consideration.
  Mr. LOTT. I agree with the chairman of the committee. I feel very 
strongly the FCC should not be doing this. I would like to inquire, 
does the chairman of the committee intend to have some hearings on this 
and maybe move this as an amendment or as a part of another bill at 
some point? Perhaps this year?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would hope so. As you know, the majority leader knows I 
am loath--loath--to determine policy issues on appropriations bills. 
But on occasion there might be some exception made to my absolute 
opposition to any authorization on appropriations bills, because I feel 
this is a very important issue. I thank the majority leader.

  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I file two cloture motions, one on the McCain-Feingold 
amendment and then on the Snowe--first on Snowe and then on McCain.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S909]]

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Snowe 
     amendment:
       Edward M. Kennedy, Daniel Inouye, Byron Dorgan, Max 
     Cleland, Russell D. Feingold, Ernest F. Hollings, Daniel K. 
     Akaka, Wendell Ford, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher J. Dodd, 
     Jack Reed, Patty Murray, Robert Torricelli, Barbara Boxer, 
     Ron Wyden, Carol Moseley-Braun, Kent Conrad, and Jeff 
     Bingaman.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the McCain-
     Feingold amendment:
       Russell D. Feingold, Paul Wellstone, J. Lieberman, Richard 
     J. Durban, Tim Johnson, Edward M. Kennedy, Byron L. Dorgan, 
     Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Akaka, Jay Rockefeller, Dale 
     Bumpers, Wendell H. Ford, John Breaux, J.R. Kerrey, Ernest F. 
     Hollings, Daniel Moynihan, Patty Murray, Carol Moseley-Braun, 
     and Max Cleland.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, here we go again. I thought that we had 
an understanding about the opportunity that we would be presented to 
have a good debate. In fact, I am going to go back to the Record and 
check, but I am quite sure that there was some understanding that there 
would not be any need to fill trees and to prevent open and free 
debate, because we saw what happened the last time we tried this. It 
locked up the Senate for weeks on end with absolutely no result.
  I would ask my colleagues, what are you afraid of here? Why are our 
colleagues on the other side not willing to allow this body to work its 
will? Why is the majority party filibustering legislation that the 
majority of Senators supports?
  Mr. President, I am disappointed and frustrated. I am prepared to 
take this to whatever length is required to bring it to a successful 
resolution this week, next week, at some point in the future. We have a 
lot of work to do here, and I want to work with the majority leader to 
find a way to accomplish all that must be done. But I can't think of a 
better way to slow progress, to stop progress, to preclude us from 
getting our work done than to deny this body the opportunity to have a 
good debate and some votes on this important issue.
  I must say, it is, again, a reminder to the Democratic caucus that 
when we enter into these agreements, we better check the writing, we 
better check the specifics, we better ensure we have a clear 
understanding of what the agreement is.
  There was a colloquy just a moment ago about whether or not we could 
have an up-or-down vote on the Snowe amendment. Clearly, with this 
scenario, there is no way you can have an up-or-down vote on the Snowe 
amendment. This is a tree so loaded that the branches are breaking. And 
so I suppose I could dream someday of drafting a scenario that would 
allow us to get to the amendment of the Senator from Maine. It ain't 
going to happen. With the tree as filled as it is right now, there is 
no way there will be a vote on the Snowe amendment.
  I note, and the majority leader even noted, that there is maybe 
another option, another route, another bill, maybe, as the Senator from 
Arizona suggested, an appropriations bill. I suspect that this loaded 
tree will provide both sides with ample opportunity to offer amendments 
and bills to other amendments, and with a limited period of time, we 
all know what that means. But if those are the cards we are dealt, I am 
prepared to accept that as the circumstance and deal with it.
  It is really amazing to me that there are those in the Senate who 
profess to support a process by which we can accomplish all of our 
legislative goals, but then continue to put obstacles in the path of 
resolution to the objectives in reaching those goals.
  So, I am disappointed and, frankly, somewhat amazed that we have not 
learned our lessons of the past. But so be it, the tree is filled, the 
opportunities will be there, either this week, next week, the week 
after, but they will be there, just as they were last fall.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the minority leader for yielding for a question. 
So that those who watch these proceedings and listen to these 
proceedings understand, is it not the case that a procedure, a rarely 
used procedure until recently, has been used today that is designed to 
block legislation, that creates shackles and handcuffs designed in a 
way to lock the legislation up so it can't move?
  We were, as I recall, promised some long while ago that we would be 
able to consider campaign finance reform legislation on the floor of 
the Senate. So, a date was set, a time for a vote was set, and the 
legislation came to the floor of the Senate, at which time we discover 
that, although we have a first vote on a tabling motion, following that 
vote, this procedure, throughout its history always used to block 
legislation, is immediately employed.
  The implication of that, I guess, is that there is not a desire to 
proceed to consider, fully consider campaign finance reform. Many in 
this Chamber have other amendments they wish to offer, have considered 
and have votes on. It appears to me that the procedure now employed by 
the majority leader is to say, ``Yes, I brought it to the floor; yes, 
you had one tabling vote, and from now on we will do it the way I want 
to do it.'' As the Senator from South Dakota said, the majority leader 
expressed, ``I filled up the tree and we will allow only amendments 
that I will allow in the future.'' It seems to me that is not an 
approach that is designed to allow consideration of campaign finance 
reform.

  I ask the Senator from South Dakota, was it your understanding when 
we had an agreement on this issue that campaign finance reform would be 
brought to the floor of the Senate for a debate and for the opportunity 
to offer amendments and to consider fully and have votes on issues 
related to that subject?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely correct. I 
think we can all go back and look through the Record and, again, as I 
say, we have to look at the meaning of each word in these agreements 
with perhaps greater skepticism. This idea of filling the tree is great 
short-term strategy. It has a horrible long-term effect, long-term 
effect on the comity of the of the Senate, long-term effect on getting 
legislation accomplished.
  So we are compelled, once again, to use the techniques and methods we 
have used in the past. It is very likely that we will be relegated to 
using them again in the future.
  The Senator is right, clearly we had an understanding that we would 
have an opportunity to debate issues, to offer amendments and 
ultimately to resolve this issue. We have been denied that as a result 
of the actions taken just now, and I deeply regret it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the minority leader yield for one moment?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. It will take me only a few seconds. Since this is an 
effort to basically choke off debate and deny us an opportunity to 
present amendments--many of us worked on this for years and care 
fiercely about it and many of the people in the country do. The 
minority leader understands and certainly realizes that on any bill 
that comes up forthwith, it would be our right to come back with these 
amendments, is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely right. We will 
have the opportunity on countless occasions over the course of the next 
10 months to revisit this issue, which obviously we will be in a 
position to do and be prepared to begin at some point either this week 
or next week. But we will certainly pursue this in other ways.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the leader, because I very much want to do 
that. We have a right to continue to do this and if we are serious 
about it, we will fight for it, and we can bring amendments out over 
and over and over again, is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask the leader, referring back to the October 30, 1997, 
Congressional Record, reading from the language of the leader himself, 
he said:


[[Page S910]]


       This is not better--

  Referring to the agreement--

       This is not better necessarily for Democrats or 
     Republicans. But in our view, this is a very big victory for 
     the country. This will give us an opportunity to have a good 
     debate as we have discussed.

  And then going on further, the minority leader said:

       I expect a full-fledged debate with plenty of opportunity 
     to offer amendments. Given this agreement, now I have every 
     assurance and confidence that will happen.

  I recall, having been part of the discussion and referring back to 
Senator Lott's request, Senator Lott said:

       I further ask that if the amendment--

  Referring to Senator McCain's amendment--

     is not tabled . . . the underlying bill will be open to 
     further amendments, debates and motions.

  There was a clear understanding, if I am correct, and I ask the 
leader if there was not a clear understanding, that while the 
Republicans retained the right to filibuster, they would not fill up 
the tree and they would not deny the Senate the right to have the 
opportunity to debate and have a series of votes on the substantive 
issues, but that there would be a distinct opportunity for both sides 
to be able to amend and follow this debate? Is that the minority 
leader's understanding, and is that a correct reference to the language 
that he relied on at that time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. There is no doubt about it. Again, Senator Lott, and I 
quote a comment he made to reporters that very day, said: ``As far as I 
can tell at this point, amendments would certainly be in order, would 
be considered, they might be second-degreed and they certainly would be 
given a third degree.''
  There is no question that we had the clear understanding that there 
would be an opportunity to have a good debate, offer amendments, have 
them voted upon and ultimately dispose of this issue.
  So I am really disappointed we have not been able to reach that point 
in this debate to date, and this, in my view, is not what we had agreed 
to last fall.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the minority leader. I simply express on behalf of 
all of us I think who had an anticipation of an opportunity to bring a 
number of amendments that this is a setback for the Senate and it is 
clearly a setback for all those in the country who thought the Senate 
could approach the issue of reform responsibly.
  When we talk about filling the tree here, for a lot of people who 
listen to these debates and don't know what that means, under the rules 
of the Senate, we are given an opportunity to be able to bring up an 
amendment according to the rules. But according to the rules, the 
majority leader has the opportunity of right of recognition to take up 
all of the options that the rules allow in order to bring up 
amendments. By doing that, he can choose to deny any other opportunity 
for an amendment.
  That is precisely what the majority leader has chosen to do here. 
When we say he has filled up the tree, he has denied the Senate the 
opportunity to be able to bring amendments in order to be able to work 
the legislative process as people sent us here to do.
  I think what he has asked for is a long process of delay. He has 
initiated gridlock in the U.S. Senate again, solely to protect a 
certain group of narrow vested interests represented in this campaign 
finance debate. It is very, very clear as of today, there are a 
majority of the U.S. Senate prepared to vote for campaign finance 
reform. There is a minority that is trying to stop it. They have that 
right, but they also, I hope, will be subject to the judgment of the 
American people who will recognize who is for campaign finance reform 
and who is against it. I thank the leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. For one additional question. I mentioned in my initial 
question to the Senator from South Dakota, this is a rarely used 
approach. It is true that this approach has been used by the majority 
leader a couple of times last year, but in history, it has been rarely 
used in the Senate. And the reason is, it is almost exclusively used to 
block legislation, but it is never successful, because you can block 
someone by tying legislation up in chains and shackles now and 
preventing anybody from offering an amendment, but you can't prevent 
that forever. You have to bring legislation to the floor of the Senate 
at some point which, according to the rules of the Senate, will allow 
another Senator to stand up and offer an amendment to such legislation.
  In my judgment, this is very counterproductive. Some in this Chamber 
want to dig their heels in and say, ``Notwithstanding what the majority 
wants to do in this Chamber, we intend to block campaign finance 
reform.'' You can block the right of Members to offer amendments now if 
you use this rarely used procedure, but you can't block people here 
forever from doing what we want to do, and that is have a full and good 
debate on campaign finance reform, offer amendments and have votes on 
those amendments.
  I don't think the American people are going to be denied on this 
issue. The American people know this system is broken, it needs fixing, 
and they want this Congress and this Senate to do something about it. 
We can temporarily tie it up in these legislative chains, but that is 
not going to last forever, and I think that simply delays the final 
consideration of this issue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments, 
and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may, I listened with great 
interest to the comments of the Democratic leader and others on that 
side of the aisle. Point No. 1 should be crystal clear to everyone who 
has followed this debate. Forty-eight Senators are not in favor of this 
measure.
  In the Senate, as we know in recent years, every issue of any 
controversy requires 60 votes. So it is not at all unusual when an 
issue cannot achieve 60 votes for it not to go forward. That is the 
norm around here.
  Point 2. It does not make any difference in what context the issue 
comes up. There are 48 people in the Senate who are not willing to vote 
for this measure either on cloture or on a motion to table. So it isn't 
going to pass. It is not going to pass today, not tomorrow, not 3 
months from now, not 5 months from now. We can decide whether we want 
to waste the Senate's time on an issue that is not going to pass. But 
it is clearly a waste of time.
  With regard to how unusual it is to fill up the tree, let me just 
mention that when Senator Mitchell was majority leader in the 103d 
Congress, he filled up the tree on February 4, 1993; February 24, 1993; 
January 31, 1994; May 10, 1994; May 18, 1994; June 9, 1994; June 14, 
1994; June 14, 1994; and August 18, 1994. Those are nine occasions, Mr. 
President, when Senator Mitchell, during the 103d Congress, nine 
occasions in which Senator Mitchell filled up the tree. This is not 
exactly uncommon. It is not a routine everyday activity, but it 
certainly is not uncommon.
  In 1977, Jimmy Carter's energy deregulation bill, Senator Byrd was 
the leader and he filled up the amendment tree.
  In 1984, in the Grove City case, Senator Byrd was in the minority, 
and he filled up the tree.
  In 1985, the budget resolution, Senator Dole was the majority leader, 
and he filled up the tree.
  In 1988, campaign finance--it has been around for a while--Senator 
Byrd filled up the tree, and there were eight cloture votes.
  In 1993, there was an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, the 
so-called stimulus bill. Senator Byrd filled up the tree.
  Let me say that it is not an everyday action but it is not uncommon 
for majority leaders to fill up the tree. What is fairly unusual is for 
the minorities to file cloture motions. Not common, typically done by 
the majority. And the only cloture motions we have at the desk at the 
moment are by the minority.
  But the fundamental point is this, Mr. President. There are not 
enough votes in the Senate to pass this kind of measure. Consequently, 
it isn't going to happen. That is the way the process works around 
here. And we can waste a whole lot of time having repetitive

[[Page S911]]

votes. The 48 votes that were cast in favor of the motion to table were 
the same 48 votes that were cast against cloture in October. And it 
will be the same 48 votes that will be cast whether it is a motion to 
table or a motion to invoke cloture no matter how many times it is 
offered. So who is wasting the people's time here? It is certainly not 
the majority.
  The majority leader sets the agenda. He is anxious to move on to 
issues that people care about that will make a difference to this 
country. And clearly, any way you interpret what had happened last 
October and here in February, there are not enough votes to pass this 
kind of campaign finance reform.
  So, Mr. President, I just wanted to set the record straight with 
regard to how unusual it is for a majority leader to fill up the tree 
and to make the point that the 48 votes that were cast in favor of the 
motion to table today were the same 48 votes cast against the cloture 
motion back in October. This is a high water mark in the 10 years I 
have handled this debate. And 48 votes is the best we have ever done. 
This measure simply isn't going to pass.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Kentucky, 
let me say the point still stands. I ask the Senator from Kentucky to 
do a little research and tell me whether in all of those instances, 
where he described the so-called filling of the tree, whether someone 
came to the floor of the Senate and tried to fill the legislative tree 
or create a set of chains beyond which the Senate could not work before 
filing a cloture motion and allowing the votes on amendments on an 
issue. I do not think he will find that circumstance existed.

  He pointed out a number of occasions when the legislative approach 
was used. I said it is rarely used. I stand by that. But it is almost 
never used in a circumstance where prior to a cloture vote and prior to 
allowing amendments to be offered and voted, someone comes out here and 
ties the legislative system up with these chains and shackles. That has 
not been the case. And so we ought not to suggest this is some normal 
procedure that has been used on occasion over the years by both sides.
  The point I make is this. This is not a partisan issue. There are 
Republicans that support campaign finance reform and Democrats who 
support campaign finance reform. In fact, there is a majority of the 
Members of this body that support campaign finance reform and if we can 
have a vote up or down on final passage in some reasonable form on 
campaign finance reform, it is going to pass. It is what the American 
people want and it is what this Congress ought to do.
  The Senator from Kentucky appropriately said that there is a 60-vote 
issue in the Senate. And I understand that. That is what the rules 
provide. But it is extraordinary and it is unusual before a vote on 
cloture or vote on amendments with the exception of one for somebody to 
come out and say we are going to tie this whole system up and we are 
going to use a procedure that is always used to block legislation.
  I say, we ought to let the American people have their day on the 
floor of the Senate. And their day is a day in which the Senate 
recognizes that this system needs reforming, this system needs 
changing. And if we debate between Republicans and Democrats and find a 
set of proposals, starting with McCain-Feingold, which I support, 
concluding perhaps with Snowe-Jeffords, which I also will support, and 
perhaps with some additional amendments, we will, I think, find an 
approach for campaign finance reform that, while not perfect, certainly 
does improve campaign finance in this country.
  You cannot, in my judgment, stand here today and say, ``Gee, the 
current system works really well. This is really a good system.'' The 
genesis of this system starts in 1974, with the campaign finance reform 
legislation in 1974. The system has been changed somewhat over the 
years by virtue of court decisions and rule changes, and also by some 
of the smartest legal minds in our country trying to figure out how you 
get campaign money under the door and over the transom and into the 
campaign finance system. The rules have now been mangled and distorted 
so badly that the system just does not work.
  And if you have a system that is not working, it seems to me our 
responsibility is to say: Let's fix it. And, by the way, despite many 
attempts to muddy the waters on this, we are not saying: Let's fix it 
in a way that denies anyone a voice in this system or attempts to shut 
anyone down or any group down.
  The McCain-Feingold bill, in my judgment, is a very reasonable 
approach to addressing the abuses and the problems in the current 
campaign finance system.
  The Snowe-Jeffords proposal, which I will support, is one that falls 
short of what I would like--I would like to expand its reach, and 
prefer the issue advocacy approach in the original McCain-Feingold.
  Senator Snowe is on the floor and prepared to speak to that 
amendment. Will her proposal advance us towards a better system? Yes, 
it will. So let us decide that we can be more than just roadblocks. I 
mean, the easiest thing in the world is to be a roadblock to something. 
I think it was Mark Twain who once said, when he was asked if he would 
be willing to debate an issue, ``Of course, providing I'm on the 
negative side.''
  They said, ``You don't even know the subject.''
  He said, ``It doesn't matter. It doesn't take any time to prepare for 
the negative side.''
  It is always easy to be against something.
  So I hope, as we go along, the majority leader and others will think 
better of a strategy that says we allowed you to bring it to the floor, 
but we are not going to allow a full and free debate and votes on 
amendments. I hope he will think better of that, because there isn't a 
way, in the long run, to shut off our opportunity to thoughtfully 
consider this legislation, and to prevent our ability to offer 
amendments.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 1647

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords, along with a bipartisan group of 
colleagues--Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, Senator Levin, Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Chafee, Senator Collins, Senator Thompson, which I 
believe represents a commonsense middle-ground approach to reforming 
our campaign financing system in America.
  As I think our colleagues know, I have long been a proponent of fair, 
meaningful changes in the way campaigns are financed in this country. 
That is why, when this issue came to the floor last year, I worked with 
Senators McCain, Jeffords, Feingold, Senator Daschle, and others, to 
try to forge a compromise that would address the concerns of both sides 
and move the debate forward. I said then on the Senate floor, and say 
again today, that we should be putting our heads together, not building 
walls between us with intractable rhetoric and all-or-nothing 
propositions.
  While that effort was not successful, I am pleased that we are again 
having the opportunity to address campaign reform, and I thank the 
distinguished majority leader for making this possible. I also want to 
thank the bill's sponsors--Senators McCain and Feingold--for their 
continued leadership and determination on this issue, and their support 
of the efforts that are being done here today with Senator Jeffords and 
myself.
  I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleagues who are 
committing themselves to this compromise amendment and have committed 
themselves to moving campaign finance reform forward: Senators Levin, 
Chafee, Lieberman, Thompson, Collins, Breaux, and Specter have worked 
very hard with us on crafting this amendment. They have made clear 
their support for meaningful reform this year.
  Last year, this body became stuck in the mire of all-or-nothing 
propositions and intransigence. We missed an opportunity to coalesce 
around a middle

[[Page S912]]

ground--any middle ground--and the result was that the status quo 
remained alive and well. Despite the efforts of some of us who tried to 
work to forge a compromise that would have moved the debate forward, 
campaign finance reform died a quiet and ignoble death here in the U.S. 
Senate.
  The reasons are many but the central issue then, as now, centered on 
the objection of Republicans to a package that does not address the 
issue of protecting union members from having their dues used without 
their permission for political purposes with which they may disagree, 
and the objection of Democrats to singling out unions while not 
providing similar protections for corporation shareholders.
  Let me say that I am among those Republicans who have had a concern 
about the use of union dues for political purposes and, in fact, the 
campaign finance reform bill that I introduced last year included 
language similar to the Paycheck Protection Act. I happen to think it 
is not a bad idea, and in a perfect world where I could get my way on 
this and still pass meaningful reform, I would support it.
  But the fact is, I believe we can still have fair and meaningful 
reform at the same time we take a step back from this incredibly 
divisive issue. In fact, it is probably the only way we can have such 
reform. The bottom line is, we will never pass campaign finance 
legislation--at least in the foreseeable future--if we take an all-or-
nothing approach on this facet of reform. And I believe that we can and 
must make significant changes that may not be perfect, that may not 
make everyone happy, but which will be a great improvement over the 
current morass we find ourselves in.

  If we do nothing, we will see a repeat--or likely an even worse 
scenario--of what we saw in 1996, which confirmed all the reasons why 
it is imperative to be strong proponents of campaign finance reform. We 
saw over $223.4 million in soft money raised by the two national 
parties--three times more than in the last Presidential election. We 
saw more than $150 million--we do not know the precise amount because 
it is not disclosed--spent on attack ads paid with unlimited funds by 
third-party groups that made candidates largely incidental to their own 
campaigns.
  We saw an electorate that was, to put it bluntly, disgusted by the 
spectacle. And the 1996 elections were barely over when allegations 
were made of illegal and improper activities, centered around the 
issues of so-called ``soft money'' and foreign influence peddling 
through campaign contributions, all egregious abuses highlighted by the 
Senate Governmental Affairs hearings.
  All of this has only served to further undermine public confidence 
and underscore the importance of enacting meaningful and achievable 
campaign finance reform this year.
  I believe that S. 25 is a good start, and I commend Senators McCain 
and Feingold for their tenacity in getting this bill to the Senate 
floor once again. One of the most important aspects of this scaled-back 
version of the original bill is its ban on soft money. We all know that 
soft money is becoming a major issue, and for good reason. It is money 
that circumvents the intent of the law--unaccounted for money which 
influences Federal campaigns above and beyond the intended limits.
  S. 25 takes a tremendous step forward by putting an end to national 
party soft money, as well as codifying the so-called Beck decision, 
making prudent disclosure reforms, tightening coordinating definitions, 
and working to level the playing field for candidates facing opponents 
with vast personal wealth to spend in their own campaigns.
  Do I think this is a perfect bill? No. Are there other things I would 
like included? Of course. Do I think it can be improved? Certainly. 
That is why I have again teamed up with my colleague from Vermont, 
Senator Jeffords, to work with the sponsors of this legislation, 
Senators McCain and Feingold and others, in a fresh approach developed 
by noted experts and reformers, including Norm Ornstein, Dan Ortiz of 
the University of Virginia School of Law, Josh Rosenkranz at the 
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, as well as others. They developed a 
proposal to address the exploding use of unregulated and undisclosed 
advertising that affects Federal elections and the concerns of many 
that the intent of S. 25 to address this issue would not withstand or 
survive court scrutiny.
  Therefore, the amendment that my colleague from Vermont and I are 
offering will fundamentally change the way in which the underlying bill 
addresses this issue. It strikes section 201 of title II, which 
redefines express advocacy and replaces it with the language that we 
have offered in our amendment that makes a clearly defined distinction 
between issue advocacy and influencing a Federal election. In other 
words, we are making a distinction between candidate advocacy and issue 
advocacy. This is important because, if the courts rule the efforts of 
S. 25 to address this distinction as unconstitutional, then essentially 
all that will remain from S. 25 is a ban on soft money. If that 
happens, we will be left with only one-half of the equation. I share 
the concerns of those who want to see balanced reform and who want to 
improve the system.
  Our amendment applies to advertisements that constitute the most 
blatant form of electioneering. The chart to my left shows what the 
Snowe-Jeffords amendment does. It is a straightforward, two-tier 
approach that only applies to ads run on television or radio--those are 
the only ads that this amendment addresses--near an election, 60 days 
before a general election, 30 days before a primary, that identify a 
Federal candidate, that mentions a Federal candidate in that radio ad 
or that television ad, and only if the group spends more than $10,000 
on such ads in a year. What we require is the sponsors' disclosure and 
also the donors on such ads because we think it is important that 
donors who contribute more than $500 to such ads should be disclosed by 
these organizations.
  The amendment also prohibits direct or indirect use of corporation or 
union money to fund the ads in the 60 days before the general election 
and 30 days before the primary. We call this new category 
``electioneering'' ads--again, making the distinction between issue 
advocacy and candidate advocacy designed to influence the outcome of a 
Federal election.
  They are the only communications that we address in our amendment, 
and we define them very narrowly and very clearly. If the ad is not run 
on television or radio, if the ad is not aired within 30 days of a 
primary and 60 days before a general election, if the ad doesn't 
mention a candidate's name or otherwise identify either he or she 
clearly, if it isn't targeted at the candidate's electorate, or if a 
group hasn't spent more than $10,000 in that year on these ads, then it 
is not an electioneering ad. If an item appears in a news story, 
editorial, commentary, distributed through a broadcast station, it is 
also not an electioneering ad, plain and simple.
  If one does run one of these electioneering ads, two things happen. 
First, the sponsor must disclose the amount spent and the identity of 
the contributors who donated more than $500 to the group since January 
1 of the previous year. Right now, candidates, as we all well know 
since we have been candidates, have to disclose campaign contributions 
over $200. So the threshold and the requirement in this amendment is 
much higher.
  Second, the ad cannot be paid for by funds from a business 
corporation or labor union in the nonvoluntary contributions such as 
union dues or corporate treasury funds.
  Again, I just want to repeat, these are basically the provisions on 
what this amendment would do. We have heard a lot of things about what 
it would do, and I want to make sure that everybody understands. It is 
very simple, very direct, it is very narrow. The clear and narrow 
wording of this amendment is important because it passes two critical 
first amendment doctrines that were at the heart of the Supreme Court's 
landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision--vagueness and overbreadth.
  Vagueness could chill free speech if someone who would otherwise 
speak chooses not to because the rules aren't clear and they fear 
running afoul of the law. We agree that free speech should not be 
chilled, and that is why our rules are clear. Any sponsor will know 
with certainty if their ad is an electioneering ad. That, again, gets 
back to when the ad is run and whether or not it mentions a candidate 
by name.

[[Page S913]]

  Overbreadth can unintentionally sweep in a substantial amount of 
constitutionally protected speech. But our amendment is so narrow that 
it easily satisfies the Supreme Court's overbreadth concerns. We 
strictly limit our requirement to ads near an election that identify a 
candidate or ads that plainly intend to convince voters to vote for or 
against a particular candidate.

  Nothing in the Snowe-Jeffords amendment restricts the right of any 
advocacy group, labor union, or business corporation from engaging in 
issue advocacy or urging grassroots communications. If a group were 
truly interested in only the issues, all they would have to do to avoid 
our requirements is to run an ad talking about the issues and 
encouraging people to call their Senators rather than naming them. 
Indeed, nothing in our amendment prohibits groups like the National 
Right-to-Life Committee, the Sierra Club, and a host of groups that 
exist in America from running electioneering ads, either. We just 
require them to disclose how much they are spending on electioneering 
ads, who contributes more than $500, and we prohibit them from using 
union and corporation money during that 60-day period before the 
general election and 30 days before a primary.
  So we create a very narrow standard. Even if the threshold of 
disclosure is $500, it is not like what it was in the Buckley v. Valeo 
decision where it was $10. That was broad and it was sweeping, drawing 
everybody in, and it raised questions in the Court. That is why they 
struck it down. We are raising a threshold of $500--$300 more than we 
are required in terms of disclosing our donors.
  Both of the basic principles, disclosure and a prohibition on union 
and corporation treasury funds, not only make sense, they are also on 
solid, legal footing. As detailed in a letter recently circulated by 
legal experts Burt Neuborne, professor of law at NYU School of Law; 
Norm Ornstein; Dan Ortiz; and Josh Rosenkranz, executive director of 
the Brennan Center, the Supreme Court has made clear that, for 
constitutional purposes, electioneering is different from other forms 
of speech. Congress is permitted to demand the sponsor of an 
electioneering message to disclose the amount spent on the message and 
the source of funds. Congress may prohibit corporation and labor unions 
from spending money on electioneering. These legal scholars further 
state that in Buckley the court declared that the governmental 
interests that justify disclosure of election-related spending are 
considerably broader and more palatable than those justifying 
prohibitions or restrictions on election-related spending.
  Disclosure rules, the Court said, enhance the information available 
to the voting public. That is why we disclose; that is why we are 
required to disclose; that is why the Congress can require us to 
disclose; and that is why the Supreme Court has upheld it. Disclosure 
rules, according to the Supreme Court, are the least restrictive means 
of curbing the evils of campaign ignorance and of corruption. Our 
disclosure rules are eminently reasonable.
  Second, the Congress has had a long record, which has been upheld, of 
imposing more strenuous spending restrictions on corporations and labor 
unions. Corporations have been banned from electioneering since 1907, 
unions since 1947. As the Supreme Court pointed out in the United 
States v. UAW, Congress banned corporate and union contributions in 
order ``to avoid the deleterious influences on Federal elections 
resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control over 
large aggregations of capital.'' In 1990 the Supreme Court upheld that 
rationale, as well.
  If anything, we have increased first amendment rights for union 
members and shareholders, while we maintain the right of labor and 
corporate management to speak through PACs and raising hard money like 
other political action committees.
  As these legal experts further state, ``The Snowe-Jeffords amendment 
builds on these bedrock principles, extending current regulations 
cautiously and only in the areas in which the first amendment 
protection is at its lowest ebb. It works within the framework of the 
two contexts--disclosure rules and corporate and union spending--'' 
which the Supreme Court allows and says we have the broadest discretion 
when it comes to governmental interest and governmental regulations, as 
well as corporate and union spending because we have had a century of 
rulings by the Supreme Court, not to mention Congress, in this issue, 
``in which the Supreme Court, as well, has been most tolerant of 
campaign finance regulations.''
  Hearing the debate here today, there have already been misconceptions 
out there. I think it is important to make very clear what this 
amendment does not do. I have a chart here to my right that talks about 
what the Snowe-Jeffords amendment would not do. I think it is important 
to restate this because there is a lot of information that has been 
circulated here in the Congress about saying what it would do, from a 
variety of groups, saying they would not be able to disseminate 
electioneering communications.
  That is not true. It would not prohibit groups like the Sierra Club 
or the right-to-life or any other group from disseminating 
electioneering communications. They can send out whatever they want.

  It would not prohibit these groups, again, from accepting corporate 
or labor funds.
  It would not require groups like the Sierra Club or right-to-life to 
create a PAC or other separate entities.
  It would not bar or require disclosure of communications by print 
media, direct mail, voter guides or any other nonbroadcast media 
because, again, it only applies to TV and radio broadcast 60 days 
before the election.
  It would not affect the ability of any organization to urge 
grassroots contacts with lawmakers on upcoming votes. They could say, 
``Call your Senator.'' They could say, ``Call your Senator on the 1-800 
number'' which is a very popular means of advertising today. But if 
they use the Senator's name 60 days before the election, they have to 
disclose their donors who donate more than $500.
  It does not require invasive disclosure of all donors, because some 
have said it will require them to release their donors list. Well, we 
all have to release donors at a certain threshold. We are not requiring 
everybody to release donors lists. We are saying in a very narrow 
period, right before the election, those groups who identify candidates 
in their ads or use a likeness are required to disclose their donors 
who donate more than $500. That is not invasive. It is not intrusive.
  It would not require advance disclosure of full contents of ads. Some 
have said in some of the material circulated here in Congress that 
somehow these groups will be required to disclose in advance the 
contents of their ad. That is not true.
  So, it is important to understand what this amendment does as much as 
in terms of what it does not do. It is a very limiting amendment. That 
is why it will withstand constitutional scrutiny. That is why it is 
important for everybody to understand that. So every group can 
advertise, they can communicate, they can accept money. But in that 
narrow period of time before the general election, if they target a 
candidate by identifying them by name--because if they are doing that, 
it is designed to influence the outcome of the election--that will be 
upheld by the courts.
  We are not saying they can't engage in grassroots activities and 
communications with their lawmakers who come and vote in Congress. They 
can urge their Senator or urge their Congressman to vote for or against 
such and such a bill. It is not affected by this amendment. All we are 
doing is requiring disclosure. Now that is for a very good reason, as 
to why we require disclosure, as we will see in the next chart of how 
much money is being placed in these elections by groups that don't have 
to disclose $1.
  Mr. President, this is a sensitive and reasonable approach to 
addressing a burgeoning segment of electioneering that is making a 
mockery of our campaign finance system. That is why it is important to 
use the 1996 election. It is certainly the one that reflects the most 
significant changes in campaigns. As is indicated by the two charts 
behind me--and I am going to describe this because I think it is 
interesting to show the problem we are facing in elections today, and 
it will only get worse.

[[Page S914]]

 It will only get worse. We haven't seen a declining amount of money in 
each subsequent election. In fact, the opposite is true, as we well 
know.
  According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, it shows that $130 
million to $150 million was spent on issue ads in the 1996 election. 
But that is just a guesstimate because they don't disclose. We don't 
know. It could be far more than that. It could be more than $150 
million. That is the best guess, the best estimate anybody can make. 
Money spent by all candidates, including the President, U.S. Senate and 
U.S. House, was $400 million. So a third of the ad spending was done on 
issue ads. A third of all the money that was spent by candidate 
advertising was spent on issue ads, and they didn't even have to 
disclose a dime.
  Now, something is wrong. Something is wrong with a system where a 
third of all the money was spent on candidate advertising and not one 
dime was disclosed in the last election. Do you think this number is 
going to get worse, or is it going to get better? It is going to get 
worse.
  The chart represents the so-called issue ads in the 1996 elections. 
Again, according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the 
University of Pennsylvania survey--and it is important to look at this 
because when you see so-called issue ads, many of them are designed to 
influence the outcome of an election. It is not talking about 
legislative outcome. And no one wants to affect issue ads in which a 
group has a legitimate right and is entitled to discuss issues and run 
an ad that tells a Senator or a Member of Congress how to vote without 
identifying them. You must disclose it if their name is mentioned, if 
you do it 60 days before the election. Interestingly enough, on these 
so-called issue ads, almost 87 percent referred to an official or a 
candidate; 87 percent of the so-called issue ads referred to an 
official or a candidate. Instead of saying, ``Call your Senator,'' or, 
``Call your Congressman,'' they identified that official or that 
candidate by name. That is the big distinction between issue advocacy 
and candidate advocacy. We do not want to infringe upon the rights of 
those groups who want to conduct grassroots communications through 
their membership or through Members of Congress and their elected 
officials on the issues of true issue advocacy. But now it is becoming 
candidate advocacy, designed to influence the outcome of a Federal 
election.

  Pure attack in 1996 issue ads. According to the Annenberg survey, 41 
percent of those issue ads were ``pure attack''--41 percent; 24 
percent, Presidential ads; debates, 15 percent; free time, 8.9 percent; 
and 36 percent from the news organizations. But 41 percent of the 
attacks came from what were so-called issue ads. That is the problem 
that we are facing in the system today.
  Now, that is why this amendment Senator Jeffords and I are offering 
requires disclosure. We are not even saying they can't do it. We are 
saying that 60 days before the election, if they mention a candidate by 
name, they have to disclose their donors of $500 or more. Now, I know 
there are some in this body who object to disclosure. But can anyone, 
with a straight face, tell me that when ads like these clearly cross 
the line into electioneering--which is a different category--there 
should not even be disclosure? Candidates, as I said earlier, have to 
disclose, and as candidates, I could not believe we would not want more 
disclosure in other areas that affect candidates in elections 
throughout this country.
  So can somebody honestly say that groups that spend millions of 
dollars in ads near elections that mention specific candidates don't 
have to disclose anything? Are we prepared to say that we don't even 
have the right to know who is spending vast sums of money to influence 
Federal elections? It is interesting to me we had $150 million--it 
could be more--spent in the last election cycle and we don't even know 
who donated that money. Yet, 87 percent of those so-called issue ads 
identified the candidate.
  As the letter from the legal scholars that I referenced earlier 
states:

       The Supreme Court has never held that there is only a 
     single constitutionally permissible route a legislature may 
     take when it defines ``electioneering'' to be regulated or 
     reported. Congress has the power to enact a statute that 
     defines electioneering in a more nuanced manner, as long as 
     its definition adequately addresses the vagueness and 
     overbreadth concerns expressed by the Court.

  The letter from these distinguished scholars also says:

       The Supreme Court has made clear that, for constitutional 
     purposes, electioneering is different from other speech (FEC 
     v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life). Congress has the power 
     to enact campaign finance laws that constrain the spending of 
     money on electioneering in a variety of ways . . . (Buckley 
     v. Valeo). Congress is permitted to demand that the sponsor 
     of an electioneering message disclosure the amount spent on 
     the message and the sources of funds. And Congress may 
     prohibit corporations and labor unions from spending money on 
     electioneering. This is black letter constitutional law about 
     which there can be no serious dispute.

  Again, these are their words, and these are constitutional experts. 
These are the words of experts who have made a life of studying these 
issues.
  Mr. President, we have the power and the obligation to put elections 
and specifically electioneering ads--because that is what this 
amendment is all about--back into the hands of voluntary, individual 
contributors. The question before us now is, will we stand foursquare 
behind reform? Will we support this incremental, reasonable, 
constitutional approach that gets at some of the core abuses that we 
have seen in previous elections?
  Maybe the question is better stated this way: How can we not support 
such a reasonable approach? How can we go home and face our 
constituents, our electorate, and explain that we didn't even want to 
vote for a measure that would give them the information they need to be 
informed voters? How can we go home without having voted for a measure 
that addresses at least some aspect of campaign reform that Americans 
view as out of control in a sensible and reasonable way?
  Let's make no mistake about it; we will pay the price. To those who 
hide behind the mistaken notion--the doorkeepers of the status quo--
that people don't really care, I say that you are making a grave 
mistake. Yes, some of you may point to studies such as the January poll 
conducted by the Pew Research Center, which ranked campaign reform 13th 
on a list of 14 major issues. But let's look at the reason. The report 
also said that the public's confidence in Congress to write an 
effective and fair campaign law had declined.
  That is a sad commentary. Many Americans have taken campaign finance 
off of their radar screens simply because they have given up on us. 
Frankly, it is an embarrassment, Mr. President. That this great body 
has not come together on some reasonable, incremental reform to move 
the issue forward is unacceptable. That is why Senator Jeffords and I 
have worked, with a bipartisan group, to change the dynamic in this 
debate, to address what were some legitimate concerns about some of the 
issue advocacy provisions of the McCain-Feingold amendment, on some of 
their restrictions. So this takes a different approach, based on what 
legal and constitutional experts have said would withstand judicial 
scrutiny.

  We have a chance to remedy this abrogation of our responsibility and, 
so far, we have failed to address some of the serious inequities and 
abuses in our campaign finance system. Our amendment would deal 
simultaneously and in a realistic way with broadcast electioneering 
messages at the time they have the most impact--which is right before 
an election, and, as we all know, that is where most of the money is 
spent in the final analysis--and a clear campaign context. It would 
provide the electorate with information as to who is running the ads. 
Isn't that something that everybody is entitled to know when we are 
seeing $150 million and we don't know who spends that money? Not one 
penny. In fact, it is probably much more.
  Our amendment would reinforce the traditional rules, limiting the 
role of unions and corporations in elections. I believe that this 
amendment would move us forward, again, because the courts, as well as 
Congress, have been able to draw a line on imposing restrictions on 
certain groups, and it can do so when it comes to unions and 
corporations because of the preferential benefits that have been 
accorded to them through the U.S. Congress and by statute in law.

[[Page S915]]

  Typical of any compromise, both sides of the aisle have identified 
aspects of the measure they might not like. But I think that always 
means that we are on the right track. It is my hope, Mr. President, 
that this commonsense, incremental approach can be the impetus to 
passing an improved, balanced and fair S. 25. I sincerely believe that 
we can and must take a first step toward restoring public confidence 
and public faith in our campaign finance system. We are the stewards of 
this great democracy that has been handed down from our forefathers--
who would be aghast if they saw the state of campaigning in this 
country today, I might add--and it is our responsibility to see that it 
does not disintegrate under the weight of public cynicism and mistrust.
  As I said last year, it is the duty of leaders to lead and that means 
making some difficult choices and doing the right thing. I had hoped 
that our leaders would have been able to have come together and I had 
urged last fall that we have a bipartisan group to work out a plan, 
through the leaders, to come to the floor. That didn't happen. But many 
of us in the rank and file are working together on a bipartisan basis 
because we think this issue is important. Not to say that all we are 
doing is right and perfect; it is not. But it advances the process 
forward, the issue forward, and it makes substantial improvements on 
those areas which we have identified to be the most problematic in our 
campaign finance system today.
  I hope that we would not entrench ourselves in the rhetoric of 
absolutism. Let us not shun progress in the name of perfection. The 
fact is, improved S. 25 would be a good bill and it would be a good 
start down the road to putting our elections back into the hands of the 
American people. I urge my colleagues to join my colleague Senator 
Jeffords and others in bringing this bill out of the shadows of 
obfuscation and into the light of honest discussion and debate. The 
American people expect as much and they certainly deserve as much.
  Mr. President, I know we will have further discussions on this issue 
tomorrow before we have a vote on the motion to table. But I urge that 
each and every Senator give consideration to this amendment--that has 
been offered by a bipartisan group--that Senator Jeffords and I have 
been working on with others in hopes of moving this debate forward, to 
change the debate discussion and to show there is an earnestness and 
willingness to approach this very serious issue; not to set it aside, 
not to deflect it, not to ignore it, saying it will go away and people 
will not notice. I happen to think that people will notice. They will 
notice.
  They will be quickly reminded when they see the next election, 
because more money will be spent, as we see in this $150 million. This 
number is going to go up and people will be reminded how much they care 
about this issue. But more important, they will be reminded, if we fail 
to take action here, of our unwillingness and our failure to take 
action on this issue.
  I suggest to Members that we are embarking on a high-risk strategy by 
suggesting that somehow we can get away with not addressing this issue. 
I think that is a very high-risk strategy and I think it is dead wrong.
  I hope Members of this Senate will look very carefully at this 
amendment. There is nothing tricky about it. It is pretty 
straightforward, in accordance with the decisions that have been 
rendered by the Court in the past. It is very narrowly drawn, very 
precisely drawn, requiring disclosure. Because that is where the Court 
has granted a greater prerogative to the Congress and to the public's 
right to know, and restrictions only in those areas in which the Court 
and Congress has ruled in the last century, because we have a right to 
draw that line when it comes to unions and corporations.
  So, I hope that each Member of the Senate will have a chance, over 
the next 24 hours, to look at this amendment very carefully and to see 
that it does move in the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The distinguished Senator from Maine asks rhetorically 
who would be opposed to disclosure of group contributions? I would say 
to my friend from Maine, the Supreme Court would be opposed to it. In 
the 1958 case of NAACP v. Alabama, the Court ruled definitively on the 
issue of whether a group could be required to disclose its membership 
or donor list as a precondition for criticism or discussion of public 
issues. So the Supreme Court very much is opposed to requiring groups, 
as a condition of engaging in issue advocacy, constitutionally-
protected speech, that they have to disclose their list.
  Interestingly enough, two groups that certainly have not been aligned 
with this Senator on this issue over the years had something to say 
about that. Public Citizen and the Sierra Club, on the question of 
disclosure of issue advocacy:

       Top officials in Public Citizen and the Sierra Club 
     Foundation, a separate tax-exempt offshoot of the 
     environmental organization, argued that divulging their donor 
     lists would either give an unfair advantage to competitors or 
     unfairly expose identities of their members.
       ``As I am sure you are aware, citizens have a First 
     Amendment right to form organizations to advance their common 
     goals without fear of investigation or harassment.''

  That was Joan Claybrook, with whom I have dueled on this issue for a 
decade, in response to questions about whether or not Public Citizen 
would be willing to disclose their donor list. Claybrook goes on:

       We respect our members' right to freely and privately 
     associate with others who share their beliefs, and we do not 
     reveal their identities. We will not violate their trust 
     simply to satisfy the curiosity of Congress or the press.
       Bruce Hamilton, national conservation director for the 
     Sierra Club Foundation, said [of] donors to the separate 
     Sierra Club's political action committee . . .

  Of course they are required to disclose, because they engage in 
express advocacy. That is part of hard money, part of the Federal 
campaign system. What Senator Snowe's amendment is about is issue 
advocacy, which is an entirely different subject under Supreme Court 
interpretations; an entirely different subject.
  Now, the Sierra Club said with regard to compelling them to disclose 
their membership as a precondition for engaging in issue advocacy--
Hamilton said:

       That is basically saying, ``Turn around and give us your 
     membership . . . . We want public disclosure of the 650,000 
     members of the Sierra Club, which is a valuable resource, 
     coveted by others, because they can turn around and make 
     their own list.''

  The last thing he had to say I find particularly interesting, and 
knowing the occupant of the Chair is from out West, he might appreciate 
this. He said:

       It can also be turned around and used against them. We have 
     members in small towns in Wyoming and Alaska (who could by 
     hurt) if word got out that they belong to the Sierra Club.

  So I say to my friend from Maine, this is not in a gray area. The 
Supreme Court has opined on the question of the Government requiring a 
donor list of groups as a precondition for expressing themselves at any 
time--close to an election or any other time.
  My good friend from Maine also cited a 1990 case, commonly referred 
to as the Austin case, in support of the notion that, somehow, the 
Court would sanction this new category of electioneering. The Austin 
case, I am sure my good friend from Maine knows, had to do with express 
advocacy, not issue advocacy. In the Austin case, they banned express 
advocacy by corporate treasurers. That of course has been the law since 
1907. That is not anything new. You can't use corporate treasury money 
to engage in express advocacy of a candidate.
  But the definitive case on the issue the Senator from Maine is really 
talking about, because her amendment deals with issue advocacy, is 
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978, where the Court held 
that corporations could fund out of their treasuries--out of their 
treasuries, issue advocacy.
  So, with all due respect to my good friend from Maine, the courts 
have already ruled on the kind of issues that she is discussing here. 
No. 1, you can't compel the production of membership lists as a 
condition to criticize all of us. And, No. 2, issue advocacy cannot be 
redefined by Congress. The courts have defined what issue advocacy is.
  Now, with regard to the opinion of various scholars, let me just say 
America's expert on the first amendment is

[[Page S916]]

the American Civil Liberties Union, and they wrote me just yesterday, 
giving their view on the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. Let me read a 
pertinent part.

       We are writing today, however, to set forth our views on an 
     amendment to that bill dealing with controls on issue 
     advocacy which is being sponsored by Senators Snowe and 
     Jeffords. Although that proposal has been characterized as a 
     compromise measure which would replace certain of the more 
     egregious features of the comparable provisions of McCain-
     Feingold, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment still embodies the 
     kind of unprecedented restraint on issue advocacy that 
     violates bedrock First Amendment principles.
       Those time-honored principles were set forth with great 
     clarity in Buckley v. Valeo.

  Which we frequently refer to. The ACLU goes on:

       First, ``issue advocacy'' is at the core of democracy. In 
     rejecting the claim that issue-oriented speech about 
     incumbent politicians had to be regulated because it might 
     influence public opinion and affect the outcome of elections, 
     the Supreme Court reminded us of the critical relationship 
     between unfettered issue advocacy and healthy democracy. 
     ``Discussion of public issues and debate on the 
     qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of 
     the system of government established by our Constitution.''

  Further, the ACLU said:

       . . . in an election season, citizens and groups cannot 
     effectively discuss issues if they are barred from discussing 
     candidates who take stands on those issues. ``For the 
     distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and 
     advocacy of election or defeat of candidates may often 
     dissolve in practical application. Candidates, especially 
     incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues involving 
     legislative proposals and governmental actions. Not only do 
     candidates campaign on the basis of their positions on 
     various public issues, but campaigns themselves generate 
     issues of public interest.'' 424 U.S. at 43. If any reference 
     to a candidate in the context of advocacy on an issue 
     rendered the speaker or the speech subject to campaign 
     finance controls, the consequences for First Amendment rights 
     would be intolerable.
       Third [the ACLU says] to guard against that, the Court 
     fashioned the critical express advocacy doctrine.

  The Court fashioned it. They didn't say, Congress, you can make up 
something called electioneering. This is not our prerogative. The Court 
fashioned the critical express advocacy doctrine, which holds that:

       Only express advocacy of electoral outcomes may be subject 
     to any form of restraint. Thus, only ``communications that in 
     express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly 
     identified candidate'' can be subject to any campaign finance 
     controls.

  Express advocacy: Within the Federal Election Campaign Act. Issue 
advocacy: Outside the Federal Election Campaign Act. That just didn't 
happen last year. This has been the law since Buckley. Issue advocacy 
has been around since the beginning of the country.

       Finally, and most importantly, all speech which does not in 
     express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly 
     identified candidate is totally immune from any regulation;

  The ACLU continued:

       The Court fashioned the express advocacy doctrine to 
     safeguard issue advocacy from campaign finance controls, even 
     though such advocacy might influence the outcome of an 
     election. The doctrine provides a bright-line, objective test 
     that protects political speech and association by focusing 
     solely on the content of the speaker's words, not the motive 
     in the speaker's mind or the impact on the speaker's 
     audience, or the proximity to an election.
       Nor does it matter whether the issue advocacy is 
     communicated on radio or television, in newspapers or 
     magazines, through direct mail or printed pamphlets. What 
     counts for constitutional purposes is not the medium, but the 
     message.

  My understanding of the Snowe-Jeffords amendment is that these 
restrictions only apply to television and radio. But there is no 
constitutional basis for sort of segmenting out television and radio 
and saying those kinds of expenditures require the triggering of 
disclosure, but it's OK to go on and engage in direct mail or 
presumably telephones or anything other than the broadcast medium. That 
is in a somehow different category.
  By the same token, it is constitutionally irrelevant whether the 
message costs $100 or $1,000 or $100,000. It is content, not amount, 
that marks the constitutional boundary for allowable regulation and 
frees issue advocacy from any impermissible restraint. The control of 
issue advocacy is simply beyond the pale of legislative authority.
  So the Snowe-Jeffords amendment violates these cardinal principles. 
First, the amendment's new category, which we have not heard before, of 
electioneering communication is simply old wine in old bottles with a 
new label. The provision would reach, regulate and control any person, 
group or organization which spent more than $10,000 in an entire 
calendar year for any electioneering communications.
  The ACLU says that critical term is defined solely as any broadcast 
communication which refers to any Federal candidate at any time within 
60 days before a general or 30 days before a primary election and is 
primarily intended to be broadcast to the electorate for that election, 
whatever that means.
  The unprecedented provision is an impermissible effort to regulate 
issue speech which contains not a whisper of express advocacy simply 
because it refers to a Federal candidate who is more often than not a 
congressional incumbent during an election season.
  The ACLU says the first amendment disables Congress from enacting 
such a measure regardless of whether the provision includes a monetary 
threshold, covers only broadcast media, applies only to speech during 
an election season and employs prohibition or disclosure as its primary 
regulatory device. It would still cast a pall over grassroots lobbying 
and advocacy communication by nonpartisan, issue-oriented groups like 
the ACLU, for example.
  It would do so by imposing burdensome, destructive and unprecedented 
disclosure and organizational requirements and barring use of any 
organizational funding for such communications if any corporations or 
unions made any donations to the organization.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the entire letter.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                             ACLU,


                                   Washington National Office,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1998.
       Dear Senator: We have shared with you our grave concerns 
     about the different versions of the McCain-Feingold campaign 
     finance bill that have been before the Senate. (See ``Dear 
     Senator'' letter dated February 19, 1998 and enclosure.) For 
     the reasons we have stated previously, the most recent 
     ``pared down'' reincarnation of that bill remains 
     fundamentally flawed, and we continue fully to oppose it.
       We are writing today, however, to set forth our views on an 
     amendment to that bill dealing with controls on issue 
     advocacy which is being sponsored by Senators Snowe and 
     Jeffords. Although that proposal has been characterized as a 
     compromise measure which would replace certain of the more 
     egregious features of the comparable provisions of McCain-
     Feingold, the Snow-Jeffords amendment still embodies the kind 
     of unprecedented restraint on issue advocacy that violates 
     bedrock First Amendment principles.
       Those time-honored principles were set forth with great 
     clarity in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and reaffirmed 
     by numerous Supreme Court and lower court rulings ever since.
       First, ``issue advocacy'' is at the core of democracy. In 
     rejecting the claim that issue-oriented speech about 
     incumbent politicians had to be regulated because it might 
     influence public opinion and affect the outcome of elections, 
     the Supreme Court reminded us of the critical relationship 
     between unfettered issue advocacy and healthy democracy. 
     ``Discussion of public issues and debate on the 
     qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of 
     the system of government established by our Constitution.'' 
     424 U.S. at 14.
       Second, in an election season, citizens and groups cannot 
     effectively discuss issues if they are barred from discussing 
     candidates who take stands on those issues. ``For the 
     distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and 
     advocacy of election or defeat of candidates may often 
     dissolve in practical application. Candidates, especially 
     incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues involving 
     legislative proposals and governmental actions. Not only do 
     candidates campaign on the basis of their positions on 
     various public issues, but campaigns themselves generate 
     issues of public interest.'' 424 U.S. at 43. If any reference 
     to a candidate in the context of advocacy on an issue 
     rendered the speaker or the speech subject to campaign 
     finance controls, the consequences for First Amendment rights 
     would be intolerable.
       Third, to guard against that, the Court fashioned the 
     critical express advocacy doctrine, which holds that only 
     express advocacy of electoral outcomes may be subject to any 
     form of restraint. Thus, only ``communications that in 
     express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly 
     identified candidate'' can be subject to any campaign finance 
     controls.
       Finally, and most importantly, all speech which does not in 
     express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly 
     identified candidate is totally immune from any regulations; 
     ``So long as persons and groups eschew

[[Page S917]]

     expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or 
     defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to 
     spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his 
     views.'' 424 U.S. at 45.
       The Court fashioned the express advocacy doctrine to 
     safeguard issue advocacy from campaign finance controls, even 
     though such advocacy might influence the outcome of an 
     election. The doctrine provides a bright-line, objective test 
     that protects political speech and association by focusing 
     solely on the content of the speaker's words, not the motive 
     in the speaker's mind or the impact on the speaker's 
     audience, or the proximity to an election.
       Nor does it matter whether the issue advocacy is 
     communicated on radio or television, in newspapers or 
     magazines, through direct mail or printed pamphlets. What 
     counts for constitutional purposes is not the medium, but the 
     message. By the same token, it is constitutionally irrelevant 
     whether the message costs $100 or $1,000 or $100,000. It is 
     content, not amount, that marks the constitutional boundary 
     of allowable regulation and frees issue advocacy from any 
     impermissible restraint. The control of issue advocacy is 
     simply beyond the pale of legislative authority.
       The Snowe-Jeffords amendment violates these cardinal 
     principles.
       First, the amendment's new category of ``electioneering 
     communication'' is simply old wine in old bottles with a new 
     label. The provision would reach, regulate and control any 
     person, group or organization which spent more than $10,000, 
     in an entire calendar year, for any ``electioneering 
     communications.'' That critical term is defined solely as 
     any broadcast communication which ``refers to'' any 
     federal candidate, at any time within 60 days before a 
     general or 30 days before a primary election, and ``is 
     primarily intended to be broadcast to the electorate'' for 
     that election, whatever that may mean.
       This unprecedented provision is an impermissible effort to 
     regulate issue speech which contains not a whisper of express 
     advocacy, simply because it ``refers to'' a federal 
     candidate--who is more often than not a Congressional 
     incumbent--during an election season. The First Amendment 
     disables Congress from enacting such a measure regardless of 
     whether the provision includes a monetary threshold, covers 
     only broadcast media, applies only to speech during an 
     election season and employs prohibition or disclosure as its 
     primary regulatory device. It would still cast a pall over 
     grass-roots lobbying and advocacy communication by non-
     partisan issue-oriented groups like the ACLU. It would do so 
     by imposing burdensome, destructive and unprecedented 
     disclosure and organizational requirements, and barring use 
     of any organizational funding for such communications if any 
     corporations or unions made any donations to the 
     organization. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment would force such 
     groups to choose between abandoning their issue advocacy or 
     dramatically changing their organizational structure and 
     sacrificing their speech and associational rights.
       Beyond this new feature, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment 
     simply leaves in place many of the objectionable features of 
     McCain-Feingold that we have criticized previously. One is 
     the unprecedented generic expansion of the definition of 
     ``express advocacy'' applicable to all forms of political 
     communication going forward in all media and occurring all 
     year long. Another are the intrusive new ``coordination'' 
     rules which will be so destructive of the ability of issue 
     organizations to communicate with elected officials on such 
     issues and later communicate to the public in any manner on 
     such issues. And the radically expanded activities 
     encompassed within the new category of ``electioneering 
     communications'' would be subject to those radically expanded 
     coordination restrictions as well. The net result will be to 
     make it virtually impossible for any issue organization to 
     communicate, directly or indirectly, with any politician on 
     any issue and then communicate on that same issue to the 
     public.
       All of this will have an exceptionally chilling effect on 
     organized issue advocacy in America by the hundreds and 
     thousands of groups that enormously enrich political debate. 
     The bill flies in the face of well-settled Supreme Court 
     doctrine which is designed to keep campaign finance 
     regulations from ensnaring and overwhelming all political and 
     public speech. And the bill will chill issue discussion of 
     the actions of incumbent officeholders standing for re-
     election at the very time when it is most vital in a 
     democracy: during an election season. It may be inconvenient 
     for incumbent politicians when groups of citizens spend money 
     to inform the voters about a politician's public stands on 
     controversial issues, like abortion, but it is the essence of 
     free speech and democracy.
       In conclusion, the ACLU remains thoroughly opposed to 
     McCain-Feingold. The ACLU continues to believe that the most 
     effective and least constitutionally problematic route to 
     genuine reform is a system of equitable and adequate public 
     financing. While reasonable people may disagree about the 
     proper approaches to campaign finance reform, McCain-
     Feingold's restraints on issue advocacy raise profound 
     constitutional problems, and nothing in the Snowe-Jeffords 
     amendment cures those fatal First Amendment flaws.
           Sincerely,
     Laura W. Murphy,
       Director, ACLU Washington Office.
     Joel Gora,
       Dean & Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School and Counsel to 
     the ACLU.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we will discuss this issue further 
tomorrow. Let me sum it up by saying the courts are clear. The 
definition of express advocacy has been written into the laws of this 
country through court decisions. It is clear what issue advocacy is. It 
is clear that under previous Supreme Court decisions that you cannot 
compel a group to disclose its donors or membership lists as a 
condition for expressing themselves on issues in proximity to an 
election or any other time for that matter.
  Mr. President, I will be happy to discuss these issues further 
tomorrow. With that, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I understand what my good friend from 
Kentucky is saying, but I remind everyone what the real issue is, and 
that is elections. We are talking about a system which has developed 
over the past couple of years which has seriously imposed upon us 
unfairness as far as candidates are concerned who find themselves faced 
with ads, and other areas of expression, to change the election. Why 
would they spend $135 million to $200 million unless it was successful?
  Let us get a real-life situation of what we are talking about. I have 
been in the election process for many, many years, and I know from my 
own analysis--and I think it probably is carried forward everywhere--
that the critical time in an election to make a change in people's 
minds is the last couple of weeks.
  Basically, I find that probably of the electorate, only about 50 
percent care enough about elections to even go. That is the average 
across the country. Of that 50 percent, probably half of them will make 
up their minds during the last 2 weeks.
  So you are out and have a well-planned campaign and everything is 
coming down to the end. You can go and find out what your opponent has 
to spend, and you can try to be ready to match that. And then whammo, 
out of the blue comes all these ads that are supposedly issue ads, but 
they are obviously pointed at positions that are taken by you saying 
how horrible they are. So these are within the Snowe-Jeffords 
amendment.
  What can you do about it? You cannot do anything. You cannot even 
find out who is running them, unless you are lucky and have an inside 
source in the TV and radio stations to tell you who it is. You cannot 
find out. There is no disclosure.
  The most important part of our amendment is just plain disclosure. If 
it is far enough in advance, 30 days before a primary and 60 days 
before a general election, at least you have time to get ready for it. 
If you know you are going to get all these ads coming, then you can 
reorder your priorities of spending. You can say, ``Oh, my God, we have 
all this coming,'' and you never know until it is all over. You are 
gone. You lose the election and you didn't know. The opposition comes 
forth with this barrage and you are totally helpless.
  What we do is not anywhere near what we would like to do in the sense 
of protection against this kind of thing, because I am sure they will 
find ways to get around it and feel they do not have to disclose. But 
it is so simple.
  What is wrong with disclosure? What is wrong, if somebody is going to 
spend a couple of million bucks in the election against you, with at 
least knowing what is coming and who it is coming from? That is all we 
are asking for. We don't say you can't do it. Another thing we do, as 
explained very well by Senator Snowe, is deal in a constitutional way 
with the money coming from the treasuries of corporations or money 
coming from the treasuries of unions by restricting that even more so 
they cannot even intervene within that last 30 to 60 days. But there 
are other ways, through PACs and other ways the money can be brought 
into the

[[Page S918]]

election process, but it would be disclosed to the FEC and you have the 
ability to understand what you are going to be facing.
  I cannot understand why anybody would be against this amendment. It 
makes such common sense. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't create 
anything except it requires people to disclose their intentions and 
also prohibits the use of the treasuries of the corporations and 
unions. There is nothing very dramatic about that as a change in the 
law. I really take serious issue with my good friend, the Senator from 
Kentucky, on the questions he raised.

  Are these ads effective? Yes, I have talked with consultants, and I 
know one consultant who ran a lot of these ads. Obviously, what they 
were trying to do was win an election for their person who they were 
trying to help. No evidence of connection, but the people who wanted 
the ads sent the money for this purpose to defeat a candidate, and they 
felt those ads turned around at least five elections that would not 
have been turned around if it were not for use of these funds with no 
way for the poor candidate who is facing it to understand who it is, 
how much money is going to be spent and where it goes.
  I want to give real-world situations we are involved with. What is so 
unfair about being fair and getting full disclosure?
  I commend my good friend from Maine with whom I have worked very 
closely. I must say, this amendment is weaker than I would like to see, 
but I think we have done all we can do under the Constitution. I 
commend her for the presentation she has given and for her effort to 
raise the visibility to the Nation of the serious problems we have with 
these so-called advocacy or issue ads.
  It has been my pleasure to work with her on this important endeavor, 
and today the Senate has the opportunity to enact real campaign finance 
reform.
  The amendment we offer succeeds where others have failed in bringing 
the two sides closer to a workable solution. Combined with the 
underlying McCain-Feingold legislation, this amendment will ensure that 
all parties are treated equally in the reformed campaign finance 
structure.
  As my record has shown, I have long been a supporter of campaign 
finance reform. I have sponsored a number of initiatives in the past 
and have worked actively to enact campaign finance reform. I have been 
reluctant to cosponsor the McCain-Feingold bill this time around 
because of my concerns in two areas which I have just been discussing. 
First, issue ads that have turned into blatant electioneering with no 
meaningful disclosure of the source of the attack; second, the 
unfettered spending by unions and corporations to influence the outcome 
of an election, especially close to elections, without the ability to 
identify the source.
  Disclosure--how in the world can you be against disclosure?
  The amendment Senator Snowe and I are proposing strengthens the 
McCain-Feingold bill in a fair manner. Maybe too fair. That is the only 
criticism I can find of it.
  Mr. President, the work that Senator Snowe and I, as well as many 
other Senators, have done to develop an acceptable compromise is 
squarely within the goals of those calling for full campaign finance 
reform. We have been brought to this point by the disillusionment of 
the electorate. People across this Nation have grown wary of the tenor 
of campaigns in recent years. This disappointment is reflected in low 
voter participation and the diminished role of individuals in electing 
their representatives.
  Our efforts to reform the financing of campaigns should begin to 
reinvigorate people to further participate in our democracy. I am 
ashamed at the voter turnouts across the Nation. I am a little bit less 
ashamed of Vermont which has one of the highest, but we all should be 
working to get fuller participation, closer to 60, 70, 80, 90 percent.
  The 1996 election cycle reinforces the desperate situation we face. 
During this campaign, more than $135 million was spent by outside 
groups not associated with the candidates' campaigns. These 
expenditures indicated to the public that our election laws were not 
being enforced and the system was out of control. Additionally, recent 
hearings in both the Senate and the House point to the need for serious 
reform.
  Senator Snowe has clearly outlined the content of our amendment. Our 
proposal boosts disclosure requirements and tightens expenditures of 
certain funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election. 
The amendment provides disclosure of the funding sources for 
electioneering communications broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 
60 days of a general election.

  The measure prohibits labor union or corporation treasury funds from 
being used for these electioneering broadcast ads 30 days before a 
primary or 60 days before a general election. These two main provisions 
should strengthen the efforts put forward by the proponents of reform.
  Of equal importance is what this amendment will not do, and that was 
gone into in very great detail. In fact, we have so many things we will 
not do that it sometimes concerns me if we have done enough. The 
amendment will not restrict printed material nor require the text or a 
copy of a campaign advertisement to be disclosed.
  The amendment does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, 
nor restrict how much money a group raises. In fact, our amendment 
clearly protects the constitutional prerogatives while promoting reform 
in a system badly in need of change. We have taken great care not to 
violate the important principles of free speech.
  In developing the amendment, we have reviewed the seminal cases in 
this area, particularly the Buckley case. The Supreme Court has been 
most tolerant in the area of limiting corporate and union spending and 
enhancing disclosure rules. We also worked to make the requirements 
sufficiently clear and narrow to overcome unconstitutional claims of 
vagueness and overbreadth.
  I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that ``Sunlight 
is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is what we are looking 
for here, just a little sunlight on some of the very, very devious 
types of procedures that are utilized to influence elections.
  Discloser of electioneering campaign spending will provide the 
electorate with information to aid voters in evaluating candidates for 
Federal office. As we have seen in the last few campaign cycles, ads 
appear on local stations paid for by groups unknown to the public. 
These ads reference an identified candidate with the result of 
influencing the voters. Giving the electorate the information required 
in our amendment will give the public the facts they need to better 
evaluate the candidates but, more importantly, evaluate what 
information they are receiving and whether it is biased or where it 
came from, to be able to at least check where it came from and make 
sure it did not come from Indonesia or China or some other place.
  Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant, as Justice Brandeis 
puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and help avoid the 
appearance of corruption that many feel pervades our campaign finance 
system.
  Delivering this information into the public purview will enable 
candidates, the press, the FEC and interest groups to ensure that 
Federal campaign finance laws are being obeyed. Our amendment will 
expose any corruption and help reassure the public that our campaign 
laws will be followed and enforced.
  The amendment will also prohibit corporations and unions from using 
general treasury funds to pay for electioneering communications in a 
defined period close to an election.
  By treating both corporations and unions similarly, we extend current 
regulation cautiously and fairly. This prohibition, coupled with the 
disclosure requirements, will address many of the concerns my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle have raised on campaign finance 
reform proposals. This provision will help satisfy our goal of creating 
a fair and equitable campaign finance system.
  The amendment I am asking my colleagues to support will, hopefully, 
provide the additional momentum to bring this issue to closure. 
Although I am optimistic, I am not blind to the uphill battle we face 
in enacting appropriate change. I am encouraged by the fair and 
informative and productive debate we have had on campaign reform today. 
The proposal Senator Snowe and I are offering, built upon the McCain-
Feingold legislation, should become law.

[[Page S919]]

  I cannot conceive of how any legitimate objection can be made to the 
Snowe-Jeffords amendment. It is a step forward to making sure that 
elections are fair, that the public knows who it is trying to influence 
the elections, and that they have the right to find out that 
information.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few comments about 
at least one amendment that has been offered here this afternoon.
  As we work our way through the debate on campaign finance reform and 
you listen to Senators express themselves in the legal areas, the more 
one thinks that maybe we have got enough laws in place, maybe it is a 
matter of enforcing them.
  I remind Senators that it was in 1996 when one major party failed to 
file their FEC report on the date it was supposed to be filed. In fact, 
it never was filed until after the election was over.
  So I would argue that law enforcement probably has as much to do with 
the problems we see in political campaigns more than anything else. All 
through this process, we try to pass legislation that would maybe bring 
political campaigns into the light of public scrutiny. We would try to 
cap contributions, how much an individual or an organization can 
contribute to a particular campaign. We would try to cap spending. We 
would try to establish and make permanent filing dates.

  Yet all of them would be to no purpose if we do not enforce them. In 
fact, we have gone into some approach of asking for free advertising 
from radio and television based on a faulty assumption, an assumption, 
if we do something, get something for nothing, we can limit the 
expenses, thus making it easier for everybody to run for political 
office.
  I would ask those who would advocate such a regulation to offer free 
television and free radio time, I would ask them, the newspapers and 
publications, will they be made to offer free space? Will printers lay 
out people, graphic artists? Will they donate their labor for direct 
mail and fliers and stickers and, yes, those things that we mail direct 
to our constituency?
  While we are talking about that, would we also write into the same 
regulation that they may be sent postage free? Should the laborers of 
the post office, or whoever, be made to do it for nothing? And my 
answer to that is, of course not.
  Radio and television is a unique medium. Some would say it operates 
on the public airwaves. How public are they? If a radio station or a 
television station owns a chunk of frequency, do they not own it? They 
are only given so many hours in a day--like 24--that they can sell 
time. Once that time has passed, it cannot be recovered or made up 
later on. Are we asking them to give away their inventory? Are we 
asking them to pay their production people to dub and to produce? Why 
are not their expenses the same as any other segment of the American 
media?
  The amendment is nothing more than that the FCC should not advocate 
or use funds to regulate radio and television stations for free time or 
free access. It just does not make a lot of sense, especially when 
broadcasters lead this country in public service, in news and weather 
and services to a community. Yes, they get paid for the advertising for 
some of those programs, but basically they are there 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week, 52 weeks a year.
  Of course, they are being asked to do something for nothing. So I 
hope in any kind of reform that passes this body, that this amendment 
to prevent the FCC from requiring radio and television stations to give 
free advertising space would be a part of that reform.
  But bottom line--and I am not a lawyer; never been hinged with that 
handle--as I listen to the argument, it boils down to, bottom line, the 
integrity of the folks that are supporting an issue or an individual 
for political office. It all comes down to that. For if lawyers write 
this law, it will be lawyers that will figure a way around it. It is a 
matter merely of enforcing the law.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the 
pending bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provision of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1663, the 
     Paycheck Protection Act.
         Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, Wayne Allard, Paul 
           Coverdell, Robert F. Bennett, Larry E. Craig, Rick 
           Santorum, Michael B. Enzi, Jeff Sessions, Slade Gorton, 
           Chuck Hagel, Don Nickles, Gordon H. Smith, Jesse Helms, 
           Conrad Burns, and Lauch Faircloth.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this 
cloture vote will be the last of three consecutive cloture votes 
occurring Thursday morning, assuming none of the previous cloture votes 
is successful. The leadership will notify all Senators as to the time 
for these votes, once the leader has consulted with the minority 
leader. However, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived with respect to all three 
cloture motions filed today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________