[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 16 (Thursday, February 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1046-S1052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about some of the 
events on the floor here over the last couple of days. I think perhaps 
sometimes we need a different yardstick by which to judge some of these 
votes.
  We have now in effect, I guess, unless this campaign finance 
legislation is hooked onto some other legislation as we go ahead with 
our legislative activities of this year, that it is probably dead for 
this year. I hate to say that. I want to give a speech on some of the 
outcome of our campaign finance reform hearings that have been taking 
place in the Governmental Affairs Committee most of last year. I was 
unable to get over and give this at the appropriate time before the 
votes that we have had but still want to talk about this a little bit.
  I think sometimes on controversial votes, which these are, that there 
is a different basis that we should be looking at instead of just the 
party line, just party loyalty and voting down the line with those 
party leaders who have a particular view. Those views, too often, 
affect just the political interests of the amendment. How much money 
are we going to be able to get for this next election? That is the 
basis on which votes seem to occur. That is a very short-term view of 
things.
  Now, on some of these controversial votes I think there is another 
way to decide. It is what I call the ``grandchild test''--the 
``grandchild test.''
  What you should do on some of these votes, I think, is think of what 
you would like the ideal political system to be when your grandchildren 
have grown up and long after most of us will have left the Senate of 
the United States. What kind of law do you want to see in place that 
deals with them fairly? What kind of law do you want to see in place 
that makes them feel that their voice is heard in Government as much as 
those who can contribute millions or at least hundreds of thousands of 
dollars worth, to get their voices heard? This may be after Democrats 
have reclaimed the Senate and the House and there is a Republican 
President. Who knows what the future situation may be.
  But a ``grandchild test'' puts it on a little different basis, it 
seems to me. Do we want a system that is dominated by interests that 
may not favor your heirs, your children, your grandchildren? Do we want 
them to have to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to have 
their voice heard, to be treated fairly?
  So the votes we have had over the past few days involve a matter of 
fairness, plain old fairness. In other words, fairness for all in our 
political system into the future. That is what the vote on McCain-
Feingold was all about. Unfortunately, we cannot muster enough votes to 
overcome cloture. Although we had a majority of the U.S. Senate, the 
majority did not prevail because of the cloture that we would have been 
required to get to break a filibuster.
  Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the legislation 
today, the legislation we passed, because over the past year I have had 
the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the committee on 
Governmental Affairs' investigation into campaign finance. In the 
course of the investigation I have come to understand that

[[Page S1047]]

the existing campaign finance system is in shreds.
  Campaign finance reform is no longer something that I feel should be 
delayed, as we have delayed it by the votes of the last couple of days. 
I think it is absolutely crucial that at the earliest time we pass 
legislation addressing the worst abuses, if we can hope to maintain the 
integrity of our electoral process and the confidence of the American 
public. Over the course of my Senate career, I watched as public 
cynicism about Government has increased and trust in Government has 
declined. In 1996 for the first time, less than half the people in this 
country eligible to vote cast a ballot.
  To those who argue that the public doesn't care about campaign 
finance, it is clear from national polls that the public does care. 
Polls show that while over 70 percent of Americans want campaign 
finance reform, only 30 percent have believed it will happen. Three out 
of four people interviewed do not trust us in Washington to do what is 
right. That is three-quarters of the American people do not trust us to 
do what is right. What an indictment of our activities here in the 
Congress.
  I can't think of a better way to halt that kind of cynicism than by 
doing the unexpected and passing campaign finance reform and by fixing 
the system that breeds the cynicism and undermines public confidence. 
Poll after poll has shown the biggest single factor in lack of public 
trust in Government is the campaign finance system. I want to express 
my appreciate to Senators McCain and Feingold for their leadership on 
this issue. Their bipartisan cooperation has pointed us in the right 
direction. I hope we can follow their example and pass this 
legislation, hopefully even later this year. I hope they will take the 
opportunity on later legislation to attach this legislation on to it as 
an amendment and we will have some more votes on this, perhaps with a 
different outcome.
  We have a unique opportunity if we pass campaign finance legislation 
to restore faith in our American system and renew our commitment to the 
concept of Government for all of the people, all of the time--not a 
system where access to elected leaders is meted out according to 
campaign dollars received. That is exactly what we have now.
  The legislation that we have had before us over the past few days 
takes key steps to correct the two worst problems, the proliferation of 
huge amounts of soft money and the explosion of calculated issue 
advertising which exists outside the reach of existing laws simply 
because it avoids a key term such as ``vote for'' or ``defeat.'' But 
the proliferation of issue advocacy candidates are becoming footnotes 
in their own campaigns struggling to conduct substantive debates on 
issues of local importance against the din of millions of dollars of 
issue advertising by national interest groups.

  One has only to look to the campaign to replace recently deceased 
House Member Walter Capps taking place in Santa Barbara, CA, to 
understand the significance of this problem. Just last weekend, the 
Washington Post carried an article about this campaign which noted that 
while the candidates tried to focus on education and fiscal issues, 
hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by national groups airing 
ads on term limits and abortion, issues which both candidates agree are 
high among voter concerns in the district but which have drowned out 
the candidates' own attempts to focus on issues of concern in their 
district.
  Almost every abuse examined in the course of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee investigation has its roots in the proliferation of soft 
money and of calculated political issue ads. For that reason, I want to 
say something about the recent Governmental Affairs Committee 
investigation from the minority's perspective and how it reflects on 
the committee's debate.
  The founders of this country envisioned that American political 
discourse would be based on the power of ideas, not money, and that our 
elected representatives would be chosen by the principles for which 
they stand, not the amount of money they raise.
  Unfortunately, elected officials in the United States have become so 
dependent on political contributions from wealthy donors that the 
democratic principles underlying our Government are at risk. We face 
the danger of becoming a Government of the rich, by the rich, and for 
the rich. We face the danger because candidates for Congress and the 
Presidency spent over $1 billion on their 1996 election activities, 
according to an estimate by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. In 
order to raise that enormous quantity of money, some candidates and 
party officials push the campaign finance to the breaking point and 
some pushed it beyond. The abuses that occurred during the 1996 
election exposed the dark side of our political system and underscored 
the critical need for campaign finance reform, as well as the need to 
enhance the ability of the Federal Election Commission to enforce 
campaign finance laws, which I will speak about later.
  On March 11, 1997, the Senate voted unanimously to authorize the 
Governmental Affairs Committee to conduct an investigation of illegal 
and improper activities in connection with the 1996 Federal election 
campaigns. The Senate asked the committee to conduct a bipartisan 
investigation, one that would explore allegations of improper campaign 
finance activities ``by all, Republicans, Democrats, or other political 
partisans.''
  Now this was a noble goal and there were widespread hopes that the 
committee would conduct a serious, bipartisan investigation, one that 
would investigate allegations of abuses by candidates and others 
aligned with both major political parties. In the end, however, the 
committee's investigation provided insight into the failings of the 
campaign finance system, but it certainly did not live up to its 
potential.
  Now the minority regrets the failure of the committee to expose the 
ways in which both political parties have pushed and exceeded the 
limits of our campaign finance system. Both parties have openly offered 
access in exchange for contributions. Both parties have been lax in 
accepting illegal or improper contributions. Both parties have become 
slaves to the raising and spending of soft money.
  Now, the committee examined a host of 1996 election-related 
activities alleged to have been improper or illegal.
  We heard from fundraisers, from donors, from party officials, from 
lobbyists, from candidates, and from government officials. We heard 
from a man, Roger Tamraz, a contributor to both parties. He admitted 
making 1996 campaign contributions for one reason--he wanted to obtain 
access to events held in the White House, period. He was willing to 
contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to worm his way in there. 
In another instance, Buddhist Temple officials admitted reimbursing 
monastics for making campaign contributions at the temple's direction. 
Also, a wealthy Hong Kong businessman hosted the chairman of the 
Republican National Committee on a yacht in Hong Kong Harbor and 
provided $2 million in collateral for a loan used to help elect 
Republican candidates to office.
  Most of these cases when there was questionable foreign money, most 
of it was given back by Democrats and Republicans both. And there was a 
lot on the Democratic side; I certainly don't deny that. As soon as the 
taint was there, the money was given back. But not in this case. The 
debt of $800,000 still has not been paid back. This example remains the 
best single, completely documented example of foreign money really 
being solicited and used in the 1996 campaign of anything that the 
committee looked at the whole year, Democrat or Republican.
  The Committee's investigation exposed these and other incidents that 
ranged from the exemplary, to the troubling, to the possibly illegal. 
But investigations undertaken by the U.S. Senate are not law 
enforcement efforts designed to arrive at judgments about whether 
particular persons should be charged with civil or criminal wrongdoing, 
but, by Constitutional design, are inquiries whose primary purpose must 
be ``in aid of the legislative function.'' Accordingly, the most 
important outcome of the Committee's investigation is the compilation 
of evidence demonstrating that the most serious problems uncovered in 
connection with the 1996 election involve conduct which should be, but 
is not now, prohibited by law. Or as Senator Levin has put it, the 
evidence shows that the

[[Page S1048]]

bulk of the campaign finance problem is not what is illegal, but what 
is legal.
  The systemic legal problems and the need for dramatic campaign 
finance reform are highlighted in our Report and in the following 
summary.
  In our democracy, power is ultimately to be derived from the people--
the voters. In theory, every voter is equal; the reality is that some 
voters, to borrow George Orwell's phrase, are ``more equal than 
others.'' No one can deny that individuals who contribute substantial 
sums of money to candidates are likely to have more access to elected 
officials. And most of us think greater access brings greater 
influence. It was this concern over linkages between money, access and 
influence--amid allegations that Richard Nixon's 1968 and 1972 
presidential campaigns accepted individual contributions of hundreds of 
thousands, even millions, of dollars--that spurred Congress to enact 
the original campaign finance laws. While those laws have evolved over 
the 20 years since that time, the goals have remained the same: to 
prevent wealthy private interests from exercising disproportionate 
influence over the government, to deter corruption, and to inform 
voters.
  Violations of the law's contribution limits and disclosure 
requirements have occurred since they were first enacted over twenty 
years ago. For example, corporations and foreign nationals prohibited 
from making direct campaign contributions have laundered money through 
persons eligible to contribute. Donors who have reached their legal 
contribution limit have channeled additional campaign contributions 
through relatives, friends, or employees. Indeed, the investigation of 
the 1996 elections was triggered by suspected foreign contributions to 
the Democratic Party allegedly solicited by Democratic National 
Committee (``DNC'') fundraiser John Huang. Indictments and convictions 
have emerged involving contributors to both parties, including Charlie 
Trie, Maria Hsia and the Lum family on the Democratic side, and Simon 
Fireman, vice chair of finance of Senator Dole's presidential campaign, 
and corporate contributors to the campaigns of Representative Jay Kim 
of California on the Republican side.
  The most elaborate scheme investigated by the Committee involved a $2 
million loan that was backed by a Hong Kong businessman, routed through 
a U.S. subsidiary, and resulted in a large transfer of foreign funds to 
the Republican Party.
  I am not trying to hit the Republican Party harder than the 
Democrats. There was plenty of wrongdoing on both sides. That is the 
point. The point is that we need changes in the law.
  While the Committee's investigation uncovered disturbing information 
about the role of foreign money in the 1996 elections, the evidence 
also shows that illegal foreign contributions played a much less 
important role in the 1996 election than once suspected and was 
discussed quite widely in the media. Whether judged by the number of 
contributions or the total dollar amount, only a small fraction of the 
funds raised by either Democrats or Republicans came from foreign 
sources.
  That doesn't excuse it. It was wrong. It should not have happened. 
But it didn't determine the outcome of the election. That is the most 
important point to make.
  The committee obtained no evidence that funds from a foreign 
government influenced the outcome of any election. It was alleged that 
they might have affected the outcome of the 1996 Presidential election. 
There is nothing, either in the documentation from intelligence sources 
or in the briefings we received, that could document that.
  So the committee obtained no evidence that funds from a foreign 
government influenced the outcome of any 1996 election, altered U.S. 
domestic or foreign policy, or damaged our national security.
  That doesn't mean it was right.
  The Committee's examination of foreign money brought to light an 
array of fundraising practices used by both parties that, while not 
technical violations of the campaign finance laws, expose fundamental 
flaws in the existing legal and regulatory system. The two principal 
problems involve soft money and issue advocacy.
  It is beyond question that raising soft money and broadcasting issue 
ads are not, in themselves, unlawful. The evidence suggests that much 
of what the parties and candidates did during the 1996 elections was 
within the letter of the law. But no one can seriously argue that it is 
consistent with the spirit of the campaign finance laws for parties to 
accept contributions of hundreds of thousands--even millions--of 
dollars, or for corporations, unions and others to air candidate attack 
ads without being required to meet any of the federal election law 
requirements for contribution limits and public disclosure.
  The evidence indicates that the soft-money loophole is fueling many 
of the campaign abuses investigated by the Committee. It is precisely 
because parties are allowed to collect large, individual soft-money 
donations that fundraisers are tempted to cultivate big donors by, for 
example, providing them and their guests with unusual access to public 
officials. In 1996, the soft-money loophole provided the funds both 
parties used to pay for televised ads. Soft money also supplied the 
funds parties used to make contributions to tax-exempt groups, which in 
turn used the funds to pay for election-related activities. The 
Minority Report details, in several instances, how the Republican 
National Committee deliberately channeled funds from party coffers and 
Republican donors to ostensibly ``independent'' groups which then used 
the money to conduct ``issue advocacy'' efforts on behalf of Republican 
candidates.
  Much was made the other day on the floor about the same thing 
happening on the Democratic side. That doesn't mean either one was 
excusable or right. But it happened, and it should not.

  Together, the soft-money and issue-advocacy loopholes have 
eviscerated the contribution limits and disclosure requirements in 
federal election laws and caused a loss of public confidence in the 
integrity of our campaign finance system. By inviting corruption of the 
electoral process, they threaten our democracy. If these and other 
systemic problems are not solved, the abuses witnessed by the American 
people in 1996 will be repeated in future election cycles.
  This will be only the beginning. All that will change will be the 
names, the dates, and the details, and the amounts will go up. We know 
that. As I said starting out, do you want your children or 
grandchildren to grow up in a system where their voices may not be 
heard in all of the venues of government because someone else bought 
their way in and has a bigger claim on the legislators' future than 
does your child or grandchild?
  The federal campaign finance laws provide that candidates should 
finance their campaigns with so-called ``hard dollars''--contributions 
received in relatively small dollar amounts from individual donors and 
political action committees. Soft money--which can be donated by 
individuals, corporations and unions and in unlimited amounts--is not 
supposed to be spent on behalf of individual candidates. And yet it is: 
Tens of millions of soft dollars are raised by the parties and spent, 
through such devices as ``issue advocacy'' ads, for the benefit of 
candidates. The soft money loophole undermines the campaign finance 
laws by enabling wealthy private interests to channel enormous amounts 
of money into political campaigns. Most of the dubious or illegal 
contributions that were examined by the Committee involved soft money.
  The Committee's investigation also showed that the legal distinction 
between ``issue ads'' and ``candidate ads'' has proved to be largely 
meaningless. The result has been that millions of dollars, which 
otherwise would have been kept out of the election process, were 
infused into campaigns obliquely, surreptitiously, and possibly at 
times illegally.
  The issue of soft money abuses is inevitably tied to the question of 
how access to political figures is obtained through large contributions 
of soft money. It is also tied to the question of how tax-exempt 
organizations have been used to hide the identities of soft money 
donors. A system that permits large contributions to be made for 
partisan purposes, without public disclosure, invites subversion of the 
intent of our election law limitations.

[[Page S1049]]

  Despite a highly partisan investigation, the Committee has built a 
record of campaign fundraising abuses by both Democrats and 
Republicans. This record will hopefully be useful to the Federal 
Election Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and to the Department 
of Justice as they investigate the 1996 campaign. Most importantly, the 
Committee's investigation should spur much-needed reform of the 
campaign finance laws and strengthening of the Federal Election 
Commission. Congress should provide the Federal Election Commission 
with the necessary resources to significantly enhance its investigative 
and enforcement staff. Ultimately, the most important lesson the 
Committee learned is that the abuses uncovered are part of a systemic 
problem, and that the system that encourages and permits these abuses 
must be reformed not now, as a result of the legislative votes that we 
have had the last couple of days, sometime, and hopefully in the very 
near future.

  The McCain-Feingold legislation that we are considering here today 
goes a long way to address these abuses. The bill rids the system of 
soft money, and brings ``issue advertising'' funded by corporate and 
union interests within the campaign finance system. The legislation 
also takes great strides towards creating a more vigorous enforcement 
mechanism in the Federal Election Commission.
  Anyone who observed even an hour of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee's hearings in the campaign finance investigation over the 
past year, can have no doubt that the explosion of soft money, huge 
amounts received from corporations, unions, and individuals, has 
undermined the campaign finance system to the point where it does not 
work.
  It is not fair for all of our people--which should be the objective, 
making our Government and its laws fair to all of our people--because 
the trend has become to give special influence to more and more of the 
special interests across Government, in the executive branch and in the 
legislative branch right here on Capitol Hill. This is where Congress 
makes the laws of this land. We didn't even look into congressional 
activities during this series of hearings.
  The investigation revealed situations where contributors like Roger 
Tamraz openly used soft money contributions to buy the access to 
executive branch officials that he thought placed him in an equal 
position with his business competitors. It revealed situations where 
huge contributions, possibly from abroad were laundered through legal 
residents of this country. Without soft money these abuses would not 
have occurred.
  In the initial debate on campaign finance legislation, and in 
subsequent debates, we have heated discussions about whether it is 
appropriate to allow contributions of $1,000 vs $5,000. Yet today we 
are talking about a single contribution totaling hundreds of thousands 
of dollars. Mr. President I am hopeful that this body can join together 
in recognizing that individuals and organizations are using these 
contributions to gain access for their own limited and narrow purpose, 
and this unrestrained seeking of access is unhealthy for our democracy.
  The investigation also showed instances where parties in their thirst 
for soft money solicited foreign funds, then used the proceeds to fund 
get out the vote activities in 20 states. Without soft money, these 
funds would never have been solicited and would not have made their way 
into U.S. elections.
  The ready availability soft money combined with the national party's 
ability to air so called ``issue ads'' also resulted in an explosion of 
advertising which clearly benefitted both party's Presidential 
candidates. This apparently legal activity will be halted if we simply 
act to get rid of the soft money that is raised to pay for these ads.
  As an example, the other day on the floor here, the comments were 
made about how the President participated in issue ads and so on, and 
was active in determining what was going out and so on. Much was made 
of that. But I would like to give the other side of that, which was not 
brought out on the floor the other day, too. This is not to justify 
both of them, this is just to say both of them, I think, should be 
corrected.
  But, as an example, in the 1996 election, both the DNC and the RNC 
spent millions of dollars airing advertising that promoted their 
Presidential candidates. This advertising was paid for with mostly soft 
money. A review of some of the evidence gathered in the course of the 
report highlights the problem that parties use soft money to pay for 
advertising intended to help their candidates. Now, I don't deny some 
of the charges made against the Democratic National Committee. But, 
like the similar DNC advertising campaign:
  The RNC raised additional soft money, with Senator Dole's assistance 
in order to pay for the ads.
  The money for the ads was transferred to state parties in order to 
use more soft money for the ads.
  The ads were created, written, and produced by Dole for President's 
media consultants and pollsters, and the Dole for President consultants 
met frequently--usually on Wednesday evenings --with RNC officials and 
Dole for President campaign officials.
  The RNC ran the ads only in states where Clinton and Dole were close 
in the polls.
  I offer this example not to suggest that these activities were 
illegal. In fact this activity--and virtually identical activity was 
carried out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign--were most likely 
legal. However, this sort of advertising would not happen without the 
soft money to air it. If the soft money spigot is shut off, candidates 
and parties would once again be limited to using contributions raised 
in small increments, which was the intent of the law.
  If we fail to act in coming years we will probably see millions of 
dollars in so-called issue ads not only to help the Presidential 
candidates but also to help House and Senate candidates, all financed 
with soft money--a complete by-passing of the intent of election laws 
that are supposed to protect every single person in this country.
  A few examples of abuses of the issue advocacy exemption uncovered in 
the Governmental Affairs Committee investigation, but which were 
precluded from being presented in hearing include the following:
  An organization called the Economic Education trust, which seems to 
exist only as a bank account, hired its own political consultants, 
planned its own advertising campaign, then ``shopped'' for suitable 
nonprofit organizations to funnel the money for the ad campaign 
through. The trust spent millions of dollars on ads and mailings 
attacking candidates nationwide, including candidates in state races, 
without voters being aware of their existence.
  Another one, Americans for Tax Reform mailed millions of mailers 
funded with RNC money to voters in key Congressional districts. If the 
RNC had mailed the same pieces, they would have had to use hard 
dollars.
  Another one, at least two groups that each aired over one million 
dollars of issue ads, the Triad affiliated Citizens for Reform and 
Citizens for the Republic, aired advertisements that did not contain 
words of express advocacy but advocated no specific issue, contained 
inaccurate statements of candidates records, and attacked candidates on 
issues of past behavior and character.
  The proposals for addressing such activity are carefully drafted to 
protect the First Amendment right of voters to engage in political 
speech. The proposed legislation does not prevent any individual or 
organization from paying for communications but simply requires 
disclosure and compliance with contribution limits that govern other 
organizations. It is a shame we could not get that legislation through 
in the last couple of days.
  Let me talk about the FEC. I think that we can all agree that it 
doesn't matter how good a law you have, it has to be actively and 
vigorously enforced. Last fall the Governmental Affairs Committee 
devoted two weeks of hearing time to experts on campaign finance. Among 
the witnesses who testified before the Committee were former Federal 
Election Commission Commissioner Trevor Potter and current General 
Counsel Larry Noble. Along with other witnesses, their testimony 
revealed a agency unable to begin to deal with the mammoth task before 
it. The agency does not have the resources it needs to enforce existing 
laws. The FEC also does not have the ability to

[[Page S1050]]

act quickly and effectively in response to complaints.
  The lack of resources the agency receives from Congress almost 
guarantees that the agency will fail in its efforts to uncover 
violations of the law in a timely manner.
  In testimony before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Norm 
Ornstein testified that he thought, it was his opinion--and I don't 
think it was a studied opinion, but it was his estimate when asked a 
question--that it would take at least $50 million, almost twice what 
the FEC currently receives, and that might begin to give the agency the 
resources it needs.
  To cover all of our election laws, there are approximately 30 lawyers 
on the FEC legal staff who investigate violations of the election laws. 
Those 30 lawyers don't really go out and do field investigations. 
Mainly, they may take some depositions and a few things like that; but 
they are not really trained investigators as such. Less than 10 
additional lawyers comprise the entire litigation staff, which argues 
in court. And amazingly, until 1994 the commission had no 
investigators.
  No investigators, and then they had one investigator. And it was 
pointed out during our hearings, they just recently, last year during 
our hearings, doubled the size of their investigative staff. A 100 
percent increase--that got them up to 2 investigators. There were two 
investigators to go out and investigate complaints all across this 
country, as to what was going on.
  Let me contrast that. By way of contrast our combined staff on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee had 44 lawyers, just for this 
investigation.
  The Majority staff of 25 lawyers alone was almost equal to the entire 
FEC investigative staff. The Committee also had 8 FBI agents detailed 
to help in its investigation, as well as two investigators from the 
General Accounting Office and 4 investigators on the staffs. Yet when 
the FEC specifically asked Congress for the resources to hire more 
staff to deal with cases stemming from the 1996 elections, Congress 
specifically precluded the agency from hiring more staff. They wrote 
into law they could not hire more staff. Can we imagine anything more 
shortsighted than that?
  The FEC must fight for every penny it receives. For example, in 
fiscal 1995, the FEC had over 10% of budget rescinded half way through 
the fiscal year, the largest percentage agency recision government 
wide.
  In fiscal 1996, they sought $32 million but received only $26 million 
with some funds ``fenced'' for particular purposes.
  In fiscal 1997, they had travel budget limited and fenced such that 
it was difficult to conduct depositions and court appearances including 
those undertaken in connection with the Christian Coalition 
litigation--just to name one.
  That is just deliberately hamstringing the organization that is 
supposed to be enforcing our election laws, and Congress does that 
deliberately. Why? Well, you'll have to answer that in your own mind.
  But there are undoubtedly those who do not want to see our campaign 
finance laws rigorously enforced.
  The agency is also burdened by cumbersome procedures, which I believe 
the legislation before us today makes a good start at addressing. For 
example the FEC does not have the ability to seek an injunction that 
would halt illegal activity before the election was held. The FEC also 
cannot require electronic filing of disclosure reports that would soon 
permit every Internet user to see how much their local candidates had 
raised and spent and from whom. The FEC also lacks the ability to 
randomly audit campaigns to ensure compliance with the law. These 
reforms contained in the McCain-Feingold proposal will help the FEC to 
become a more vigorous deterrent to abusing the campaign finance 
system.
  Let me make some recommendations.
  Many of the proposals set forth in McCain-Feingold are also contained 
in the recommendations of the Governmental Affairs Committee's 
forthcoming report. The Minority, in its forthcoming report makes the 
following recommendations that can be enacted with passage of this 
legislation. We recommend that we eliminate soft money: Eliminating 
unrestricted contributions to political parties from individuals, 
corporations and unions is the most important step towards reducing the 
influence of money in the campaign finance system.
  Another one, address issue advocacy: A soft money ban, however 
fundamental to reform, must be coupled with reforms addressing 
candidate advertisements masquerading as issue ads. A provision that 
requires any communication that mentions a federal candidate within 60 
days of a general election to comply with disclosure requirements and 
restrictions on the use of union and corporate funds would not prevent 
or ban any advertisement but would bring all political ads within the 
campaign finance system.
  Strengthen and clarify the statutory prohibitions against foreign 
contributions and contributions in the name of another which will be 
accomplished by the soft money ban contained in McCain-Feingold.
  We need to give the Federal Election Commission the resources it 
needs to do its job. Any reform, from the most modest improvements in 
disclosure to the most comprehensive revision of campaign financing, 
will not be complete if the agency charged with enforcing the law lacks 
the resources to do so.
  We should give the Federal Election Commission the authority needed 
to enforce the law. Not just the authority, but the resources to 
enforce the law.
  Improve public disclosure and mandate electronic filing for all 
candidates and political committees to speed the disclosure process and 
allow more disclosure to voters. Those would have been covered within 
the McCain-Feingold legislation. In addition to what was provided in 
that bill, however, we should enact, with passage of this legislation, 
some other things. The Minority report also recommends that whenever 
possible we do several things

  In addition to giving the FEC additional authority in general, as 
mentioned above, the minority also recommends several specific changes. 
No. 1: Increase the size of the Commission to an odd number of 
commissioners to avoid deadlock. Then we should grant the Commission 
the power to seek injunctions in Federal court. We should streamline 
the process for initiating investigations by eliminating requirements 
for a formal Commission vote, and formal finding that a violation 
occurred. And we should also permit the Commission to assess automatic 
fines for late disclosure reports.
  Those are things that would not have been covered in McCain-Feingold 
but which should be enacted anyway.
  Some other things the Minority report also recommends in, addition to 
what would be covered in McCain-Feingold.
  For all contributions over $1,000, require certification, under 
penalty of perjury, that a contribution meets the requirements of 
federal law, including that the contributor is a citizen or legal 
permanent resident and that the contribution was made from the funds of 
the contributor.
  We should reduce the costs of campaigns. During the 1996 campaign, 
federal candidates spent $400 million on television advertising. 
Congress should consider mandating some free time from broadcasters as 
one way to decrease the amount candidates buy and parties are required 
to spend to get out their message.
  We should also clarify and strengthen applicable tax law. Tax exempt 
organizations have become increasingly influential in federal 
elections, while operating under legal requirements that provide 
insufficient guidance on permissible campaign activity and disclosure 
obligations.
  We should also clarify campaign restrictions applicable to 
organizations operating under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.
  We should also ensure public disclosure of all organizations whose 
primary purpose is to influence elections by requiring that all 
organizations claiming an exemption from taxes under section 527 also 
file with the FEC or the applicable State body.
  This next one is a very important one also. We should consider 
requiring the IRS to approve or disapprove all applications for tax-
exempt status within 1 year and require that an application for exempt 
status be approved before an organization may hold itself out as tax 
exempt.
  What is done now is exactly what was done with the National Policy 
Forum,

[[Page S1051]]

an arm of the Republican National Committee, and was involved with the 
transfer of Hong Kong money through a loan guarantee that got money 
that I mentioned earlier. What happened there was that the National 
Policy Forum filed for 501(c) status and then advertised itself as 
being a tax-exempt organization even though the approval had not been 
granted yet by the IRS.
  That is not unusual. Let me say on behalf of NPF and those who were 
involved with it at that time, it is not unusual when you file, you say 
you have filed and so you presume you are going to be a 501(c) 
organization and have tax-exempt status for anyone who makes a 
contribution pursuant to that status.
  What happened was, the IRS came back later on and said the NPF was 
not valid as an organization, did not rate the tax-exempt status that 
the 501(c) would have carried with it. So they disapproved that, but 
that disapproval came at least 3 or 3\1/2\ years after the application 
was made. I do not believe any organization, whether it is for regular 
tax-exempt charities or political or any other organization, should be 
able to advertise itself as a tax-exempt organization until it has the 
ruling from the IRS.
  These recommendations are directed at improving the system for 
everyone. The legislation we have had before us the last few days is 
also about improving our system. I didn't think that this was partisan 
legislation, but it certainly came out that way. The net effect of 
enacting these reforms would be to reduce the amount of money spent on 
campaigns and to have all players in the political system abide by the 
same rules.
  In closing, I want to make one final point. Since 1976 I have 
supported public financing of campaigns, and it seems to me that it is 
a worthy use of Public Treasury funds to ensure that we have clean 
money and clean elections. The erosion of public confidence that I have 
witnessed can only be offset by taking the steps necessary to clean up 
our campaign finance system and renew the public trust in elected 
officials.
  Let me say this. Sometimes I think the States get out ahead of the 
Federal Government in taking action that is necessary to clean up 
certain things within our system of Government. Maine has taken the 
lead now, of course, in doing exactly that with regard to campaign 
finance. It is my understanding some 12 other States are looking into 
financing candidates' races in the general election in State races, or 
at least a major portion of that funding that is required.
  I believe that would improve our system of Government. I also believe 
that if we could have faith restored in our system by having taxpayer 
money that represents all interests of this country equally, and get 
back to having the Government represent all the people all the time, 
and not part of the time for all the people, and some of the time for 
the special interests who have bought their way in, that it would be 
the biggest value we have had in a long time.
  So I wholeheartedly supported the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill 
that was before us. I believe it is just a first step. Eventually, Mr. 
President, I believe the answer to our concern is to eliminate the role 
of private money in campaigns. I think we should allow campaigns to be 
fairly and equally underwritten by all Americans through some form of 
publicly supported finance. That is the purpose of Government, to 
represent every American, not a favored few.

  Only when we have public financing do I believe we will be able to 
assure that loopholes will not develop and that special interests will 
not find new ways to bend the system to their own ends.
  As I sat in on months of hearings on our campaign system, I became 
more thoroughly convinced that only when we turn to a public system of 
financing campaigns will we fully solve the problems of campaign 
finance. That is why I joined with my colleagues, Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, in cosponsoring a 
bill called the Clean Money Clean Campaign Act. It is based on the 
Maine plan and those 12 other States who are looking at it, to limit 
campaign spending, to prohibit special interest contributions, to 
eliminate fundraising efforts, to provide equal funding and a level 
playing field for all candidates and end the loopholes that have 
wrecked our current system.
  Through a publicly funded system, we can end the current abuse and 
establish a system that takes us back to our major responsibility, 
which is representing the interests of all the people all the time. I 
think that would go farther to clean up the system, restore faith and 
credibility in Government, and I think would be the biggest bargain the 
American public has had in a long time.
  If you look at it another way, money comes out of our economy some 
way into politics. Now it is dollars for access. Too large a percentage 
of the money comes in from special interests looking for special 
treatment. With better financing, we would then fairly represent 
everyone. It would be nice to have people believe all of us are working 
all the time for the greatest benefit for all of our people. I think 
that would go a long way to reducing the cynicism, the apathy, the lack 
of interest, the lack of trust, the lack of danger that it represents, 
because when people feel too threatened, they will also feel that they 
want to split off into smaller self-protective groups to have their 
voice heard in some council of Government, which was something that was 
to be necessary if a democracy was to survive, as Thomas Jefferson 
said.
  We don't want to see that. We think the two parties have represented 
our country well throughout our history, and we want to see these 
parties continue and not be siphoned off or not have their members 
siphoned off into smaller and smaller self-protective groups.
  I recognize fully the time probably has not yet come to move to 
Federal financing, but I believe the more the American people focus on 
the current system and its exploding abuses, the more likely it will be 
that the support will grow for such a change.
  So I would have liked to have seen us, over the past few days, pass 
the McCain-Feingold legislation that was before us, because I feel the 
situation is critical. We face elections in this country in less than 8 
months in which the loopholes ripped open in 1996 will result in an 
even greater flood of legal but improper activity into the system as 
each party tries to elect their chosen candidates and the candidates 
battle to be heard against the flood of issue advertising.
  Mr. President, I want to close by repeating some of the thoughts I 
opened my remarks with. These votes are controversial votes. They too 
often split just along party lines and party loyalty on the basis of 
what will enable one group or another to raise the most money for this 
particular election. But I think there is another way to decide on 
this. It is another test that I label the ``grandchildren test,'' the 
``grandchild test.''
  What do we want our political system to be in the future in this 
country? Do we want our system to be a system that increasingly 
represents the few, the big interests able to put millions of dollars 
into a campaign, represents only the wealthy that can buy their way in 
by responding to ads that say that you will get to meet with the 
committee chairman of your choice if you make a certain large 
contribution, and down at the bottom it says, ``Benefits upon 
receipt''? Is that the kind of system we really want for our children 
and our grandchildren in the future?

  I think I would much rather have an ideal political system in which 
our children and our grandchildren have a great faith in Government, 
that their interests are being represented most by their elected 
officials. I don't think we want a system dominated by interests that 
may not favor your own children or grandchildren. I don't want my 
grandchildren to think that they have to contribute thousands, not just 
thousands, but hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars, 
if they ever have that much money, to have their voice heard in 
Government in a democracy such as ours.
  So we have had votes over the past few days that, to me, were votes 
very simply on fairness--fairness that we have a commitment in this 
Senate to making certain that all of our people are treated fairly all 
of the time. That was what these votes were all about.
  I encourage Senator McCain and Senator Feingold to bring that 
legislation

[[Page S1052]]

back to the floor again later this year. Maybe we can try again. 
Sometimes legislation that is important for the future of the country 
needs a number of votes before we finally get it through. I think this 
is an issue whose time has come, and it is an issue that is going to be 
critical if we are going to erase some of the cynicism and apathy 
toward Government that abounds too much in this country, particularly 
among our young people.
  That, to me, is the hazard of going on with this. I don't think this 
Nation of ours is ever going to be taken over by the likes of Russia, 
China, North Korea or any combination of nations around this world. I 
do worry about the future of our democracy when we have people, 
particularly our young people, who are so apathetic toward politics and 
Government that they don't want any part of it, wouldn't think of 
running for public office, don't want to get into a dirty thing like 
political races, wouldn't think of going out and trying to raise money 
to help our political parties get messages across.
  We have to erase that if we are to have the democracy that is our 
future, because our country can go downhill from that just as fast as 
it can from other adversaries that might have more military power but 
would not be able to take this country over.
  Mr. President, I hope that we bring this subject up again this year, 
and I hope that we have a more favorable consideration of it when it 
comes up again.
  I also want to recognize Beth Stein, who is with me here today, who 
has worked so long and hard on this, who has had a long experience at 
the FEC and contributed so much to our hearings this year and last year 
in trying to make sure we have a way to the future that is good for all 
of our people. I thank her for her efforts, and also all the committee 
members who worked so hard on this through the year.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 12 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________