[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10060-S10082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2237, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:
  McCain Amendment No. 3554, to reform the financing of Federal 
elections.


                           Amendment No. 3554

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that the pending 
amendment is numbered 3554.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, while we are on the Interior 
appropriations bill, the current amendment is the McCain-Feingold 
campaign financing amendment. Whether we will use all of the time of 
the Senate between now and the time for a vote on a motion for cloture 
on the amendment, I am not certain.
  However, it is very unlikely, I say to my colleagues, that we will 
debate contested amendments to the Interior appropriations bill before 
we have completed debate on McCain-Feingold. However, we are available 
to deal with amendments that can be worked out and agreed to which we 
will send up and deal with if there are any short spaces of time in 
which Members are not available to discuss the McCain-Feingold bill. 
Members who have interests in the Interior appropriations bill who have 
amendments that they think will be accepted or can be worked out should 
be in contact with me or with staff of the Appropriations Committee, 
and we will attempt to work them in whenever it is convenient to do so.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I mention a scheduling item. I am 
confident that the agreement we reached yesterday was that there would 
be a vote either late tomorrow afternoon or early evening. Now I am 
told that there may be some Members on the other side who want to have 
an earlier vote. Mr. President, I will not agree to such a thing. I 
believe that we need more than 2 days' debate on this issue even though 
we have been over this issue many times before. I just want to tell my 
colleagues on both sides, but particularly on the other side of the 
aisle, I understand there are personal commitments and we will try to 
accommodate those, but to have a vote earlier than very late tomorrow 
afternoon or tomorrow evening I think would not be in keeping with the 
agreement that we reached yesterday.
  This is not a happy time for America. It is not a happy time for the 
institutions of government, especially the Presidency, but also the 
Congress. We are going through a very wrenching and difficult episode 
which already, I think most of us would agree, ranks in the first order 
of crises that affect this country. And it affects us. As I have said 
on numerous occasions, all of us are tarred by a brush when the 
institutions of government are diminished and affected by scandal. But 
it also points out the criticality of us addressing this issue of 
campaign finance reform now rather than later. In today's newspaper, 
``Reno Sets 90-day Clinton Probe'':

       Attorney General Janet Reno yesterday opened a preliminary 
     investigation of President Clinton that could lead to an 
     independent counsel probe of allegations that he orchestrated 
     a plan to violate spending limits for his 1996 reelection 
     campaign. . . .The new Clinton inquiry was triggered by a 
     preliminary report last month from the Federal Election 
     Commission auditors. The auditors concluded that the DNC ads 
     about issues such as Medicare and the budget amounted to 
     ``electioneering'' on the President's behalf, and the 
     Clinton-Gore campaign should be required to reimburse the 
     government for the entire $13.4 million it received in 
     Federal matching funds.

  This morning, in most of the major newspapers in America, there is a 
poll that is conducted by the Terrence Group and Lake, Snell, Perry and 
Associates--one Democrat and one Republican polling group: ``What do 
you think is the number one problem today? Moral-religious issues, 14 
percent; crime and drugs, 14 percent; economy and jobs, 13 percent.''
  Mr. President, perhaps moral and religious issues have been a No. 1 
priority in America before, but I don't think there is any doubt that 
that is the case today. ``Which of the following issues do you want 
Congress to focus on? Restoring moral values, 22 percent; improving 
education, 19 percent; reducing taxes and Federal spending, 13 
percent.''
  Mr. President, when 22 percent of the American people say they 
believe that restoring values is the No. 1 issue they want Congress to 
focus on, I don't believe they are just referring to the problems 
concerning the Presidency and that crisis. I think they are talking 
about the fact that they don't believe that they, as individual 
citizens, are represented here in the Congress in the legislative 
process. I think they believe that special interests rule. I believe 
they are concerned that no longer are their concerns paramount, but 
only those of major contributors.
  The effect of this was manifested just yesterday in my home State of 
Arizona in the primary that was held, as has been true throughout the 
country. It was the lowest voter turnout, as a percentage, of any time 
in the history of my State. I don't think that voters didn't turn out 
to vote in the primary in Arizona yesterday because of their anger--
which may be justified--at the President of the United States; I think 
they didn't turn out because they believe that the present system of 
financing campaigns results in an exclusion of them in the legislative 
process; their homes and their dreams and aspirations for themselves 
and their families are no longer reflected here in the Congress of the 
United States.
  Mr. President, the amendment at the desk, which is commonly known as 
the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, is amended by 
Senators Snowe and Jeffords. This amendment would begin to reform a 
severely broken campaign finance system. Early last month, the Members 
of the other body did what the Senate has failed to do, and that is to 
pass genuine campaign finance reform. By so doing, they have given 
Members of this body who support reform encouragement that Congress, at 
long last, may accede to the wishes of the majority in both Houses of 
Congress and to the wishes of the vast majority of the people we 
represent by repairing a campaign finance system that has become a 
national embarrassment and assails the integrity of the office that we 
are privileged to hold.
  I want to commend and thank Representatives Shays and Meehan, and 
many other Members of the other body, whose courage and determination 
have given us a chance to reclaim the respect of the American people. I 
appeal to all Members of the Senate to listen to the majority of our 
colleagues in the other body, and to the majority of Senators, and 
seize this historic opportunity to give the Nation a campaign finance 
system that is worthy of the world's greatest democracy.
  Mr. President, no Washington pundit thought that the House would 
actually

[[Page S10061]]

pass campaign finance reform, but it did. It was not an easy fight. But 
those in favor of reform prevailed. I hope the majority in the Senate 
that favors reform will be able to prevail here. A majority in the 
House passed reform because the American people demand it. Members of 
the House recognized that the current system is awash in money, 
exploited loopholes, and publicly perceived corruption. It is a system 
that no Member of Congress should take pride in defending.
  Before I discuss the matter more fully, I want to remind my 
colleagues of three points. One, for reform to become law, it must be 
bipartisan. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that affects both 
parties in a fair and equal manner.
  Two, reform must seek to reduce the role of money in politics. 
Spending on campaigns in current inflation-adjusted dollars continues 
to rise. In constant dollars, the amount spent on House and Senate 
races in 1976 was $318 million. By 1986 that total had risen to $645 
million, and in 1996 it was $765 million. Including the Presidential 
races, over a billion dollars was spent in the last campaign. As the 
need for money escalates, the influence of those who have it 
rises exponentially.

  Three, reform must seek a level playing field between challengers and 
incumbents. Our bill achieves this by recognizing the fact that 
incumbents must always raise more money than challengers. As a general 
rule, the candidate with the most money wins the race. If money is 
forced to play a lesser role, then challengers will have a better 
chance.
  The amendment before the Senate achieves these three points. Is the 
measure perfect? No. Is it a legitimate start for discussion? Yes. For 
that reason, I hope my colleagues will support cloture and allow the 
Senate to work its will, to improve the measure where necessary, and 
begin a real dialog with the House on what can and should be sent to 
the President for his signature.
  I want to repeat that this is the Senate's opportunity to not only do 
what is right but what is necessary. Washington has lately become 
synonymous with scandal, but for all the recent scintillating 
revelations, the real scandal--a scandal that will not go away--is the 
money that is and has been corrupting our elections. Unless this Senate 
finds the courage to act, that scandal will not subside.
  Some will come to the floor and state that we do not need to reform 
how campaigns are run. They will state instead that we should simply 
enforce the laws that already exist. Mr. President, with all due 
respect, this argument is specious. Republicans demanded that the 
welfare system be reformed not only because it was the right thing to 
do but because the system was riddled with loopholes and was being 
abused and exploited. We didn't sit back and simply challenge the 
executive branch to enforce the laws. We acted, we changed the law, and 
we changed it in our society for the better. Let's do the same now.
  I know that many colleagues think this refrain has become all too 
familiar, and they are correct. This is not the first time our campaign 
finance system has been in need of reform, and it will undoubtedly not 
be the last, because as time passes, the flaws and loopholes in the law 
become more evidence. It is at that time that the Congress has 
historically done what is needed; it has passed campaign finance 
reform.

       The underlying purpose of this movement for the publication 
     of contributions made for campaign purposes is to limit 
     expenditures in political contests to legitimate purposes and 
     to lessen the use of money in political elections.

  So said Senator Culberson in 1908.
  Senator Culberson inserted into the Record many letters, many of 
which could have been written today:

       For some years there has been earnest agitation of the 
     question of enforcing campaign contributions relating to 
     national elections. A strong public sentiment has been 
     created in favor of this important regulation. In obedience 
     to this sentiment, a bill is now pending in Congress 
     providing for the desired publicity. The question is whether 
     the bill will be passed, defeated, or smothered.

  The letter continues:

       No party should be afraid to go before the country with a 
     record of its campaign financiering.
       No candidate for office should hesitate to have the people 
     know the sources of campaign money. In other words, such 
     contributions should come only from legitimate sources, and 
     only money from such sources would be accepted, if the facts 
     had to be made public: Hence, the great importance of 
     publicity. The people do not want successful candidates to 
     owe their elections to special interests affected by the 
     subsequent administrations of such candidates. Such favors 
     and obligations they involve are absolutely against the 
     principles of honest government, whether that government be 
     national, State, or municipal.

  In the House that same year 1908, Congressman Sulzer stated:

       In my opinion, this publicity campaign contribution bill is 
     one of the most important measures before this House. It is a 
     bill for more honest elections, to more effectively safeguard 
     the elected franchise, and it affects the entire people of 
     this country. It concerns the honor of the country. The 
     honest people of the land want it passed. All parties should 
     favor it. Recent investigations conclusively demonstrate how 
     important to all the people of the country is the speedy 
     enactment of this bill.

  Remember, this statement was made in 1908.

       In every national contest of recent years the campaign has 
     been a disgraceful scramble to see which party could raise 
     the most money, not for legitimate expenses but to carry a 
     system of political iniquity that will not and cannot bear 
     the light of publicity. Political corruption dreads the sun 
     of publicity and works in the secret of darkness . . . 
     Napoleon said victory was on the side of the heaviest guns. 
     There are many thoughtful people in this country who have 
     been saying since 1896 that the political victory in our 
     Presidential contest is on the side of the campaign committee 
     which can raise the largest boodle fund.
       This important bill for publicity of campaign contributions 
     is a nonpartisan measure. There should be no politics in it. 
     We should all advocate from patriotic motives; but some of 
     the gentlemen on the other side are injecting party politics 
     into it, and are doing everything in their power to prevent 
     the Members of this House who sincerely favor the bill from 
     having the opportunity to vote for it. . . It is a shame the 
     way this bill is being strangled to death.

  In 1908, Congress went on to do the people's bidding. It passed the 
campaign finance reform legislation.
  In 1947, Senator Ellender stood on this floor, and stated:

       It came to my attention as chairman of that committee--and 
     this feeling is shared by committee members joining me in 
     sponsoring this bill--that the present statutes dealing with 
     elections, campaign expenditures, and contributions, and 
     limitations thereon, are utterly inadequate and unrealistic 
     and as now in force and do not begin to accomplish the 
     purposes for which they were enacted. . .
       I may state, Mr. President, that our committee last year 
     found that many corporations and some labor organizations had 
     spent thousands of dollars in Federal elections, but we could 
     not force them to report for the reason that the money 
     expended was not considered as contributions. So this bill 
     requires any money spent to be reported by whoever makes the 
     expenditure.
       Experience has shown that some corporations and labor 
     unions have spent money directly on behalf of a party or 
     candidate and thus I invaded the application of the 
     prohibition upon contributions.

  In 1947 the Congress, again, responded to the public's disdain for 
the way our campaigns are financed and passed campaign finance reform 
legislation.
  In 1974, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Congress 
again passed campaign finance reform legislation.
  Mr. President, after what we know about the last election, it is time 
again to pass campaign finance reform legislation.
  Mr. President, recently there was given to me a memo that is public 
knowledge: The Democratic National Committee, Democratic National 
Committee Managing Trustee Events and Membership Requirements Events; 
two annual Managing Trustee Events where the President in Washington, 
DC, attended; two annual meetings, trustee event for the Vice 
President, et cetera. It is kind of a standard thing that you see on 
these kind of things. But the thing that is interesting about this is 
the fifth one down, ``Annual Economic Trade Missions.'' ``Managing 
trustees are invited to participate in foreign trade missions, which 
affords opportunities to join Party leaders in meeting with business 
leaders abroad.''
  Another memorandum that was given to me of May 5, 1994, to Anne 
Cahill from Martha Phipps:

       White House Activities: In order to reach our very 
     aggressive goal of $40 million this year, it would be very 
     helpful if we could coordinate the following activities 
     between the White House and Democratic National Committee: 1. 
     Two reserved seats on Air Force

[[Page S10062]]

     One; and, 2. Six seats at all White House private dinners.

  No. 4: ``Invitations to participate in official delegation trips 
abroad. Contact: Alexis Herman.''
  Mr. President, that is wrong. We know that is wrong. And the people 
who did it knew that it was wrong at the time. That is not an 
appropriate use of official trade missions.
  This gives rise to all the speculation and allegations concerning the 
transfer of technology to China. It makes it much more logical or 
believable when you read about these kinds of things.
  Mr. President, I know this legislation is not perfect. I know that if 
given the opportunity to offer amendments, many Members would do 
exactly that, and the measure could be improved.
  For example, I think there would be a majority vote in this body that 
would raise the individual spending limits to the level of $1,000, 
which it was in 1974, that some here may not agree with. But I believe 
the majority would.
  I believe that the Snowe-Jeffords amendment went a long way towards 
leveling the playing field as far as unions, businesses, and 
corporations are concerned. I know that there are other ways we could 
improve this legislation. I know that we can do that if my colleagues 
would vote for cloture.
  I appeal to my colleagues to muster the courage that led to reform in 
1908, 1947, and 1974.
  Mr. President, I ran for public office first in 1982. It was not the 
kind of money in that campaign that I see today. When I meet a young 
man or woman who is interested in public office nowadays--I used to ask 
them, ``How do you feel about smaller government, taxes, less 
regulation?'' We would have discussions of the issues. Now there is 
only one question you ask a young man or woman who is interested in 
seeking public office. And I might add it seems to be fewer and fewer. 
The only question is, ``Where is the money? Where is the money?'' 
Because, if they don't have the money, obviously no matter how they 
stand on the issues, no matter how principled they are, and how 
impressive their resume might be, their chances of achieving public 
office are dramatically diminished.
  I know that many on this side of the aisle don't agree with all of 
the provisions of the amendment. I know they recognize that there is a 
problem--a problem that we have to address.
  This is our opportunity, and if we opt to gridlock over results, we 
will only fuel the cynicism of the American electorate.
  I want to point out again, every political expert is predicting that 
we will have the lowest voter turnout in this upcoming election than at 
any time in history. I think that is a sad commentary.
  I hope we will do what is right to take such steps as necessary to 
pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Should we fail, we will have 
only ourselves to blame for the low esteem in which we are held by the 
American people. We will have done our part to degrade the high office 
to which we have been elected. We will by our inaction contribute to 
the alienation of the American people from the people who have sworn an 
oath to defend their interests.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, yesterday was primary day in Arizona. 
Turn out was an all-time low, indicating another record-setting low 
turnout election day. I have no doubt whatsoever that the way in which 
we finance our campaigns has in no small measure contributed to the 
abysmal commentary of the health of our democracy. The people's 
contempt--there is no more charitable way to describe it--for us and 
for the way in which we attain our privileged place in government 
cannot be sustained perpetually. We will someday pay a high price for 
our inattention to this problem. We will forfeit our ability to lead 
the country as we meet the complicated challenges confronting us at the 
end of this century because we have so badly squandered the public 
respect necessary to persuade the Nation to take the often difficult 
actions that are required to defend the Nation's interests.
  Our ability to lead depends solely on the public's trust in us. Mr. 
President, people do not trust us today. And that breach, that 
calamity, is what the supporters of campaign finance reform intend to 
repair. I beg all of my colleagues to join in this effort and give our 
constituents a reason to again trust us, and to take pride in the 
institution we are so proud to serve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, some in the press have suggested there 
is a sense of momentum for this issue because it passed the House of 
Representatives. I would remind my colleagues that a measure similar to 
this passed the House in the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, and the 
103d Congress. So it is not unusual, I would say, for the House of 
Representatives to pass this kind of legislation. It has happened 
before, and I would say it does not reveal any sense of momentum behind 
a plan that is constitutionally flawed. Speaking of the Constitution, 
we were on this same issue last fall and then we were on it again in 
February. The outcome was the same during those debates, and in a sense 
what we are doing is having the same debate once again.
  There have been suggestions, particularly on the other side, that the 
courts might be open to changing the Buckley case or revisiting it in 
some way. So I think it is always appropriate, when we have these 
periodic campaign finance debates, to bring my colleagues up to date on 
what has been happening in the courts. As we all know, the so-called 
reformers have been out around the country seeking to get new laws on 
the books at various States and localities, some by referendum, some by 
State statute. All of those, of course, are subsequently found in the 
courts, in litigation. So what I would like to do here at the outset is 
give my colleagues an update on what is happening in the courts; all of 
these court cases, by the way, reaffirming Buckley in one way or 
another.
  I would remind everyone--I think everyone in this Chamber surely 
knows the Buckley case, Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case in the area 
of campaign finance reform which has not been changed by any of the 
courts over the last almost 25 years. In fact, court decisions have 
deepened and broadened areas of permissible political speech over the 
quarter of a century since this landmark case, widely thought to have 
been written by Justice Brennan. So let me just run down a few cases 
that have been decided just since April of this year, since there is a 
good deal of litigation emanating from these State efforts to restrict 
the rights of people to be involved in political activity.
  On April 17, in Americans for Medical Rights v. Heller, the United 
States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Nevada 
State Constitution could not be enforced so as to prevent issue 
advocacy groups from contributing more than $5,000 to a ballot 
initiative. This was a court response to an effort to try to shut up 
groups in criticizing politicians--very similar to the measure 
currently before us which seeks to make it essentially impossible for a 
group to criticize a politician in proximity to an election.
  On April 27, in Kruse v. Cincinnati, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Cincinnati ordinance placing 
spending caps on campaigns for city council violated the first 
amendment. This case is noteworthy. Here was a conscious effort on the 
part of the city council in Cincinnati to get a court, some court, to 
revisit the question of whether spending limits were permissible. This 
is something the Buckley case struck down forthwith, and forthrightly. 
That effort to get the court to reverse its decision was unsuccessful.
  On April 29, in North Carolina Right to Life v. Bartlett, the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held a State 
statute that attempted to regulate issue advocacy groups as 
unconstitutional. That is the same issue we have before us in the 
McCain-Feingold amendment, the effort by the Government to try to 
regulate constitutionally protected issue advocacy.
  On June 1, in FEC v. Akins, the Supreme Court held that voters have 
standing to challenge the FEC's dismissal of an administrative 
complaint. Although the Court remanded the case for further 
proceedings, the Court strongly suggested that a membership 
organization's communications with

[[Page S10063]]

its own members would not meet the definition of ``expenditures'' 
subject to regulation by Congress.
  In another case, on June 1, in Right to Life of Dutchess County v. 
FEC, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 
joined a chorus of many other Federal groups in striking down--striking 
down--an FEC regulation that prohibited corporate speech, even though 
that speech stopped short of the ``express advocacy'' standard adopted 
in the Buckley case.
  Then on June 4, in Russell v. Burris, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Eighth Circuit held that contribution limits of $300 to certain 
State candidates violated the first amendment and that special 
privileges to so-called ``small donor'' PACs violated the equal 
protection clause.
  On June 11, in State of Washington v. 119 Vote No!, the Supreme Court 
of Washington held that a State statute which prohibits a person from 
sponsoring, with actual malice, a political advertisement containing a 
false statement of material fact to be facially unconstitutional.
  On July 21, in Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a Virginia campaign 
finance statute could not reach the conduct of groups that engaged in 
issue advocacy.
  On July 23, in Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a first amendment 
challenge of a State statute limiting campaign contributions was so 
likely to succeed that a preliminary injunction should issue preventing 
Missouri from enforcing the statute.
  On July 23, in Suster v. Marshall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit enjoined the enforcement of a provision of the Ohio Code 
of Judicial Conduct which capped spending in a judicial election for 
the Ohio Common Pleas Court at $75,000--again, a court decision 
striking down spending limits.
  On August 10, in Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. the State of Alaska, 
the Superior Court for the State of Alaska granted summary judgment, 
ruling Alaska's campaign finance reform legislation unconstitutional 
and, therefore, null and void.
  Finally, on August 11, in Vannatta v. Keisling, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon ballot measure passed 
into law which prohibited State candidates from using or directing any 
contributions from out-of-district residents and penalizing candidates 
when more than 10 percent of their total funding comes from such 
individuals does not survive scrutiny under the first amendment.
  My reason for the recitation of these cases is these are cases just 
since April, and every single one of them, at least three of which are 
right on the point of issue advocacy, which is what we have before us 
today, have ruled these government restrictions unconstitutional.
  So there is virtually no chance--no chance--that the restrictions on 
citizens' ability to engage in issue advocacy contained in McCain-
Feingold will be upheld as constitutional. There is certainly no 
evidence that the courts are moving in the direction of allowing 
governments at any level to restrain the voices of citizens at any time 
in proximity to an election or any other time.
  Mr. President, issue advocacy is, of course, as I said, 
constitutionally protected speech. The New York Times, the Washington 
Post, and USA Today are some of the most aggressive users of issue 
advocacy. These multimillion-dollar corporations express themselves 
without limitation at any point, both in the news sections and on the 
editorial pages. They are the practitioners of the first amendment.
  The problem with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA 
Today is that they think the first amendment only applies to them. It 
is amusing to look at the amount of space dedicated over the last 2 
years by these three newspapers to their efforts to aid and abet those 
who would shut up citizens and make it difficult for them to exercise 
their constitutional rights.
  Just looking at the New York Times, they have editorialized on the 
subject of campaign finance reform between July 1, 1997, and September 
9, 1998, 82 times. The average number of days between campaign finance 
editorials in the New York Times is 8. On the average, every 8 days, 
the New York Times is lobbying for campaign finance reform, which they 
have a constitutional right to do. What is particularly amusing is the 
way in which they do it, which is remarkably similar to issue advocacy 
that groups engage in frequently on television.

  The typical issue ad says at the end of the ad, ``Call Congressman'' 
so-and-so ``and tell him to either keep on doing what he is doing'' or 
``stop doing what he is doing.'' I thought it was particularly amusing 
that the April 21, 1998, editorial in the New York Times was just like 
issue advocacy. The same opportunity they would deny to anyone else, 
they engaged in themselves.
  They opined here about the importance of passing their version of 
campaign finance reform and then listed Members of the House and their 
phone numbers--exactly the kind of thing they don't want anybody else 
to do. Exactly the kind of thing they would prohibit every other 
American citizen from doing in proximity to an election, they are doing 
right here on the editorial page.
  Of course, the newspapers are exempt from the Federal Election 
Campaign Act. I think they should be exempt, but I find it disingenuous 
in the extreme for them to engage in the very same practice. This is a 
huge, multi-, probably billion-dollar, American corporation, a 
corporation engaging in issue advocacy, putting the heat on elected 
officials, putting their phone numbers in there, saying call them--call 
them up and tell them to do this or not to do that. That is what they 
don't want anybody else in America to be able to do.
  Mr. President, part of what is at the root of this debate is: Who is 
going to have the opportunity to express themselves, who is going to be 
able to engage in political discourse, in this country? Just newspapers 
and nobody else? Boy, that would be a good deal for them. That is 
exactly what they have in mind, because they practice issue advocacy 
every day, and sometimes it is remarkably similar to the issue ads you 
see on television run by organized labor, or plaintiffs' lawyers, or 
you name it. ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so, ``and tell him to do'' 
this or do that, it said in the New York Times of April 21.
  The Washington Post has been not far behind, another megacorporation 
which exists for the purpose of influencing political discourse in this 
country. This big corporation, of course, like the other big 
corporation I just mentioned, the New York Times, is exempt from the 
Federal Election Campaign Act, and this big corporation, too, would 
like to restrict the speech of other American citizens in order to 
enhance its own views.
  On the subject of campaign finance reform, going back to January 1, 
1997, the Washington Post has written 53 editorials. The average number 
of days between editorials on campaign finance reform in the Washington 
Post is 12. So, Mr. President, every 12 days, this great, huge American 
corporation is lobbying the Congress to take a particular position on 
campaign finance reform.
  I defend their right to do it, but I find it amusing--if not really 
troubling more than amusing--that this kind of corporation should have 
this kind of influence and everybody else in society in proximity to an 
election would be essentially muffled from being able to mention a 
candidate's name in proximity to an election.
  So some big corporations would have an advantage; others a 
disadvantage. That is what the Washington Post would like--more power 
and more advantage. USA Today, another huge American corporation--
between January 1, 1997, and today, USA Today has run 25 editorials on 
the subject of campaign finance reform. That is an average of one every 
25 days--another major American corporation seeking to influence the 
course of this legislation, which also supports McCain-Feingold, which 
would make it impossible for anybody else to do the same thing in 
proximity to an election.
  The USA Today editorial just yesterday was remarkably akin to an 
issue ad, Mr. President, remarkably akin to an issue ad, just like the 
New York Times editorial back in April I mentioned awhile ago. They 
state their case on the editorial page, and then they list all the 
Republican Senators, and particularly they highlight those

[[Page S10064]]

who are up for reelection this year. And they put their phone numbers 
by their names. Issue advocacy, Mr. President; within 60 days of an 
election.
  Under the bill they support, over at USA Today, nobody else in 
America could do this, could mention a candidate's name within 60 days 
of an election. So this big corporation would have its power further 
enhanced by the quieting of the voices of everybody else in America who 
sought to express themselves within 60 days of an election by maybe 
saying something unkind about some Member of Congress.
  So, Mr. President, there isn't any question; there is an enormous 
transfer of influence and power to the part of corporate America that 
owns and operates newspapers. Of course they are enthusiastic about 
this kind of legislation. This industry, the newspaper industry, which 
already has an enormous amount of power, would be dramatically more 
powerful if the kind of legislation we have before us were passed.
  Some would argue there is a media loophole in the Federal Election 
Campaign Act because they are exempt from all of these restrictions 
that currently apply to everybody else, and certainly would be exempt 
of the greater restrictions that this legislation seeks to place on 
Americans of all kinds.
  Mr. President, there are some Americans who believe that newspapers 
are a bigger problem, a bigger problem than campaign contributors. 
There was an interesting article back on October 21, 1997--excuse me, 
Mr. President, it is a Rasmussen poll, an interesting finding.

       More than 80% of Americans would like to place restrictions 
     on the way that newspapers cover political campaigns. In 
     fact, restricting newspaper coverage is far more popular than 
     public funding of campaigns.

  Restrictions on newspaper coverage is far more popular than public 
funding of campaigns. This is the American people in a poll in late 
1997 discussing the influence of newspapers on the political process.
  Further, in the description of the poll finding, it says:

       One reason for the public desire to restrict newspapers is 
     that Americans think reporters and editorial writers have a 
     bigger impact on elections than campaign contributions.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Not at the moment.

       The Rasmussen Research survey found that 68% of Americans 
     believe newspaper editorials are more important than a $1,000 
     contribution. Only 17% think such contributions have a bigger 
     impact.
       Americans may also support restrictions on reporters 
     because more than seven-out-of-ten believe personal 
     preferences of reporters influence their coverage of 
     politics. In fact, Americans overwhelmingly believe (by a 61% 
     to 19% margin) that a candidate preferred by reporters will 
     beat a candidate who raises more money.

  Let me repeat that, Mr. President. This comprehensive poll of 
American citizens on the influence of newspapers, in late 1997, found 
that Americans, by a margin of 61 percent to 19 percent, believe that a 
candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more 
money.
  Mr. President, I am making these points somewhat tongue in cheek 
because, obviously, I am not advocating restrictions on newspapers. But 
what I find particularly outrageous is newspapers advocating 
restrictions on everyone else. Who are they to think that they are the 
only ones who are to have influence in the American political process?
  Richard Harwood of the Washington Post, on October 15, 1997, made 
some interesting points along those lines. Mr. Harwood said:

       It is fortunate for the press in the United States that the 
     voice of the people is not the voice of God or the Supreme 
     Court.
       That is because Americans, in the mass, believe in ``free 
     speech'' and a ``free press'' only in theory. In practice 
     they reject those concepts.
       That was the troubling conclusion drawn, ironically, from a 
     major study of public opinion commissioned in 1990 by 
     the American Society of Newspaper Editors as part of the 
     observance of the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. 
     . . .

  .So this was a survey taken, I guess, by the Louis Harris 
organization for the Center for Media and Public Affairs. And Mr. 
Harwood points out the findings are, as he puts it, ``depressing.''
  The first point in this survey of the American people, Harwood, in 
talking about the American people, said:

       If they had their way, ``the people''--meaning a majority 
     of adults--would not allow journalists to practice their 
     trade without first obtaining, as lawyers and doctors must, a 
     license.

  The second finding of this survey:

       [The people] would confer on judges the power to impose 
     fines on publishers and broadcasters for ``inaccurate and 
     biased reporting''. . . .

  Third:

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

  Harwood further points out, at the end of his article:

       So press freedoms remain, as in the past, dependent not on 
     the goodwill of the masses but on the goodwill and 
     philosophical disposition of the nine men and women of the 
     Supreme Court of the United States.

  Mr. President, I make those points to illustrate that the principal 
beneficiaries of the amendment before us are the huge corporations of 
America that control the press. They almost uniformly support 
legislation that would quiet the voices, at least in 60 days' proximity 
to an election, of all other American citizens, thereby enhancing the 
ability of newspapers to control the outcome of American elections.
  The good news, Mr. President, is we are not going to pass this 
legislation. The further good news is the courts would not uphold this 
legislation if we did pass it. I just mentioned three cases that have 
been handed down in the last 6 months indicating that Government 
restrictions on issue advocacy, tried by State governments, is clearly 
unconstitutional.
  But what is truly disturbing in this free country, Mr. President, is 
that these big corporations that own these newspapers are so 
aggressively advocating efforts to quiet the voices of other American 
citizens.
  It is truly alarming that in 1998 these big corporations, which 
already have enormous influence in our country, want to have even more. 
In fact, they want to have a monopoly on influence in proximity to an 
election. And as we all know, they are perfectly free to do editorials, 
both on the front page and on the editorial page--and do--up to and 
including the day before the election. And I defend their right to do 
it.
  But what is disturbing is they do not want to let anybody else have 
their say. So this legislation, Mr. President, dramatically benefits 
the fourth estate at the expense of other citizens in our country.
  Now, finally, before going to Senator Byrd, I have heard it said that 
we need to pass this kind of legislation. I have heard for over a 
decade we need to pass this kind of legislation in order to restore the 
faith of the American people in the Congress. In October of 1994, in 
the waning days of the end of Democrat control of this Congress, only 
27 percent of the American people approved of the Congress. As of this 
past week, the congressional approval rating was 55 percent. Now, the 
55 percent approval rating Congress has today comes after two Federal 
elections, 1994 and 1996, with record spending, three intervening 
filibusters of McCain-Feingold and its ancestor, Boren-Mitchell, and 
even the Clinton-Gore fundraising scandal.
  Clearly, Mr. President, there is no political imperative to pass 
campaign finance bills that are unconstitutional. To suggest that the 
Congress is still unpopular--which it isn't--or that when it was 
unpopular it was somehow related to this issue simply cannot be 
supported by the facts.
  Bill Schneider, a reputable pollster who works for CNN, back in 
February of this year had an interesting article in the National 
Journal. This was when the approval rating of Congress began to turn 
around. He pointed out in February 14 of this year:

       For the first time in at least 25 years, a majority of 
     Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. 
     Congress--perhaps the most ridiculed institution in America 
     --has rarely gotten above a 40 per cent job-approval rating 
     since 1974. Now, it's at 56 per cent.

  That was then; it is 55 percent now.
  ``What's going on here?'' said Bill Schneider.

       A balanced budget, a booming economy and--not the least 
     important--a smaller government. ``We have the smallest 
     government

[[Page S10065]]

     in 35 years, but a more progressive one,'' the President 
     said. Right now, trust in government is at its highest level 
     since the Reagan era, when it was ``morning in America.''

  Now, we clearly do not need to pass this unconstitutional legislation 
in order to deal with cynicism about the Congress, which enjoys a 55 
percent approval rating.
  I might say that at the end of the Congress in 1994, I was personally 
involved in an all-night filibuster on September 30, 1994. I will never 
forget it. It is the only real filibuster we have had here in 10 years. 
It was an all-nighter. The cots were out. People were blurry eyed. But 
it was a remarkably uplifting event for those of us who were involved 
in it. We defeated Boren-Mitchell a mere 5 weeks before the greatest 
Republican congressional victory of this century.
  Suffice it to say, there is no connection between this issue and 
electoral success. The responses you get on polls on this issue depend 
on how you ask the question. This is an arcane, complicated subject, 
and it is the obligation and the responsibility of Members of the 
Senate to protect the Constitution, to protect political discourse in 
this country, and to do the right thing one more time.
  Mr. President, I am confident that, at the appropriate time, this 
amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might get consent to speak on 
another matter at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks?
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator 
has any notion about approximately how much time he would consume?
  Mr. BYRD. I guess it would be 45 minutes to an hour. It would give 
Senators a chance to get lunch.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would say 
in all due respect to the most respected Senator from West Virginia, we 
have a limited amount of time to debate this issue. There are Senators 
who want to talk on it. I say in all respect to the Senator from West 
Virginia, we have just begun this debate. We just had the first opening 
statements. If we interrupt for 45 minutes to an hour, I think that 
would certainly disrupt this entire debate, which is of the greatest 
importance. I hope the Senator from West Virginia, in all great 
respect, would understand.
  Mr. BYRD. I do understand that. I have to be somewhere else from 1:30 
on, for awhile. I had hoped that I might be able to speak out of order 
earlier.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me indicate, if I may, I will not 
object to this Senator's request. But let me say that after this 
address I do intend to object to any other discussions about other 
matters that do not have to do with the issue before us, before the 
scheduled cloture vote. But in this instance I will not object.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I hope 
that other Senators would permit me to proceed.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could the Senator at least wait until 
12:30, if he has to be someplace at 1:30? We just began. There have 
been two statements that have been given on this very important issue. 
I understand and appreciate the seniority and respect and dignity that 
the Senator from West Virginia has, but this is incredibly disruptive, 
which I am sure the Senator from West Virginia can understand.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield so I 
might reply?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will remember that debate 
on the Interior bill is being interrupted here. I have no objection to 
that. And there was a request that there be no amendments until, I 
believe it was Friday or Thursday, at some point, or until we vote on 
cloture on this matter. I had no objection to that. But I could have 
objected. That debate was interrupted. I don't interrupt in debates 
very often. I hope the Senator will allow me to proceed in this 
instance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object because of the Senator from West Virginia, but the fact is 
we are debating an amendment just as we normally do. And we are under a 
unanimous consent agreement, which we normally do. The Senator from 
West Virginia could object to us going into session--we all know that--
because we function by unanimous consent. I think it is very 
unfortunate that when we have, really, now, a day and a half, and we 
just initiated debate on this very, very critical issue, the Senator 
has to do that at this time. I will not object.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield, I make the request 
I be recognized, upon the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from 
Kentucky, for not to exceed 1 hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL.  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make brief 
remarks before the Senator from West Virginia begins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I repeatedly asked the Senator from 
Kentucky if he would yield for a question about his statements about 
the case law, and he refused on several occasions. That is regrettable 
because I hope we will have a debate here, but I do appreciate his 
review of the case law. I think it is helpful, and I do want to hear 
Senator Byrd's remarks very shortly.
  Let me quickly point out that I heard the Senator from Kentucky 
discussing a Nevada case regarding restriction on spending on issue 
advocacy. But the bill before the Senate has no such restriction. So 
that case is not applicable to what is before the Senate.
  The Senator referred to the Cincinnati spending limits case. The 
problem is, our bill before the Senate does not have any spending 
limits in it.
  The Senator is arguing case law that has absolutely nothing to do 
with what we are debating here today. I think that is regrettable 
because this is supposed to be a debate about the amendment before the 
Senate.
  The Senator discussed a case involving in-state contributions. But 
there are no in-state limits included in this bill. And the same for 
the California case involving small donor----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will yield for a question, yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Kentucky--if the Senator from 
Wisconsin was closely listening--didn't claim the cases were about 
issue advocacy. What the Senator from Kentucky said is that all the 
cases were further reinforcement of the Buckley decision and that 
several of the cases were about issue advocacy.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. None of the provisions that were specifically cited 
with regard to those cases has anything to do with the legislation 
before us. I will make the point now and continue to make the point 
throughout this debate that when case law is cited, it ought to have 
something to do with the matter before the Senate, or that clouds the 
issue of constitutionality in a way that is a disservice. If the 
Senator from Kentucky is going to make his arguments based on court 
cases, he should at least recognize and acknowledge that this version 
of the bill does not include many of the red herrings that he keeps 
presenting before the Senate. As we say in the law, these cases are 
readily distinguishable from the matter before us.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors to the McCain-Feingold amendment, in addition to Senators 
Thompson, Snowe, Collins, and Jeffords, Senators Levin, Glenn, 
Lieberman, and Wellstone, who are long-time and vigorous supporters of 
this bill.

[[Page S10066]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I very much look forward to the remarks 
of the Senator from West Virginia and appreciate his courtesy in 
allowing me to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized for up to 60 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, and I 
thank, again, all Senators for allowing me to speak at this particular 
juncture.
  (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
Feingold pertaining to another subject are printed later in today's 
Record.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the McCain-Feingold bill was first 
introduced in the fall of 1995, just about 3 years ago. To date, thanks 
to the truly extraordinary efforts of our colleagues in the other 
House, we are as close as we have ever been to passing that bill and 
making a start on cleaning up the corrupt campaign finance system that 
has seemed so intractable for so long. As we stand here today, only 
eight votes stand between this bill and the President's desk--just 
eight votes. Only eight Senators out of all Members of the Congress are 
preventing this body from joining the other body in passing campaign 
finance reform. Eight Senators are blocking the Senate from banning 
soft money.
  Mr. President, the time for excuses is over. It is time to finish the 
job. It is time to pass campaign finance reform and send it on to the 
President.
  Let me first take a moment to remind my colleagues of what happened 
in the other body the week after we in the Senate left for the August 
recess. This campaign finance reform bill that all the pundits thought 
was dead and constantly claimed as dead actually passed the other body 
by a very strong vote. The vote was 252 to 179. That is right, Mr. 
President, 252 to 179 in the House. It wasn't even close. By any 
measure, the passage in the House of the Shays-Meehan version of the 
McCain-Feingold bill was a landslide. Sixty-one Republicans, over one-
quarter of the Republican caucus in the entire House, voted for this 
bill. Mr. President, I think that should answer once and for all the 
allegation that the McCain-Feingold bill is a partisan piece of 
legislation. It is not.
  Sixty-one Republicans would not vote for a bill that is a Trojan 
horse for the Democratic Party. No, this bill has now been shown in 
both Houses to be a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem.
  The House vote was the culmination of literally months of debate on 
campaign finance reform. The debate actually started, if you can 
believe this, on May 21 and did not conclude until August 6. There were 
72 amendments offered to the House version of the Shays-Meehan bill. 
There were a total of 41 rollcall votes on those amendments. The House 
spent over 50 hours debating campaign finance reform, an amount of time 
that is almost unprecedented to spend on one bill over there. I think 
we do it fairly frequently here, but it is almost unprecedented in the 
House.
  The opponents of reform tried to take a page from the Senate playbook 
and openly proclaimed that they were going to try to kill the bill with 
amendments. Just like here, they offered poison pills and they tried to 
overwhelm the reformers with just the sheer number of amendments. They 
tried to drown them in amendments, but they failed, and they failed 
miserably.
  In the end, a reform bill emerged and passed the House that retained 
all of the essential features of the McCain-Feingold bill--a ban on 
soft money, improved disclosure of campaign contributions, codification 
of the Supreme Court Beck decision, and provisions designed to deal 
with campaign advertising that is dressed up as issue advertising.
  After many months of debate in the House, the bill has come back to 
the Senate. It is now on the calendar and is awaiting action.
  The majority leader objected to bringing up the House-passed version 
of McCain-Feingold, but, fortunately, that was not the end of the 
matter. Because we have the right as Senators to offer amendments to 
pending legislation, we were able to bring it up on this bill, and that 
is exactly what Senator McCain and I have done. We would have been 
delighted if the majority leader had agreed to bring up the House-
passed version of the bill, and some comments that he made on ``Meet 
the Press'' this weekend suggested that he was going to do just that. 
But by offering our amendment, we will assure that the Senate will 
again vote on this issue, which is what the people of this country 
want.
  Once again, I want to say that I am very proud of the solid, 100-
percent support of the Democratic Senators for this bill. I am grateful 
for the efforts of the minority leader, Senator Daschle, to keep this 
issue on the agenda and line up our caucus in support of the McCain-
Feingold bill.
  But we are not doing this for partisan reasons. We are doing this 
because it is the right thing to do for our country. This campaign 
finance system is sapping the confidence of the American people in 
their Government. People have seen time and time again that these huge 
soft money contributions do influence the congressional agenda. They 
understand that we cannot act in the interest of average people if we 
are spending too much time trying to woo the big contributors. They 
know that soft money must be eliminated before it just totally swamps 
our elections and our legislature.
  It is absolutely critical that we finish the job now; that we finish 
the job now before the end of this Congress, otherwise, we will 
undoubtedly see an explosion of soft money fundraising as the parties 
get ready for the next big show, and that is the next Presidential 
election in the year 2000.
  If we go home and allow this soft money system to continue into the 
next Presidential election cycle, we will reap scandals that will make 
the scandals of 1996 look pale by comparison.
  Look at what has happened in this cycle already will give you a clue 
as to what is going to happen. Already in this cycle, according to 
Common Cause, the parties have raised a total of $116 million, and that 
is the most ever in a non-Presidential cycle. Soft money fundraising 
more than tripled from 1992 to 1996--from an already troubling amount 
of $86 million to the now staggering amount of $262 million. Based on 
that growth, some estimate that the parties could raise $600 million in 
soft money in the year 2000 cycle--$600 million. Over half a billion 
dollars in soft money is likely to be the consequence and the 
disgusting display in the year 2000.
  Mr. President, we already have a majority in this body, and with just 
eight more votes in the Senate we can stop this escalation of soft 
money. We can say to the political parties, Enough is enough. Go back 
to raising money under the limits established in the Federal Election 
Campaign Act. And then if somebody says, ``Well, we need more money,'' 
then start raising money from more people; get more people involved. 
Don't just extort more and more money from the major corporations and 
labor unions that are eager to curry favor with the Congress or the 
President.
  Mr. President, the American people are sick of tales of big money 
fundraisers. It is a terrible turnoff for a citizen of average means to 
read that people give $100,000, or $250,000 to sit at the head table 
with the President, or have a special meeting with the majority leader 
of the U.S. Senate. They do not want more stories like the story of 
Roger Tamraz who gave $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee 
hoping for the special access he needed to promote his pipeline 
project. Tamraz told the Governmental Affairs Committee that as he 
thought about it, the next time he would give $600,000 if he thought 
this would help his business and that getting special access was not 
just one of the reasons he gave to the DNC, he said it was the only 
reason he gave the $300,000 and would give $600,000--for special 
access.
  But these kinds of scandals are bound to come back again and again 
because our political parties, Mr. President, are addicted to soft 
money. They cannot get enough of it. And the reason is that they have 
found a way to make soft money work directly for them in Federal 
elections. This is an incredible

[[Page S10067]]

twist of a loophole that was established by the FEC in 1978. Remember 
that prior to 1996, most of the parties' soft money went into what were 
called party building activities--get out the vote drives, voter 
registration efforts, and the like.
  But then in 1996, the parties discovered the issue ad, and it was off 
to the races. Both Presidential campaigns directly benefited from these 
kinds of ads--you know, the ones that do not explicitly say ``vote 
for'' or ``vote against'' a candidate, but they are nonetheless 
obviously aimed at directly influencing an election, obviously 
intentionally intended to cause someone to vote specifically for one 
candidate or another. And they used party soft money to pay for the 
ads.
  Now, here is an irony, Mr. President. Just yesterday, Attorney 
General Reno announced yet another 90-day inquiry into the campaign 
finance scandals of the 1996 campaign. It has to do with issue ads run 
by the DNC, a portion of which were paid for with soft money. The 
allegation is that it was improper for the President to have 
participated in the development of that ad campaign. The McCain-
Feingold amendment that is before us makes it very clear that such ads 
cannot be paid for with soft money and cannot be coordinated by the 
parties with their candidates. Yet some of the very people who are 
calling on the Attorney General to appoint this independent counsel are 
staunchly opposed to this amendment anyway.
  We also already have seen the parties and outside groups preparing to 
exploit the phony issue ad loophole in this election. Over the next 
month, more and more election ads will begin appearing around the 
country, but because of that loophole, in many cases there will be no 
disclosure either of the spending itself or of the identity of the 
donors who are really behind the ads. These issue ad campaigns, Mr. 
President, are blatantly targeted at specific elections, but again 
their creators intentionally avoid the elections law, but avoiding the 
so-called magic words of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.''
  Here is an example. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported in 
July that the Republican Party is planning a $37 million issue advocacy 
campaign to begin running after Labor Day designed to help Republicans 
pick up seats in the House in November. Roll Call described the 
campaign as follows:

       Republican leaders are calling the plan ``Operation Break-
     Out:'' a comprehensive strategy to blanket as many as 50 to 
     60 battleground districts with ``issue advocacy'' television 
     ads touting the GOP's success in balancing the budget, 
     cutting taxes and reforming welfare.

  The story then states that Republican officials predict that if 
Members help raise the $37 million, then the party will pick up as many 
as 25 additional seats. So they are candid. They are very upfront about 
the fact that this issue ad campaign is designed specifically to help 
elect more Republicans to the House, not just to talk about issues.
  So here you have the leaders of a national political party designing 
a huge media plan specifically to elect candidates from that party, and 
specifically planning to take advantage of the phony issue ad loophole 
so they can at least partially pay for the campaign with soft money.
  This is what the twin loopholes--soft money and phony issue ads--have 
led us to. And, of course, Mr. President, neither party is exempt. I 
have consistently maintained a bipartisan approach to this issue in my 
work with the senior Senator from Arizona and in my other work on this 
issue. And I will do so today.
  A Democratic Party source is quoted in that same Roll Call story as 
saying that the Democratic Party is budgeting $6 million for issue ads 
and possibly a lot more. And, of course, the Republican Party justifies 
its plan as a preemptive strike against the labor unions that spent 
about $25 million on issue ads in the 1996 elections.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire Roll Call 
story be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From Roll Call, July 23, 1998]

   GOP Plans To ``Break Out'' in Fall Election, Leadership Wants $37 
                        Million for Ad Campaign

                           (By Jim VandeHei)

       Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) and top GOP leaders have 
     devised a $37 million ``issue advocacy'' media campaign and a 
     detailed communications plan to deliver poll-tested messages 
     to dozens of targeted Congressional districts in coming 
     months, according to internal documents and several 
     Republican sources familiar with the strategy.
       The $37 million media campaign, the centerpiece of the 
     Republicans' strategy, will be launched around Labor Day in 
     an effort to preempt an anticipated ad blitz by the AFL-CIO 
     and to define the agenda heading into November. Republican 
     Members are expected to contribute or raise $15 million to 
     $20 million total for the project, including $8 million in 
     hard money in the next few weeks.
       Republican leaders are calling the plan ``Operation Break-
     out:'' a comprehensive strategy to blanket as many as 50 to 
     60 battleground districts with ``issue advocacy'' television 
     ads touting the GOP's success in balancing the budget, 
     cutting taxes and reforming welfare.
       Gingrich and National Republican Congressional Committee 
     Chairman John Linder (Ga) predict that if Members help raise 
     the $37 million, the GOP will pick up as many as 25 
     additional seats, according to GOP officials.
       Operation Break-out, according to GOP leadership sources, 
     also includes a new communications regime and a legislative 
     agenda that caters specifically to the Republicans' financial 
     contributors off Capitol Hill. These contributors, once 
     placated, will be hit up during the August recess to help 
     bankroll the ad campaign.
       While Gingrich insisted in an interview that a 40-seat gain 
     is possible, GOP strategists have determined that a net 
     pickup of 15 of 25 seats in ``eminently doable'' if Members 
     cough up millions of dollars for their colleagues before the 
     August break, according to a GOP leadership source close to 
     the effort.
       Privately, top GOP leaders expect a net gain of five to ten 
     seats unless the Operation Break-out is implemented.
       Gingrich and company rolled out the $37 million issue-
     advocacy campaign to Members at a private meeting at the 
     Capitol Hill Club yesterday and plan to brief key Members and 
     staffers on the communications plan in coming weeks.
       If Republican leaders can overcome internal opposition from 
     key Members--including Majority Whip Tom Delay (Texas) and 
     Conference Vice Chairwoman Jennifer Dunn (Wash)--the new 
     election plan will be the vehicle Gingrich and company hope 
     to ride to an expanded majority in November's elections, the 
     sources said.
       ``I have always felt that we get weak-kneed in the spring 
     and worry we'll lose seats,'' said Appropriations Chairman 
     Bob Livingston (La), who has pledged $500,000 for the 
     project.
       ``This is the best economy in 50 years, so it's the 
     incumbents' time. This (new strategy) will help expand (our 
     majority) even further.''
       Democrats are not losing any sleep over the GOP's plan.
       ``Republicans will spend more than us, but we will be 
     competitive in the area of issue advocacy,'' said Democratic 
     Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Dan Sallick, who 
     added that Democrats will budget more than $6 million for 
     issue advocacy and possibly ``substantially more.''
       ``As 1996 showed, we do not have to spend more money to be 
     competitive''


                         Shaking the Money Tree

       As of today, there are roughly 170 Republican incumbents 
     who either have no opposition in November's election or token 
     opposition from an inadequately funded challenger who has 
     little chance of winning. Combined, these Members are sitting 
     on almost $60 million in campaign funds, according to GOP 
     strategists.
       If Linder, Gingrich and the rest of the GOP leaders can pry 
     some portion of that money from these Republican incumbents, 
     they are confident that the NRCC can blanket as many as 60 
     Congressional districts with issue-based ads between Labor 
     Day and Election Day.
       ``We can sit back, do little on the House floor, get out of 
     here early and probably win five seats,'' said one GOP 
     operative. ``But if we can get Members and (outside groups) 
     to kick in $40 million more than we have budgeted, there's a 
     damn good chance we can expand our majority by 20 to 30 
     seats.''
       That's the message Gingrich and Linder delivered to 
     Republican Members at the closed-door meeting yesterday.
       And they promised to lead by example.
       Gingrich, Majority Leader Dick Armey (Texas), Livingston 
     and Rep. David Dreier (Calif) all pledged to kick in $500,000 
     each. Linder promised $200,000 from his personal account and 
     Oversight Chairman Bill Thomas (Calif) pledged $100,000 and 
     will urge other chairmen to follow suit.
       Deputy Majority Whip Dennis Hastert (Ill) stood up at 
     Wednesday's meeting and promised $150,000, and Reps. Tom 
     Davis (Va), Jim McCrery (La) and Larry Combest (Texas) vowed 
     to pump in $100,000 each. Even Rep. Chris Shays (Conn), a 
     moderate Republican who has worked closely with Democrats on 
     certain issues, pledged $50,000.
       Top political strategists from the NRCC and certain 
     leadership offices are reviewing campaign data from every 
     Republican Member to determine how much money individual 
     Members can afford to ante up. While no

[[Page S10068]]

     specific targets have been spent, any Republican who is a 
     cinch to win this November will be expected to contribute 
     significantly to the effort.
       ``Members will be leaned on to help the team,'' said one 
     leadership source.
       Gingrich, Armey and Linder have formed a ``whip team'' of 
     about 20 Members who will make sure that Members and outside 
     groups are paying their fair share.
       The whip team--which includes top GOP leaders and the 
     party's most aggressive money men, such as Reps. Mark Foley 
     (Fla) and Bill Paxon (NY)--will twist Members' arms for cash 
     and lobby wealthy business leaders for sizable contributions, 
     the sources said.
       Their goal is to raise $8 million in hard money by August 
     to prove to business leaders that Republican leaders are dead 
     serious about expanding their majority. ``We know that 
     business leaders are investors. They put their money on the 
     party that will control this place. We want to show them that 
     investing in Democrats is not wise,'' said another GOP 
     leadership source.
       By September, Gingrich and Linder predict that Members will 
     have kicked in at least $15 million to $20 million and that 
     corporate America and individual contributors will match that 
     amount.
       The last thing they want, according to strategists, is a 
     repeat of the 1996 elections, when GOP Members sat $30 
     million-plus and the business community failed to raise one-
     quarter of what it promised for issue-advocacy ads.


                           setting the agenda

       A $35 million issues-based ad campaign financed by the AFL-
     CIO is widely credited with helping Democrats chip away at 
     the Republicans' House majority in 1996.
       AFL-CIO president John Sweeney picked about three dozen 
     competitive districts and flooded the airwaves with ads 
     hammering Republicans for gutting Medicare and blocking a 
     minimum wage. The ads, Gingrich and Linder believe, defined 
     the 1996 election before most candidates hit the campaign 
     trails and cost the Republicans nine House seats.
       The NRCC fired back with a $20 million issue-ad campaign 
     and the pro-Republican Coalition dumped in $5 million more, 
     but it was too little, too late, Republicans say.
       This year, GOP leaders plan to beat the AFL-CIO and the 
     Democrats' allies to the punch, Linder has told Members.
       The reason for such an ambitious issue campaign, sources 
     said, was that internal polls found that the Republican 
     message on key issues like education and the budget were more 
     popular than expected in the most competitive districts.
       Republican operatives picked the 28 most competitive 
     districts and tested the Republicans' positive message versus 
     the Democrats' positive message; on virtually every topic, 
     Republicans learned they could win a head-to-head debate, 
     sources said.
       ``The bottom line is . . . we are going to be competitive 
     with labor . . . and we are going to have the debate on our 
     turf,'' said NRCC spokeswoman Mary Crawford. ``And with these 
     two goals in mind we will determine where we need to run 
     these spots and when.''


                             the play book

       In a recent interview, Gingrich admitted that 
     communications, internally and externally, has been a 
     disaster for Republicans at serveral points since winning the 
     majority in 1994.
       The behind-the-scenes battle for control over 
     communications has soured Gingrich's relationship with 
     Conference Chairman John Boehner (Ohio) and has been a source 
     of friction during countless leadership meetings. As late as 
     a month or so ago, control over the message led to a nasty 
     fight between Boehner and Dunn, and their relationship 
     remains icy at best, according to several sources.
       Congnizant that communications is the weakness, top 
     advisers for Gingrich, Armey and Boehner have spent the past 
     two months writing a Republican ``playbook,'' which will be 
     distributed to Members soon. The playbook, which provides 
     Members with the party line on a variety of topics, outlines 
     a unified message for the campaigning Republicans, according 
     to a draft copy of the document.
       Top Republicans have also revamped the communications 
     structure to make sure the message is filtered down to rank-
     and-file Members and broadcast outside to Republican 
     supporters and likely voters. Gingrich's office will schedule 
     Members for Sunday talk shows; Armey will control the message 
     on the floor; DeLay will use his whip team to distribute the 
     message du jour to Members; and Boehner will write the 
     overall communications message.
       Armey's office is also responsible for making sure that 
     hard feelings between GOP leaders do not interfere with 
     disseminating the message. GOP leadership sources said that 
     will not be an easy task.
       Already, there is concern among some GOP leaders that DeLay 
     and Dunn are spending too much time privately briefing 
     Members on a separate communications strategy that could 
     divert Members' attention away from the overall plan, 
     according to leadership sources. While most leaders are 
     confidant that that problem will be taken care of by week's 
     end, other sources said it shows that distrust and 
     competitiveness could hamper the leadership's campaign 
     problems.
       But on Wednesday, DeLay spokesman John Feehery said: ``Mr. 
     DeLay supports what they are doing. I think he believes that 
     anything that helps him do his job, like getting more 
     Republicans, is something that should be done. A lot of our 
     concerns have been met.''

  Mr. FEINGOLD. This arms race of soft money spending on issue ads has 
to stop. And the way to do that is to ban soft money and bring these 
types of ads within the election laws in a fair and reasonable way that 
respects the constitutional rights of all citizens. That is what we 
have done in the McCain-Feingold bill. Contrary to the completely 
inaccurate and sometimes dishonest advertisements that have been run 
across the country saying that we use a different approach, we, in 
fact, maintain a clear respect for free speech, which both Senator 
McCain and I strongly adhere to. We have addressed in our bill, which 
is in the form of the amendment before us today, the two biggest 
problems in our campaign finance system--soft money and phony issue 
ads.
  Mr. President, if we do not act on this bill, the exploitation of the 
loopholes will continue to spiral out of control. In the year 2000, we 
will see both Presidential candidates promising to limit their private 
fundraising in order to receive public funds while their parties pursue 
parallel or even intertwined campaigns with issue ads funded by as much 
as $600 million in soft money.
  Is that the kind of campaign we want to see in the first Presidential 
election of the next century? I do not think so. We need to make the 
next campaign a cleaner, less corrupt, less out of control Presidential 
campaign. We do not want more of the same of what we saw in 1996.
  Mr. President, all across the country the American people are telling 
us that they do, in fact, overwhelmingly support the McCain-Feingold 
bill. Recent polls conducted in eight States during the month of August 
by the Mellman Group for the advocacy group Public Campaign showed that 
strong majorities, ranging from 58 percent in Mississippi to 75 percent 
in New Hampshire, are in favor of the McCain-Feingold bill. And this 
support is constant --it is constant, Mr. President--across demographic 
groups and across party lines. In fact, in seven of the eight States 
polled, believe it or not, Republican voters were more likely to 
support the bill than Democrat voters.
  Editorial boards across the country are constantly calling on us to 
act. And it is not just the Washington Post and the New York Times, 
although they have been wonderful advocates for this much-needed 
change; it is also the Hartford Courant, the Kansas City Star, the St. 
Louis Post-Dispatch, The Tennessean, and the Charleston Gazette.
  The message from each of these editorial boards is that this body, 
the Senate, has one last chance to salvage some semblance of respect on 
the issue of campaign finance reform. After all the investigations, all 
the allegations, and all the finger-pointing of the last 2 years, this 
is the chance to show that we care, that we think there is something 
wrong with such a corrupt system. This is the chance.
  Now, these writers know that McCain-Feingold is not perfect, and I 
agree with that. But they think it will make a difference and that it 
should be passed and that it should be sent to the President.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent recent editorials from each of 
the fine newspapers I just mentioned be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Hartford Courant, Sept. 4, 1998]

                     Listen to the Public, Mr. Lott

       After a monthlong summer recess, senators returned to 
     Washington this week to find a full agenda and only a short 
     time to work through it. High on the to-do list should be 
     campaign finance reform. But getting that legislation to the 
     floor for a vote will be a daunting struggle despite the fact 
     reform is favored by a majority of Americans.
       Appalled by the fund-raising abuses in the 1996 elections, 
     the public wants change. Republican congressional leaders, 
     however, are comfortable with the status quo.
       It would be a pity to let this opportunity to clean up the 
     political system pass by. Reformers must redouble their 
     efforts. Citizens who want the campaign finance cesspool 
     drained must let Congress know how they feel.
       Before the August vacation, the House passed the Shays-
     Meehan bill to eliminate soft money--the unrestricted, 
     unregulated

[[Page S10069]]

     contributions (in effect, payoffs) from corporations, unions 
     and wealthy individuals that are corrupting politics. House 
     reformers triumphed because there were enough Democratic 
     votes and enough courageous Republicans such as Rep. Chris 
     Shays of Stamford to win the day.
       As considerable risk to themselves, Republican House 
     members bucked their party leadership's opposition to change.
       The Senate version of the soft-money ban, called the 
     McCain-Feingold bill, was favored by a majority of the 100 
     senators when the issue was taken up earlier this year. But 
     backers coundn't get the 60 votes needed to shut off a 
     filibuster mounted by Republican leaders.
       Quashing a filibuster will again be difficult.
       Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and other top Republicans 
     are ``dead set against reform,'' Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of 
     Connecticut observed recently. ``They don't feel that they 
     will suffer any consequences if they don't bring it up. They 
     feel that people just don't care.''
       That isn't what the polls say. But people have to act on 
     the disgust they feel toward a system under which politicians 
     become the wards of favor-seekers with lots of money. The 
     public should apply pressure on politicians who scoff at the 
     idea of cleaning up the system.
       Connecticut's senators--Mr. Lieberman and Christopher J. 
     Dodd--long have favored change in the way campaigns are 
     financed. They should assume high-profile, leadership 
     positions in making the case for the Senate version of 
     reform. These two Democrats should use their powers of 
     persuasion to bring reluctant colleagues of both parties 
     aboard the reform cause.
       As Mr. Shays and his Democratic partner, Martin Meehan of 
     Massachusetts, proved, the good fight can be won even against 
     long odds.
                                  ____


               [From the Kansas City Star, Sept. 3, 1998]

                    Vote Needed on Campaign Finance

       A showdown on campaign finance reform is shaping up in the 
     U.S. Senate. The test will be whether a minority of the 
     Republican-dominated body can continue to block action on 
     legislation that would outlaw the scandalous fund-raising and 
     spending that occurred in the 1996 elections.
       The access and influence bought by moneyed interests are 
     contaminating our political system. Ordinary citizens are 
     increasingly locked out of the policy-making decisions on 
     Capitol Hill.
       The fight in the Senate is over the McCain-Feingold bill, a 
     measure considered dead until recent weeks. Earlier this year 
     a bipartisan majority of the Senate voted for McCain-
     Feingold, which is co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, Arizona 
     Republican, and Russell Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat.
       Despite that vote, a GOP-led filibuster prevented the 
     Senate from a final decision on the bill. Reformers, 
     including all Democrats and some Republicans, failed by eight 
     votes to get the 60 necessary to halt the filibuster. Thus a 
     minority of Republicans blocked a measure that would bring 
     genuine reform to the way campaigns are financed.
       The issue was revived when the House passed a bill last 
     month similar to McCain-Feingold, setting the stage for new 
     action in the Senate.
       Based on previous performance, no help is expected from 
     Missouri and Kansas senators. They seem satisfied with the 
     current arrangement.
       The McCain-Feingold bill and the House-passed measure would 
     prohibit ``soft money,'' the funds that are contributed by 
     corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to the 
     political parties. Soft money funding, which is not limited 
     or regulated, is supposed to be used for party-building 
     activities, but not specific candidates. This rule was 
     largely ignored in 1996.
       The majority votes for campaign finance reform in both 
     houses of Congress this year reflect broad support for 
     change. That sentiment disputes the contention of many 
     members of Congress that the public is not interested in the 
     issue. Opinion polls also show overwhelming public support 
     for reforms.
       That is why the Senate Republican leadership is obligated 
     to allow a new vote on campaign finance reform before 
     adjournment.
                                  ____


           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 31, 1998]

                           Do The Right Thing

       If the two gentlemen running for the U.S. Senate would stop 
     kicking each other in the shins, each would see a monumental 
     opportunity to serve the public good while serving his own 
     political interest.
       Attorney General Jay Nixon should sit down at the 
     negotiating table and not get up until he has a settlement in 
     the St. Louis school desegregation case. A settlement would 
     be good for the schoolchildren and would mend political 
     fences with African-Americans upset by Mr. Nixon's extreme 
     opposition to the desegregation program.
       Meanwhile, Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., should go back 
     to Washington this week where he holds a key vote for 
     campaign finance reform. Passage of the McCain-Feingold bill 
     would restore people's faith in the political process and 
     spotlight Mr. Bond's willingness to occasionally stand up to 
     misguided GOP leadership.


                             Desegregation

       The Missouri Legislature provided Mr. Nixon with the tools 
     to work out a settlement of the school desegregation case 
     with the NAACP, which represents African-American children. 
     The Legislature passed SB 781, which would provide $2 in new 
     state aid to the St. Louis schools for every additional $1 
     raised locally in taxes. This would enable the city to fund 
     desegregation programs, like the magnet schools.
       SB 781 also continued the transfer program under which 
     about 12,000 black children from the city attend suburban 
     schools.
       In this way, SB 781 took away Mr. Nixon's main legal 
     arguments. Across many years and in many courts Mr. Nixon has 
     argued that the transfer program has never been legal and 
     that the state obligation to help fund desegregation programs 
     in St. Louis should end soon.
       Legally disarmed, Mr. Nixon should be able to settle 
     pronto.
       There have been recent rumblings that some suburban school 
     districts are  causing problems behind the scenes by making 
     unreasonable demands to get out of the transfer program. 
     Mr. Nixon should simply sidestep that sideshow and settle 
     the case with the NAACP. Those two sides should be able to 
     obtain a final judgment from the court.
       Mr. Nixon has complained recently that his civil rights 
     record is actually better than Mr. Bond's. Yet some African-
     American leaders seem to want to judge Mr. Nixon on his deeds 
     rather his words.
       There is one way for the attorney general to counter: Do 
     something. Settle the case.


                            campaign finance

       Distressingly, Mr. Bond joined the GOP leadership to kill 
     the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill earlier this 
     session.
       The bill had majority support, but needed eight more 
     Republican votes to escape a filibuster. At the time the bill 
     was killed in the Senate, it didn't look as though it would 
     pass in the House. But in Phoenix-like fashion, the House 
     version of the bill--Shays-Meehan--passed this summer.
       Mr. Bond now has an opportunity to reconsider in light of 
     the changed circumstances. Mr. Nixon, who supports the bill, 
     should keep the heat on this issue.
       When Mr. Bond helped kill the bill, he said he was acting 
     on First Amendment concerns. Although the free speech 
     questions are not frivolous, the bill appears to be 
     constitutional. The bill would ban ``soft'' money--the huge 
     gobs of dough that political parties raise for campaign 
     purposes from corporate and union treasuries, wealthy 
     individuals and foreign nationals.
       Federal law now bars ``hard'' money contributions to 
     individual candidates from corporations, unions and foreign 
     citizens. Extending this ban to soft money simply recognizes 
     that soft money is used for electing candidates, too. There 
     should be no First Amendment problem.
       The other main part of the bill regulates issue ads within 
     60 days of an election or when the ads are clearly intended 
     for campaign purposes. Politically active organizations--like 
     those for or against abortion rights--could not use 
     organization funds for these issue ads. They would have to 
     set up political action committees. That would require 
     disclosure of donors and $5,000 contribution limits. Issue 
     ads are clearly at the core of protected speech, but the 
     Supreme Court has given Congress latitude in regulating 
     speech when it is for campaign purposes.
       Frankly, Mr. Bond, the First Amendment arguments do not 
     justify the GOP leadership's morally bankrupt position on 
     campaign finance. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott talks a 
     lot about President Bill Clinton's campaign abuses, but he 
     won't reform the system that allowed them.
       The GOP claims that Mr. Clinton's abuses were illegal. But 
     most of those big $100,000 contributions were legal, soft 
     money contributions, obviously intended to buy access and 
     favorable consideration--and maybe a night between the sheets 
     in the Lincoln bedroom.
       In the end it comes down to the voters. Holding Mr. Bond's 
     feet to the fire on campaign finance reform and Mr. Nixon's 
     on school desegregation would be a lot better use of this 
     election than sitting idly by and watching the attack ads 
     that distort, demogogue and demean the entire process.
                                  ____


                  [From the Tennessean, Aug. 31, 1998]

               Salvage Sorry Session With Campaign Reform

       The U.S. Senate comes back from recess today with a long 
     agenda, a short calendar, and an even shorter list of 
     accomplishments to date.
       It's already snuffed out anti-smoking legislation. It has 
     shoved to the back burner President Clinton's proposal to 
     expand a self-financed form of Medicare to early retirees. It 
     has largely ignored the administration's call to provide more 
     teachers and more federal money to public schools. The 
     prospects for reaching consensus on a massive bankruptcy bill 
     or the so-called Patients Bill of Rights are slim indeed this 
     year.
       And with five weeks left on the Senate calendar, some 
     members might be satisfied just to pass the necessary 
     appropriation bills and head for home.
       But such a minimalistic approach from the Senate, however, 
     would shortchange the public. The Senate can still salvage 
     this unproductive year by focusing its energy and effort on 
     one extremely worthy area, the McCain-Feingold campaign 
     finance bill.
       Since this bill's House counterpart has already passed, the 
     Senate adoption of

[[Page S10070]]

     McCain-Feingold could send the reform measure to the 
     President's desk.
       The heart of the bill is a ban on ``soft money,'' which is 
     now largely unregulated and can therefore be given in 
     unlimited quantities by individuals, unions or corporations. 
     The elimination of soft money would greatly reduce the 
     aggregate amount of political money.
       A majority of the Senate is already on record in support of 
     McCain-Feingold. The obstacle, however, comes down to eight 
     votes the number of Republican senators who need to switch 
     their votes on cloture so the bill can come up for a vote.
       The opponents to this bill, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-
     Ky., believe they have made it through the August recess 
     without any defections. And in truth, the opponents are 
     counting on public apathy to help kill the measure. McConnell 
     has remarked on several occasions that the public doesn't 
     really care about campaign finance reform.
       It's not too late to prove him wrong. Although the public 
     may not know the intricacies of campaign law, it cares deeply 
     when it sees its leaders kowtowing to big money while they 
     ignore average citizens.
       Sen. Fred Thompson has been a strong supporter of McCain-
     Feingold from the start. Tennesseans who want to see a 
     measure of reason restored to the campaign finance process 
     should contact Sen. Bill Frist, and ask him to vote for 
     cloture on this issue.
       The McCain-Feingold bill would not cure all that ails the 
     U.S. political system. But it would greatly weaken the ties 
     between big money and politicians. The result would 
     necessarily be a more responsive government. Eight additional 
     votes needed for cloture.
                                  ____


              [From the Charleston Gazette, Aug. 27, 1998]

                  Political Cash Clean Up the Cesspool

       Americans have turned cynical about Congress, assuming that 
     big-money pressure groups buy influence by lavishing cash on 
     senators and representatives.
       High-cost campaigning forces Congress members to be ``bag 
     men,'' carrying home loot from every lobbying interest 
     wanting legislation. Republicans get most industry money, so 
     they resist every attempt to dam the cash river. But they've 
     lost a few battles--and another victory for the public seems 
     within reach.
       On Aug. 6, the House strongly passed the Shays-Meehan 
     campaign finance reform bill, which bans unlimited ``soft 
     money'' gifts to political parties. Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-
     Ga., and other GOP leaders fought it, but 61 Republicans 
     defected and voted with Democrats to pass the bill. 
     (Disgustingly, West Virginia Democrats Nick Rahall and Allan 
     Mollohan jumped the other way and joined the Republicans.) 
     Now it's in the Senate, which returns from summer recess 
     Monday. Passage in the Senate is tougher because a GOP 
     filibuster is likely, and a three-fifths majority is needed 
     to break a filibuster. Twice before, attempts to ban soft 
     money were killed by Republican filibusters despite unanimous 
     Democratic support.
       But this is an election year, and GOP senators don't want 
     voters to see them as defenders of the cash sewer. Perhaps a 
     few more will switch sides, creating the three-fifths 
     majority. We surely hope so. After the House victory, the New 
     York Times said: ``The House action was a milestone in a 
     journey that began with the first disclosure of campaign 
     fund-raising excesses in the 1996 presidential election. 
     Hearings into those abuses last year were clouded with 
     partisan acrimony. But on Monday Republicans and Democrats 
     showed they could work together.
       ``Gingrich and his henchmen, especially Tom DeLay, tried to 
     portray the legislation as revolutionary. In fact, it simply 
     closes loopholes in the existing law by banning unlimited 
     `soft money' donations to political parties from 
     corporations, unions and rich individuals.'' The newspaper 
     said the House vote ``kindles genuine hope that Congress does 
     listen to the public's yearning for a more accountable 
     political system. Members of the House or the Senate will now 
     ignore that message at their peril.''
       Exactly. Any senator who opposes the Shays-Meehan bill is 
     voting to keep the money flood pouring--in effect, voting for 
     disguised bribery. We hope that election-year pressure is 
     enough to push through the cleanup.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, again, we are down to 8 votes out of 535 
Members of Congress. After a clear demonstration that a bipartisan 
majority in both Houses support this bill, we are just down to eight 
votes, eight votes to break the filibuster that is holding up this 
important reform bill.
  This isn't one of those situations where we haven't had votes to see 
if there might be a majority. We have. We had the votes in March, in 
February, and it was clear that a bipartisan majority of this body 
supports McCain-Feingold. So it is only the filibusterers, a minority 
of this body, who are standing against the majority of this body and 
the other body. We will soon see whether eight more Senators are ready 
to do what so desperately needs to be done.
  Time and time again the senior Senator from Arizona and I have said 
we are more than willing to entertain changes to our bill that will 
allow us to get those eight votes, as long as the basic integrity of 
the bill remains intact. We reached that kind of agreement with 
Senators Snowe, Jeffords and Chafee, and it led to our proving that a 
clear majority in this body supports McCain-Feingold.
  I say to all of my colleagues, but especially the 48 who have not yet 
joined the majority, if you are one of the potential eight votes, if 
before the end of this year you want to show that you do care about the 
corrupting influence of money in our political process, and if you have 
a particular concern or problem with the amendment that is on the floor 
now, please come talk with us. I have had several fruitful 
conversations with some of these potential Senators and I look forward 
to more of them. Let's try to come to some agreement that will allow us 
to give the American people what they so desperately want from this 
Congress--a campaign finance reform bill that will make the first 
election of the next century one of which we can all be proud.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, the American body politic has a disease. It 
is a serious disease that some would argue is a critical disease. It is 
called ``the money chase.'' No party and few candidates are immune from 
it. The good news is that it is curable. The bad news is that there may 
be enough Members in this body--the Senate--who want to block the cure 
so that the cure cannot succeed.
  To inoculate our democratic system against this disease, we passed a 
series of laws in the 1970s to limit the role of money in Federal 
elections. It was our intent at that time to protect our democratic 
form of government which relies so heavily on the interchange of ideas 
and actions between the government and the private sector and to 
protect our form of government from the corrosive influence of 
unlimited and undisclosed political contributions. We wanted to ensure 
that our elected officials were neither in reality nor in perception 
beholden to special interests who are able to contribute large sums of 
money to candidates and their campaigns. These laws were designed to 
protect the public's confidence in our democratically elected 
officials.
  For many years those laws setting limits on campaign contributions 
worked fairly well.
  The limits that they set were respected, and these limits, indeed, 
are still on the books today. Those same laws that purportedly set 
limits on how much people can contribute to campaigns are on the books. 
And here is what they say.
  Individuals aren't supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate 
per election, or $5,000 to a political action committee, or more than 
$20,000 a year to a national party committee, or $25,000 total in any 
one year. Corporations and unions are supposed to be prohibited from 
contributing to any campaign. Contributions from foreign countries, 
foreign citizens, and foreign corporations are prohibited. And 
Presidential campaigns are supposed to be financed with public funds.
  That is the law. That is what it says on the law books today. Yet in 
the last few years we have heard story after story after story about 
contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals, 
corporations, and unions, and even about contributions from foreign 
sources. And we have heard stories about Presidents and Presidential 
candidates spending long hours on fundraising tasks.
  Now, how is that possible? Well, what has happened is that a pretty 
good law setting limits on the size and source of contributions had 
some soft spots which, over the years, both parties took advantage of. 
Both parties pushed up against those soft spots and created holes in 
the law, big loopholes that allowed the big money to pour in.
  So now there are effectively no limits at all. That is why we hear 
about a $1.3 million contribution to the RNC from just one company in 
1996, and a half-million dollar contribution from just one couple to 
the DNC the same year.

[[Page S10071]]

  Some in this Chamber like it that way. They don't want any limits. 
The majority leader has said it is ``the American way.''
  I disagree. We have got to plug those loopholes. We have to make the 
law whole again and, in making it whole, to make it effective. If we 
don't do that, we risk losing the faith the American people have that 
we represent their best interests.
  Soft money has blown the lid off the contribution and spending limits 
of our campaign finance system. Soft money is the 800-pound gorilla 
sitting right in the middle of this debate. Some want to pretend that 
it is not there, but it is. Soft money is at the heart of this problem. 
All soft money means is money which is unregulated and unlimited that, 
for one reason or another, crawls through that loophole that has been 
pierced by both parties in our campaign finance limits.
  Look at the most recent data. In the 1996 election, Republicans 
raised $140 million in soft money contributions, while Democrats raised 
$120 million--almost as much. In the first 18 months of the 1998 
election cycle, Republicans have raised about $70 million, and 
Democrats have raised about $45 million. That was double the amount 
that both parties raised in the first 18 months of the 1996 elections. 
That money currently is legal, and it is legal because of the loopholes 
in the law that we must close with the McCain-Feingold bill.
  The way both parties have gotten around the law of the 1970s has been 
to establish a whole separate world of campaign finance. It is the 
world of soft money--contributions that are not technically covered by 
the limits under current law. Once that soft money loophole was opened, 
once the loophole was viewed as legitimate, the money chase was on by 
both parties. Couple that with the high cost of television advertising, 
and you have the money chase involving just about all candidates.
  The chase for money has led most of us in public office or seeking 
public office to push the envelope, to take the law to the limits, to 
get the necessary contributions.
  The money chase led the head of the Republican National Committee, 
Haley Barbour, to use a subsidiary of the RNC, the National Policy 
Forum, to obtain some $750,000 in what, practically speaking, became a 
foreign contribution from a Hong Kong businessman to run ads in key 
congressional races.
  The money chase drove the actions of Roger Tamraz, a large 
contributor to both parties who, during last year's investigation, 
became the bipartisan symbol for what is wrong with the current system. 
Roger Tamraz served as a Republican Eagle in the 1980s during 
Republican administrations and a Democratic trustee in the 1990s during 
Democratic administrations. He was unabashed in admitting his political 
contributions were made for the purpose of getting access to people in 
power. Tamraz showed us in stark terms the all too common product of 
the current campaign finance system--using unlimited soft money 
contributions to buy access. And despite the condemnation by Members of 
Congress and the press of Tamraz's activities, when asked at a hearing 
to reflect on his $300,000 contribution to the Democrats in 1996, 
Tamraz said, ``I think next time I'll give $600,000.''
  What happened to the limits? What happened to the $1,000 limit and 
the $5,000 limit on PAC contributions, and the overall $25,000 limit 
per year? What happened to the intent of this Senate and the House of 
Representatives back in the 1970s to establish limits on contributions 
to candidates? How is it that a Roger Tamraz can unabashedly appear in 
front of a Senate committee and say, ``Yes, I gave $300,000 to the 
Democrats. I did it to gain access.'' And when asked, ``Would you do it 
again?'' indicated that, next time, he'll give $600,000, if necessary.
  Now, what do we believe the public feels and senses when they hear 
and see that? What do we think goes through the average person's mind 
when they see a Roger Tamraz unabashedly, boldly, without any shame, 
saying, ``Hey, I can give you guys $300,000, I can give you $600,000, 
using that loophole, and I will do it again''?
  Is that what we want our election system to be--when we have passed a 
law which says $1,000 to a candidate, $25,000 overall in a year, that 
somebody can just appear in front of a Senate committee and say, ``Yes, 
I gave $300,000, nothing illegal about that. I used the soft money 
loophole, folks. If you don't like it, close it. If you want to put 
limits on how much money I can give, close the loophole. But until you 
do it, I am going to keep on giving it''?
  That is the Tamraz challenge to us. That is the gauntlet that he has 
laid down in front of us, both parties. Answering his challenge cannot 
be done on a partisan basis. There is no way we are going to reform 
these laws unless enough Democrats and enough Republicans come 
together, as they did in the House of Representatives, and say enough 
is enough. We intended limits, we intended limits to apply, and we are 
going to close the loopholes which have obviated those limits, 
destroyed them, undermined them and, in the process, undermined the 
confidence of the American people.
  The money chase also pressures political supporters to cross lines 
they should not in order to help their candidates get needed funds.
  The money chase led a national finance chair of Senator Dole's 
presidential campaign, Simon Fireman, to engage in a 5-year money 
laundering scheme which funneled $120,000 through a secret Hong Kong 
trust to his employees who contributed to the candidates he supported. 
Similarly, the money chase led members of the Lum family, a father, 
mother and daughter, to funnel $50,000 through company employees and 
stockholders to Democratic candidates they supported, resulting in the 
first guilty pleas in the Justice Department's ongoing campaign finance 
fraud case.
  The money chase led a foreign corporation, Korean Airlines, and four 
U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations from the same country to 
funnel illegal contributions through their employees to a Republican 
Member of Congress Jay Kim, resulting in $1.6 million in corporate 
criminal fines.
  The money chase in political campaigns is a serious disease that has 
become chronic and too many of us have been affected by it. Too many of 
us have spent too much time fund-raising and in the process, pushing 
the fund-raising rules to their limits. Most of us know in our hearts 
that the money chase is a bipartisan problem and the bipartisan 
solution is the McCain-Feingold bill.
  But we have been here before. During my career in the Senate I have 
lost count of the number of times that this body has debated the need 
for campaign finance reform, been presented with reasonable bipartisan 
proposals, yet, in the end, failed to get the job done.
  Will this time be different?
  The Senate has before it a bipartisan campaign reform bill, the 
McCain-Feingold bill, that would do much to repair our campaign finance 
system. It is not a new bill. It has been before this body for years 
now and has received sustained scrutiny from Members on both sides of 
the aisle.
  It is a bill that recognizes that the bulk of troubling campaign 
activity is not what is illegal, but what is legal--what is currently 
legal because of the soft money loophole. The McCain-Feingold bill 
takes direct aim at closing the loopholes that have swallowed the 
election laws. In particular, it takes aim at closing the soft money 
and issue advocacy loopholes, while strengthening other aspects of the 
federal election laws that are too weak to do the job as they now 
stand.
  I have heard experts and my colleagues condemn the excesses of the 
1996 elections. I've also heard people bemoaning the lack of tough 
civil and criminal enforcement action against the wrongdoers. But there 
is an obvious reason for the lack of strong enforcement--the existing 
Federal election laws are riddled with loopholes and in many respects 
unenforceable. And 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. The 
so-called issue advocacy loophole exists because we in Congress allow 
it to exist. Tax-exempt organizations spend millions televising 
candidate attack

[[Page S10072]]

ads days 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. Congress alone writes the laws. Congress 
alone can shut down the loopholes and reinvigorate the Federal election 
laws.
  The Federal Election Campaign Act was first enacted 20 years ago, in 
response to campaign abuses uncovered in connection with the Watergate 
scandal. Congress enacted a comprehensive and tough system of laws, 
including contribution limits and full public disclosure of all 
campaign contributions and expenditures.
  At the time they were enacted, many people fought against those laws, 
claiming they were an unconstitutional restriction of First Amendment 
rights to free speech and free association. The laws' opponents took 
their case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued the Buckley 
decision, which held both contribution limits and disclosure 
requirements were constitutional.
  I want to repeat that, because Buckley is thrown around quite a bit 
on this floor, so I want to just repeat that last statement. Buckley 
upheld the constitutionality of contribution limits.
  There are those who say we should not, or cannot, limit the amount of 
contributions. We do limit the amount of contributions, and Buckley 
said that we can. The question now is whether we close the loopholes 
which have destroyed those limits. But in terms of the 
constitutionality under the first amendment, Buckley upheld the 
constitutionality of limits on campaign contributions.
  The Buckley court wrote specifically--relative to disclosure 
requirements, by the way--that:

       While disclosure requirements serve the many salutary 
     purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress was 
     entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial 
     measure and that contribution ceilings were a necessary 
     legislative concomitant to deal with the problem.

  And the court held in Buckley that:

       We find that under the rigorous standard of review 
     established by our prior decisions, the weighty interests 
     served by restricting the size of financial contributions to 
     political candidates are sufficient to justify the limited 
     effect upon first amendment freedoms caused by the $1,000 
     contribution ceiling. Congress was justified [the Buckley 
     court wrote] in concluding that the interest in safeguarding 
     against the appearance of impropriety requires that the 
     opportunity for abuse inherent in the process of raising 
     large monetary contributions be eliminated.

  That is Buckley explicitly holding that Congress can set and enforce 
contribution limits, and that the first amendment does not preclude us 
from doing so. The Buckley court also wrote:

       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 secure 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. . . .

  Roger Tamraz spent $300,000 buying access and said, ``I'll double it 
next time.'' Buckley, the Supreme Court, said:

       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. . . .

  Congress [the Buckley court held] 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.
  That is Buckley. That is Buckley ruling on contribution limits. That 
is Buckley saying that Congress could legitimately conclude, to use its 
words, 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.''
  That is Roger Tamraz' challenge to us.
  And when he and others say, ``I can give $300,000 because of that 
soft money loophole, and I'll double it next time,'' the Supreme Court 
says that Congress can 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.''
  The Buckley Court also upheld the disclosure limits that we had in 
the law. In upholding both the contribution limits and the disclosure 
requirements, the Supreme Court used a balancing test that weighed the 
first amendment rights against the integrity of Federal elections, and 
the Court ruled that the integrity of our elections is so compelling a 
Government interest that contribution limits and disclosure 
requirements are constitutionally acceptable.
  Some have argued that McCain-Feingold is an unconstitutional 
restriction of free speech, but that analysis leaves out several key 
legal considerations.
  First, although Buckley is often cited in support of that argument, 
Buckley, as a matter of fact, is the decision that upheld contribution 
limits and disclosure requirements. Buckley did strike down spending 
limits, but not contribution limits which Buckley affirmed. Spending 
limits were stricken by Buckley, but no one is talking about mandatory 
spending limits in this bill. What we are talking about is contribution 
limits and disclosure requirements, exactly what Buckley said is a 
constitutional means to protect the integrity of our elections, to 
deter corruption and the appearance of corruption, and to inform 
voters.
  Some have correctly cited other court decisions holding that only ads 
which contain a short list of so-called magic words can be subjected to 
the Federal election law requirements and limits relative to 
contributions, but that analysis leaves out a decision in the ninth 
circuit in the Furgatch case which holds that the list of magic words, 
which those other courts cited, ``does not exhaust the capacity of the 
English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a 
candidate.''
  The analysis by some relative to issue ads also leaves out, in 
addition to ignoring the ninth circuit Furgatch case, the fact that the 
Federal Election Commission has reaffirmed, on a bipartisan basis, its 
commitment to a broader test that goes beyond the magic words to unmask 
ads that claim to be discussions of issues but which are clearly 
intended to advocate the election or defeat of a Federal candidate.
  The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the Federal Election Commission 
regulation or whether the magic words must be present before Federal 
election laws can be applied to ads that clearly attack or support 
candidates.
  Despite attempts to depict the constitutional picture as providing 
crystal clear support for unfettered speech, no matter how corrupting 
of our electoral system, that is not the state of the law. To the 
contrary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the integrity of 
our elections is a weighty concern which Congress can consider. The 
question is how to balance that concern for the integrity of elections 
against the free speech concerns in the first amendment.
  How do you balance the two? In Buckley, the Court balanced them by 
saying contribution limits are constitutional; disclosure requirements 
are constitutional; spending limits, expenditure limits are not. That 
is what the Buckley Court ruled. This bill, our bill, is consistent 
with Buckley, consistent with Furgatch, and consistent with the Federal 
Election Commission s reaffirmation of the broader test for candidate 
advocacy.
  The problem with our campaign laws is that candidates and parties 
have pushed against the limits of the law and found loopholes to such 
an extent that the law's limits are no longer effective. We intended to 
establish limits after Watergate. Those limits have been destroyed by 
the soft money loophole.
  The Supreme Court said we can, in fact, limit contributions. The 
issue before us is whether we will restore those limits on 
contributions. Individuals can now give parties hundreds of thousands 
of dollars, millions of dollars at a

[[Page S10073]]

time, claiming that they are providing soft money rather than the hard 
money that has to meet the legal limits. Corporations, which are not 
supposed to make direct contributions at all, now routinely contribute 
huge sums to both parties, millions to both parties. While those 
contributors claim to be providing money that is simply for party-
building purposes and not for candidates, the issue advocacy loophole 
allows parties and others to televise ads that clearly attack or 
support candidates while claiming to be discussions of issues beyond 
the reach of the election laws, but which are indistinguishable from 
candidate ads which are subject to contribution limits and disclosure 
requirements.
  To show the absurd state of the law, at least in some circuits, we 
can just look at one of the 1996 televised ads that was paid for by the 
League of Conservation Voters and which referred to House Member Greg 
Ganske, a Republican Congressman from Iowa, who was then up for 
reelection. This is the way the ad read:

       It's our land; our water. America's environment must be 
     protected. But in just 18 months, Congressman Ganske has 
     voted 12 out of 12 times to weaken environmental protections. 
     Congressman Ganske even voted to let corporations continue 
     releasing cancer-causing pollutants into our air. Congressman 
     Ganske voted for the big corporations who lobbied these bills 
     and gave him thousands of dollars in contributions. Call 
     Congressman Ganske. Tell him to protect America's 
     environment. For our families. For our future.

  The ad sponsor claimed that was an issue ad, an ad that discussed 
issues rather than a candidate, and so could be paid for by unlimited 
and undisclosed funds. If one word were changed, if instead of ``Call 
Congressman Ganske,'' the ad said, ``Defeat Congressman Ganske,'' it 
would clearly qualify as a candidate ad subject to contribution limits 
and disclosure requirements.
  In the real world, that one word difference doesn't change the 
character or substance of that ad at all. Both versions unmistakably 
advocate the defeat of Congressman Ganske. But the ad sponsor claims 
that only one of those ads must comply with election law contribution 
limits and disclosure requirements. That doesn't make sense, and 
McCain-Feingold would help close down that interpretation of the law.
  This is not the first time that loopholes have eroded the 
effectiveness of a set of laws. It happens all the time. The election 
laws are just the latest example. Congress is here partly to oversee 
the way that laws operate, to close loopholes that have been 
discovered.
  The question is, What are we going to do about it?
  The time for crying crocodile tears about campaign fundraising is 
over. Folks should wipe away those crocodile tears from their eyes, 
because if they do, they will see a public disgusted with both parties 
for allowing unlimited fundraising and contributions in our Federal 
elections. Seventy-three percent of American people in a poll conducted 
by the Los Angeles Times believe both parties committed campaign 
finance abuses in the 1996 elections; 81 percent--81 percent--of the 
American people believe the campaign fundraising system needs to be 
reformed; 78 percent of the American people believe we should limit the 
role of soft money.
  Campaign finance reform is an issue that can convert a dedicated 
optimist into a doomsayer, but we have before us a bipartisan bill that 
provides the key reforms, that has passed the House and that the 
President will sign.
  We have before us a bipartisan bill which a majority in the Senate 
support, and we have a bipartisan coalition that is willing to fight 
hard for this bill.
  So let us stop complaining about weak enforcement of the election 
laws when the wording of those laws make them virtually unenforceable. 
Let us stop feigning shock at the laws' loopholes while allowing them 
to continue. It is time to enact campaign finance reform. That is our 
legislative responsibility. Otherwise, we are going to be haunted by 
the words of Roger Tamraz that in the next election it will be $600,000 
instead of $300,000.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McConnell). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues. I thank 
Senator Levin for his remarks. I thank him for his unbelievable 
dedication in trying to push through reform legislation. He has been at 
this a long time. This is the time to do it; I agree with my colleague. 
We have an opportunity. We have a bill that was passed on the House 
side. It is a bipartisan measure. We have a public that is calling for 
the change. And I agree with you, I say to the Senator; now is the time 
to pass this legislation.
  I also thank my colleagues, Senator McCain, Republican from Arizona, 
and Senator Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin. I have a special kind of 
affection for both of my colleagues. I think Senator McCain is 
principled; he speaks out for what he believes in; he is a courageous 
legislator. I think Senator Feingold has emerged here in the U.S. 
Senate as a leading reformer. He is my neighbor. I am a Senator from 
Minnesota, and I tell you, people from Minnesota who follow Russ 
Feingold's work have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I am 
honored to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  I do not know exactly where to get started. It is interesting. 
Senator Barry Goldwater told it like it is. I went to Senator 
Goldwater's service in Arizona, not because I was necessarily in 
agreement with him on all the issues. As a matter of fact, some of my 
good friends, Republican colleagues, who were on the plane with me kept 
giving me Barry Goldwater's book ``Conscience of a Conservative'' and 
kept telling me if I had read that book when I was 15 I would be going 
down the right path. I told them I did read the book when I was 15. I 
just reached different conclusions.
  Senator Goldwater about a decade ago said:

       The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of 
     the utmost importance to the patriots who founded our nation 
     and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption 
     destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty, an 
     independent legislature free from any influence other than 
     that of the people. Applying these principles to modern 
     times, we can make the following conclusions. 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.

  Let me just start out with some examples. I was involved in a debate 
here on the floor of the Senate last week which was emotional. It was 
kind of heart rending. You had a small group of people who were sitting 
where some of our citizens are sitting today. And they were from Sierra 
Blanca. They were disproportionately poor. They were Hispanic. And you 
know what? They were saying, ``How come when it comes to the question 
of where a nuclear waste dump site goes, it's put in our community? How 
come it always seems to be the case that when we figure out what to do 
with these incinerators or where to put these power lines or where to 
dump this waste, it almost always goes to the communities where people 
don't make the big contributions? They are not the heavy hitters. They 
are disproportionately poor, disproportionately communities of color; 
thus, the question of environmental justice.

  This was a debate where you had the interests of big money, big 
contributors, corporate utilities, versus low-income minority 
communities. I would argue different colleagues voted for different 
reasons, and some voted because it was not their State and they felt a 
certain kind of, if you will, deference to Senators from other States. 
I understand that. But my point is a little different.
  I tell you that all too often the conclusion is sort of 
predetermined. Those who have the clout and those who make the big 
contributions are the ones who have the influence, and those are the 
ones we listen to. All too often, a whole lot of citizens--in this 
particular case, the people from Sierra Blanca--are not listened to at 
all. Big money prevails, special interests prevail, for the same reason 
that the people in Sierra Blanca cannot get a fair shake in Texas. That 
is to say, they do

[[Page S10074]]

not give the big contributions, they do not have the political clout. 
For the same reason, they could not get a fair shake here in the U.S. 
Senate.
  In about 20 minutes I am going to be at a meeting with some 
colleagues from the Midwest. We have an economic convulsion in 
agriculture. Let me wear my political scientist hat. I really believe 
that when people look back to 1998, 1999, going into the next century, 
and raise questions about our economy--because I fear that we are going 
to be faced with some very difficult times--they are going to be 
looking at this crisis in agriculture as a sort of precursor.
  What has happened in agriculture is record low prices. Not everybody 
who is watching the debate comes from a State where agriculture is as 
important as it is in the State of Minnesota, the State I come from. 
But let me say to people who are listening to the debate, if you are a 
corn grower and you are getting $1.40 for a bushel of corn, you can be 
the best manager in the world, you can work from 5 in the morning until 
midnight, but you and your family will never make it. You will never 
make it. Record low prices. People are having to give up. They are just 
leaving. The farm is not only where they work, it is where they live.
  It is interesting that we had a farm bill, the 1996 farm bill. It was 
called the Freedom to Farm bill. I called it then the ``freedom to 
fail'' bill. It was a great bill--I am not saying anything on the floor 
of the Senate that I have not said a million times over in the last 2 
years. It was a great bill for the grain companies because what this 
piece of legislation essentially said to family farmers is, ``We're no 
longer going to give you a loan rate. We're going to cap the loan rate 
at such a low level that you won't have the bargaining power.''
  This sounds a little technocratic, but to make a long story short, 
you have family farmers faced with a monopoly when it comes to whom 
they sell their grain to. If they do not have some kind of loan rate 
that the Government guarantees that brings the price to a certain 
level, they have no bargaining power in the marketplace.
  Not surprisingly, the prices have plummeted. There is no safety net 
whatsoever. And now we see in our part of the country, in the Midwest, 
a family farm structure of agriculture which is in real peril. We see 
an economic convulsion. We see many family farmers who are going to be 
driven off the land.
  We are going to be coming to the floor of the Senate--you better 
believe we are going to be coming to the floor of the Senate--and we 
are going to be saying to our colleagues, ``Look, you could have been 
for the `freedom to fail' bill or not, but there's going to have to be 
a modification. You are going to have to cap off the loan rate, and 
we're going to have to get the prices up for family farmers.''
  I would argue that in 1996--and I hope this will not be the debate 
again--what was going on here was a farm bill that was written by and 
for big corporate agribusiness interests. That is what it was. It was a 
great bill for the grain companies, but it was a disaster for family 
farmers.
  So we are going to revisit this debate. And once again, is it going 
to be the grain companies and the big food processors and the big 
chemical companies and the transportation companies, or is it going to 
be the family farmers? I hope it will be the family farmers. I hope our 
appeal to fairness and justice will work on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate.
  But I tell you, all too often, as I look at these different issues in 
these different debates, it is no wonder, as Senator Levin said, that 
people are so disappointed and disillusioned with both political 
parties. It is no wonder that people do not register and do not vote. 
Because you know what? They have reached the conclusion that if you 
pay, you play, and if you do not pay, you do not play.
  They have reached the conclusion that this political process isn't 
their political process. I mean, my God, what happens in a 
representative democracy when people reach the conclusion that they are 
not stakeholders in the system, that when it comes to their concerns 
about themselves, about their families and their communities, their 
concerns are of little concern in the corridors of power in Washington? 
This is really dangerous. What is at stake is nothing less than our 
very noble, wonderful, 222-year experiment in self-rule and 
representative democracy. That is what it is really all about.

  (Mr. FRIST assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Now, let me give some other examples. We went through 
a debate about whether or not we were going to do anything to provide 
our children with some protection from being addicted to tobacco. Guess 
what happened? Tobacco companies, huge contributors, individual 
contributions to Senators and Representatives, big soft money, hundreds 
of thousands of dollars of contributions to the party, and guess what 
happened? As a special favor to those big tobacco interests, we didn't 
even provide our children with sensible protection.
  I fear as a special favor to the big insurance companies we are not 
going to eventually provide patients with the kind of protection that 
they need. I fear that as a special favor to those bottom dwellers of 
commerce who don't want to raise the minimum wage, we are not even 
going to raise the minimum wage for hard-pressed working people.
  What I see over and over and over again is a political process 
hijacked by and dominated by big money. I tell you, that is the 
opposite of the very idea of representative democracy, because the idea 
of representative democracy is that each person counts as one and no 
more than one.
  What we have instead is something quite different. Let's just think 
for a moment about what is on the table and what is not on the table, 
because I think this mix of money and politics, this is the ethical 
issue of our time. We are not talking about corruption as in the 
wrongdoing of individual office holders; we are talking about 
systematic corruption. What systematic corruption is all about is when 
too few people have the wealth, the power, and the vast majority of 
people are locked out. Some people march on Washington every day and 
other people have a voice that is never heard.
  Let's just think a little bit about what is on the table and what is 
not on the table. I think quite often money determines who runs for 
office. I will talk about who wins, what issues are put on the table, 
what passes, what doesn't. Let's talk about what is not on the table 
and maybe should be on the table. What is not on the table is the 
concentration of power in certain key sectors of our economy which 
poses such a threat to consumers in America.
  Think for a moment about the concentration of power in the 
telecommunications industry. If there is anything more important than 
the flow of information in a democracy, I don't know what it is. This 
is so important to us. Now, we had a telecommunications bill that 
passed a couple years ago, which, by the way, I think has led to more 
monopoly. What was interesting is that the anteroom right outside our 
Chamber was packed wall to wall. You couldn't get in here if you tried 
to get through that anteroom. Personally, I couldn't find truth, beauty 
and justice anywhere. There was a group of people representing a 
billion dollars here, another group of people representing a billion 
dollars over there. You name it.
  What is not on the table is a concentration of power in financial 
services or a concentration of power in agriculture or all the ways in 
which conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table and are 
taking over the food industry. What is not on the table is a 
concentration of power in the health care system, the way in which just 
a few insurance companies can own and control most of the managed care 
plans in the United States of America.
  Again, I would say that we are moving toward this new century. I hope 
the brave new world isn't two airline companies. I come from a State 
where we now have a strike. In Minnesota we don't have a lot of choice. 
We can't walk from Minnesota to Washington, DC. Northwest Airlines has 
85 percent of the flights in and out. What are we going to have--two 
airlines, two banks, two oil companies, one supermarket, two financial 
institutions, two health care plans? It is interesting that this isn't 
even on the table here. Could it be that these powerful economic 
interests are able to preempt some of the debate and some of the 
discussion by virtue of the huge contributions they can make with the 
soft money loophole that can

[[Page S10075]]

add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars?
  What is not on the table is, I argue, a frightening maldistribution 
of wealth and income in America. The goal of both political parties, 
the goal of political leaders, ought to be to improve the standard of 
living of all the people. Since we started collecting social science 
data, we have the greatest maldistribution of wealth and income we have 
ever had in our country. You don't hear a word about it. It is 
important for people, if they work hard, to be able to participate in 
the life of our country. It is important for people to be able to 
receive the fruits of their labor.
  We have this huge maldistribution of wealth and income. We are not 
even going to discuss it. Could it be that some of the people who are 
the most hard-pressed citizens in this country have basically become 
invisible? They are out of sight; they are out of mind. They don't have 
lobbyists. They don't make the big contributions. They don't even 
register to vote because they don't think either political party has 
much to say to them. They think both parties have been taken over by 
the same investors. Unfortunately, there is some truth to that. 
Unfortunately, we have given people entirely too much justification for 
that point of view.
  What is not on the table? What is not on the table is a set of social 
arrangements that allow children to be the most poverty-stricken group 
in America. One out of every four children under the age of 3 is 
growing up poor in America. One out of every two children of color 
under the age of 3 is growing up poor in America today. That is a 
national scandal. That is a betrayal of our heritage. Certainly we can 
do much better.
  Now, there are organizations like the Children's Defense Fund. They 
do great work. But it is a very unequal fight. It comes to whether or 
not you are going to have hundreds of billions of dollars of what we 
call tax expenditures--tax loopholes and deductions, corporation 
welfare, money that goes to all sorts of financial interests, some of 
the largest financial institutions, some of the largest corporations in 
America--or whether or not we are going to make a commitment to make 
sure that every child has the same opportunity to reach his or her full 
potential. This is the core issue. I am convinced that so many good 
things that could happen here get ``trumped'' by the way in which money 
dominates politics.
  Now, the House has passed a good campaign finance reform bill, the 
Shays-Meehan proposal. It is not everything that some of us would have 
liked. As a matter of fact, what is interesting is that the original 
McCain-Feingold bill applied to Senate races. I thought that was one of 
the most important things. We had voluntary spending caps--you can't 
mandate it--and at the same time an exchange for media time. That is 
gone. That was really important. So we are talking about a proposal 
that is a milder proposal, but it is an enormous step forward. It is an 
enormous step forward.
  There are other things that are going on in the country that I am 
excited about, that I wish for, that I think eventually we will get to. 
The clean money, clean election bill that some of us have introduced 
here on the Senate side is an exciting proposal. We have a lot of 
energy behind it at the State level. I think New York City will pass 
it. I think the State of Massachusetts will pass it. The State of Maine 
already did pass it. The State of Vermont passed it. There are 
initiatives in other States.
  Basically, with the clean money, clean election proposal, we get the 
big private money out. You say to the citizen, listen, for $5 a year, 
would you be willing to contribute to a clean money, clean election 
trust fund? And then those candidates who abide by spending limits and 
don't raise the private money, this money goes to their campaigns. You 
have a level playing field, and you own the elections, and you own your 
State capitol, and you don't have all of this mix of big money in 
politics. A lot of people in the country really like this proposal. I 
think the political problem here is we are not ready for it yet because 
the system is wired. It is wired to people who can raise the big money, 
and quite often, they are the incumbents. And a lot of people don't 
like to vote out a system that benefits them. But the McCain-Feingold 
bill represents a very important step forward--following on the heels 
of a really exciting victory in the House of Representatives. It is 
very important, very similar. It bans the soft money as my colleague, 
Senator Levin--and there is nobody with more intellectual capital in 
this area--discussed. Senator Levin knows all of the specifics. I am so 
impressed with him as a legislator, with his ability. He talked about 
it. I will just say that this is a huge loophole. It is all very 
amorphous.

  Corporations and unions can make these huge soft money contributions. 
We all end up calling for this money now because everybody is trapped 
by the same rotten system. It restricts issue advocacy, these phony 
issue ads that are disguised as not really election ads. I went through 
this. I don't mean this in the spirit of whining, but it started in 
1996, in the spring in Minnesota, and it went on all summer. There were 
all of these ads that would come on TV and they bash you for this and 
bash you for that, but they don't say ``vote against'' whether you are 
Democrat or Republican; they just say ``call.'' It is unbelievable. 
They could be financed by soft money. A huge loophole, huge problem. 
This bill codifies the Beck Supreme Court decision requiring unions to 
notify their dues-paying members of their right to disallow political 
use of their dues. It improves disclosure and FEC enforcement. This 
bill would represent a substantial step forward.
  Mr. President, there is a wonderful speech that was given by Bill 
Moyers in December of 1997, the title of which is ``The Soul of 
Democracy.'' I want to quote from part of Bill Moyers' speech:

       If Carrie Bolton were here tonight, she could speak to 
     this. The Reverend Carrie Bolton from North Carolina. You'd 
     have a hard time seeing her because she is only so high and 
     her head would barely reach the microphone. But you would 
     hear her, of that I'm sure. The state legislature in North 
     Carolina established a commission to look at campaign 
     financing, and Carrie Bolton came to one of the hearings. She 
     listened patiently as one speaker after another addressed the 
     commissioners. And then it was her time. She spoke softly at 
     first. Then the passion rose, and her words mesmerized her 
     audience. When Carrie Bolton finished, they stood and 
     cheered. This is what she said; listen to what Carrie Bolton 
     said:
       ``I was born to a mother and father married to each other, 
     who were sharecroppers, who proceeded to have ten children. I 
     picked cotton, which made some people rich. . . . I pulled 
     tobacco. . .I shook peanuts. . .I dug up potatoes and picked 
     cucumbers, and I went to school * * * with enthusiasm. And 
     with great enthusiasm I memorized the Preamble to the 
     Constitution of the United States, I learned the Pledge of 
     Allegiance to the flag, and I was inspired to believe that 
     somehow those things symbolized hope for me against any odds 
     I might come upon.
       ``I am a divorcee, a single parent divorcee, and I earn 
     enough money to take care of my two children and myself. And 
     I have managed to get a high school diploma, a bachelor's 
     degree, two master's degrees, and do post doctoral work.
       ``I am energetic. I'm smart. I'm intelligent.
       ``But a snowball would stand a better chance surviving in 
     hell than I would running for political office in this 
     country. Because I have no money. My family has no money. My 
     friends do not have money.
       ``Yet, I have ideas. I'm strong, I am powerful (with her 
     right hand she lifts her left wrist)--people can feel my 
     pulse. People who are working, and working hard, can feel 
     what I feel.
       ``But I can't tell them because I don't know how to get the 
     spotlight to tell them.
       ``Because I have no money.''
       Anyone who believes Carrie Bolton's cry isn't coming from 
     the soul of democracy is living in a fool's paradise--a rich 
     fool's paradise.

  That is from Bill Moyers' speech. He is my hero journalist. I think 
he has done some of the finest work. He concludes his speech by saying 
this:

       I have three grandchildren--Henry, 5; Thomas, 3; and 10-
     month-old Nancy Judith. I want them to grow up in a healthy, 
     civil society, one where their political worth is not 
     measured by their net worth.

  That is one of the reasons Bill Moyers goes on to argue that this is 
his passion, this is his work. He is right. This is the core issue.
  Now, Mr. President, I don't know that I would have the eloquence of 
Carrie Bolton, but I conclude this way because I see other colleagues 
who may want to speak. I can't forget my own experience. It is not 
quite Carrie Bolton's experience, but I ran for office in 1990, and it 
was amazing. I mean, you don't come to the floor to brag, but you don't 
run for office if you don't

[[Page S10076]]

think you have the character and ideas. Basically, everywhere I went, 
the argument was made, ``you don't have a chance.'' I was a teacher, so 
I didn't have much money. My father was an unsuccessful writer. My 
mother was a cafeteria worker, a food service worker. My family didn't 
have any money. My wife Sheila worked in the library at the high 
school. Everywhere I would go--including on the Democrat side, not just 
the Republican side--people were trying to decide whether or not I was 
a viable candidate. It had nothing to do with content of character, 
nothing to do with ideas, nothing to do with leadership potential, and 
it had nothing to do with positions on issues. People just wanted to 
know how much money you raised. You were viable or you weren't viable. 
You were a good candidate or you were a bad one based upon how much 
money you yourself had--and I didn't have it--or how much money you 
would raise.
  It is unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. There are so many people 
who can't run for that reason alone. I was lucky. I come from 
Minnesota, and I am emotional about how much I owe to them. They were 
an exception to the rule. We were outspent six or seven to one, and we 
won. Sometimes it happens--if you have a great green schoolbus to 
campaign in and a great grassroots organization.
  I am the son of a Jewish immigrant who fled persecution from Russia. 
We have had a 222-year, bold, important experiment in self-rule in 
democracy, representative democracy. That is what is at jeopardy here. 
I have talked to people about potentially running for office. They 
don't want to. A lot of people, good people, don't want to run for 
office any longer because they can't stand the thought of this money 
chase. They can't stand doing it. Moreover, if you combine what the 
money is used for, with communication technology becoming the weapon of 
electoral conflict, people using the money for poison politics, all the 
attack stuff on TV, a lot of very good, sane people don't run.
  I think what is happening is a lot of good people aren't going to be 
involved in public affairs. A lot of young people are not going to get 
involved in public affairs. You get to where people are either 
millionaires or they have to raise millions of dollars. I think you get 
into this awful self-select where a whole lot of good men and women 
aren't going to run at all. I am not going to cite the polls because we 
have the evidence for this. Everybody knows it. Every Democrat and 
Republican knows full well that people are disengaged and disillusioned 
with politics in this country, and this is one of the central reasons.
  So, Mr. President, I simply say to my colleagues that we have a piece 
of legislation on the floor that follows up on an exciting victory in 
the House of Representatives, and we need to pass this legislation. I 
also say to my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--frankly, I 
can't figure out the opposition. People want to see this changed. 
People just hate the way in which they feel like money dominates 
politics. Those of us in office, and even those of us who are 
challenged for office, hate it. We hate raising the money; we hate this 
system. I would think if we wanted the people we represent to have more 
confidence and faith in us, more confidence and faith in this political 
process, more confidence and faith in the U.S. Senate, we would vote 
for the McCain-Feingold piece of legislation.
  So the debate will go on. We will have this vote.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side--which doesn't mean just 
Republicans because there are some Republicans who support this 
legislation--that I think they are making a big mistake filibustering. 
From my point of view, this should go on and on for the next however 
many weeks it takes. I don't think we should drop this one. This is the 
core issue. This is the core question. It speaks to all the issues that 
are important to people's lives. It speaks as to whether or not we are 
going to have a functioning democracy or not.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, from a good government State, from a 
reform State, from a progressive State, there is no more important 
position that I can take than to be for this reform legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that it is tough 
to follow the Senator from Minnesota. Senator Wellstone brings to this 
body extraordinary talent, and more than that, a conviction and fervent 
commitment to principle that all of us admire so greatly.
  His first campaign for the U.S. Senate was legendary. He was a 
college professor, I believe, in a small college in Minnesota. He put 
himself on a school bus--an old, beaten up school bus--and traveled all 
around the State of Minnesota. He was dramatically outspent by a 
gentleman who had formerly served in the U.S. Senate, and, yet, 
prevailed.
  His presence on the floor of the Senate indicates his reelection to 
the U.S. Senate and to the fact that there are Members of the Senate 
who can basically break the rules. He wasn't supposed to win. You are 
not supposed to have a chance when somebody outspends you 6 or 7 to 1. 
It might raise some question in some people's minds. Why we are even 
debating this if someone like Paul Wellstone can win when he is being 
so dramatically outspent? Why do we need campaign finance reform? It is 
just because of the fact that Paul Wellstone, unfortunately, is the 
exception to the rule. The rule is that at the end of a campaign, if 
you take a look at the amount of money spent by a candidate, in most 
instances--the overwhelming majority of instances--the candidate, 
whether it is the incumbent or the challenger, who spends more money 
will prevail, will win the election.
  That really tells the story of why this bill--the McCain-Feingold 
bill--the only bipartisan campaign finance reform bill, is so 
important, because it strikes at the heart of this money chase.
  Think about this last Presidential election in 1996--incumbent 
President Bill Clinton v. Senator Robert Dole, two extraordinarily 
talented men with a background in public service running for the 
highest office in the land. They traversed America from one side to the 
other. They were on every newscast every night. They debated with 
frequency. There was a great exchange on issues, and a real difference 
of opinion on many important questions.
  We in America--at least the politicians--were focused on a daily 
basis.
  Then came the election in November of 1996. Something historic 
occurred. I am not talking about who won and lost. What was historic 
was the fact that we had the lowest percentage turnout of eligible 
voters casting ballots in the Presidential election than we had in 72 
years in America. Think of it. Despite all of the publicity, and all of 
the attention, when the election day came, Americans--American voters--
stayed home.
  Let me amend that for a moment.
  The reason why 72 years applies is that 72 years before 1996 was the 
first election in American history when women were eligible to vote, 
and many did not. If you would take that particular election in 1924 
out of the picture, you have to go back into the early part of the 19th 
century to see a lower turnout of eligible voters. Is that important? 
Does it mean anything that voters stayed home; that they have decided 
for the most important election in America that they wouldn't 
participate? I think it means everything in a democracy, because the 
voters--the citizens of this country--will not even come forward to 
express their choice in an election. It is not only a sad commentary on 
our democracy. It is a threat to our democracy.
  The McCain-Feingold bill goes to the heart of the problem. Why did 
people stay home? Did they assume they already knew the results? That 
is possible. But I think a lot of them were sickened by this political 
process. They looked at the way that, in this case, men ran for 
President; and men and women ran or not for the House and Senate. They 
basically said, ``We don't care to participate in it. Our family is 
going to stay home.'' And they did.
  What was it about those election campaigns? Was it the groveling that 
all of us as candidates who were not independently wealthy had to do to 
raise the money to be viable? I think that is part of it. I think that 
is the big part of it. They wonder how a man or a woman aspiring to 
serve in this body,

[[Page S10077]]

or the House, can raise literally millions of dollars without dirtying 
themselves in the process, without sacrificing their own principles and 
values. They become increasingly skeptical of politicians in general, 
and the candidates up for election in particular.

  There is another element, too--the advertising that we put on 
television during the course of the campaign. A lot of people are 
turned off by it. Most campaigns hire sophisticated people to make 
those ads. They hire pollsters who go out and take legitimate samples 
of American opinion--samples within a given State--and convert those 
samples into messages; 30-second messages that go up on television. 
Some of the messages are positive. Some are negative. It is the 
negative ones that unfortunately give us the bad name and lead a lot of 
people to say that this process itself is so fundamentally flawed.
  This McCain-Feingold bill has one more aspect. And one important 
aspect of that says when it comes to these so-called independent 
expenditures--the issue advocacy ads--at the very minimum let us find 
out who these people are that are paying for the ads. That is not too 
much to ask. Let me give you an illustration.
  The last time we debated this bill on the floor, I left the debate to 
go to a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee before which we had 
witnesses who were testifying on a variety of subjects, including the 
question of term limits. The term limits issue is fairly obvious. It 
says that we should limit--at least those people argue--that we should 
limit the number of terms served by Members of the U.S. Senate and 
Members of the House of Representatives. There is some surface appeal 
to this that has become a hot issue in a variety of elections. I know 
the issue myself personally, because in the closing days of my Senate 
race in the State of Illinois they spent about a quarter of a million 
dollars on TV ads criticizing me because I opposed the term limits 
proposal. And those ads were fairly effective. I won. But I had to deal 
with the criticism that they raised.
  So there sat before me this gentleman representing the term limits 
movement who said he agreed with the opponents of McCain-Feingold that 
we shouldn't reform our campaign finance system. I said to the 
gentleman representing the term limits movement, ``Please, since I as a 
candidate have to disclose every penny that I raise, the source of the 
amount, and my political party has to do the same, I would like for 
your term limits movement, having spent millions of dollars to defeat 
or elect candidates to office, to do the same. Are you prepared to 
disclose to the American people the sources of the money that paid for 
those TV ads?'' His answer in a word was ``no.''
  Why wouldn't he make a full disclosure? His argument was--follow this 
one, if you will--that there would be retribution from elected 
officials whom they disagreed with. I don't buy it.
  Men and women organizations come forward on a regular basis to 
contribute to political campaigns. They understand they have taken a 
position for a man or woman running for office. The fear of retribution 
is part of the concern. But it is an illustration of how an 
organization with some high-sounding purpose like limiting terms for 
Members of the House and Senate can literally spend millions of dollars 
of mystery money and never make a full disclosure; never make any 
disclosure as to the source of those funds.
  Is it important? It could be. Who knows who is financing term limits 
in America? Is it one person? Is it one company? Is it one special 
interest group? That is a legitimate question. I can guarantee you that 
you will not see the term limits movement people standing around the 
shopping centers of America with kettles and bells asking for quarters 
and dimes. They don't do business that way. They deal in big checks 
from big players, big expenditures, to make a big impact on the system, 
and they are totally, totally unregulated. That to me is shameful. It 
is disgraceful.

  What is going on here in this debate on McCain-Feingold is an attempt 
to change the system, to clean it up, and to restore some character to 
our political process. I am at the same disadvantage as Senator 
Wellstone of Minnesota and Senator Feingold, one of the cosponsors, of 
Wisconsin. I was raised in a family that was not wealthy. I had a 
wealthy background in terms of values and education but not a lot of 
money. Fortunately, with good education and some good friends, I was 
able to start a career in public service. But now we find this new 
emerging phenomenon in American political life on both sides, Democrat 
and Republican, the so-called middle-aged, crazy millionaire who shows 
up on the scene bored with his life who decides he is tired of 
practicing law, he is tired of making lots of money in business and now 
has dreams of being Governor or Senator or you name it. They then take 
their personal wealth and, under the existing law, spend it to 
basically buy a campaign, buy their way into office.
  I think there are some genuinely good people who have done this, but 
I think we have to ask ourselves what will happen to this political 
process if more and more of this sort of person become the 
Representatives and Senators of America. I think we will lose 
something. We would lose something like a Patty Murray, who is a 
Senator from the State of Washington, who has a background of teaching 
in a classroom. I am glad Senator Patty Murray is on the floor of the 
Senate. When we discuss educational issues, I turn to Patty Murray. 
Time and again, I want her perspective because she has been there. She 
comes from a family of modest means, but she makes a great contribution 
because the voters in the State of Washington have allowed her to come 
to this floor. And when you look around this Chamber you find others, 
Democrats and Republicans, of similar backgrounds. Unless we are 
prepared to reform this campaign finance system, I am afraid it will 
become more elite, more plutocratic, if you will, and limited in terms 
of the types of people who do serve it.
  Let me also, in closing, note the procedural issue that we face here. 
This is an important issue. It was brought up before the Senate once 
before, and it was stopped. Some 57 Senators, if I am not mistaken, 
Democrats and Republicans, came forward saying they supported it, but 
in this body it really takes 60 in order to stop the filibuster. Sixty 
votes were not there. Campaign finance died. The House went through 
heroic efforts to bring this to the floor over the opposition of 
Speaker Gingrich. After weeks of debate, weeks of amendment, they 
passed it, and now this bill sits ready for our approval.
  Will we vote on it? That would seem the obvious thing. Let's vote on 
campaign finance reform, up or down. We are going to have it or we are 
not. If we can pass it, let's send it to the President. Let's try to 
make sure that we achieve at least one thing in this legislative 
session. And yet it is not likely we will ever see that opportunity. It 
is not likely because under the rules of the Senate procedurally you 
can basically stop a vote. I hope that doesn't happen. I hope we have 
an opportunity for the yeas and nays on this question, an up-or-down 
vote. Let the Senators of both parties be on record before they go 
home. Are they in favor of reform or would they want to obfuscate this 
issue, cover it up with rhetoric? Try to say to the voters back home: 
You just don't understand; it is much more complicated.
  I hope that doesn't occur. I hope that we will have the up-or-down 
vote. I hope the men and women of the Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, will cast their vote on this issue of campaign finance 
reform. I do believe what is at stake here is more than just a 
bipartisan bill. Senator McCain of Arizona and Senator Feingold of 
Wisconsin are the chief sponsors. At stake here is the question of the 
future of this democracy. We are just a few scant weeks away from an 
important election, an election which will ask the American people to 
make their choices again.
  I guess it sounds almost hackneyed now to talk about the legacy that 
we have in this country, that we so often take for granted.
  I can recall just a few years ago when I was given an opportunity to 
visit the tiny country where my mother was born, the country of 
Lithuania. Lithuania, which has for over 50 years been under Soviet 
domination, was given for the first time a chance at democracy, the 
first time in half a century. I was there as then-President Gorbachev 
sent

[[Page S10078]]

in the tanks in an effort to quell this democratic movement, and, 
fortunately, he was not successful. People of that country risked their 
lives. They certainly risked their political futures because they 
wanted to vote. They wanted to elect their leaders. It was gratifying 
that they would invite me and others from the United States, because we 
represented to them what this was all about--democracy, the people 
speaking.
  I found it curious. As each one of these leaders would emerge in 
these new countries, they would visit around the world, but the first 
stop would always be right here in this building, on Capitol Hill, 
before a joint session of Congress. Whether it was Lech Walesa, Vaclav 
Havel, the leaders of the Philippines and other places, in order to 
validate their democratic experiment, in order to come to what they 
considered to be the cradle of liberty, they came here to this 
building. They recognized in our country what many of our citizens are 
failing to recognize--what this democracy really means and what it is 
all about.

  There are some who will argue this issue and say that the speech I 
have just made is too idealistic, it is way beyond practical politics. 
They are right. It is about ideals. It is about the democratic ideals 
that are at stake if we don't reform this system. I hope those who 
oppose this bill will in all fairness give us a chance for an up-or-
down vote.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the first amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States reads in relevant part:

       Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech 
     or of the press.

  No law, Mr. President, and I pick up this relatively long and 
detailed proposal for a new law, and I read the title of one of the 
sections, the title appearing on page 16: ``Prohibition of Corporate 
and Labor Disbursements for Electioneering Communications.'' Let me 
read that once again, Mr. President. Section 200B of this bill is a 
``Prohibition of Corporate and Labor Disbursements for Electioneering 
Communications.''
  Now, what is an electioneering communication? According to the bill, 
and again I quote, ``electioneering communication means any broadcast 
from a television or radio broadcast station which refers to a clearly 
identified candidate for Federal office; is made or scheduled to be 
made within 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for 
such Federal office.''
  Mr. President, I go back to the first amendment. The first amendment 
says:

       Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech 
     or of the press.

  It is impossible for me to see how the proponents of this legislation 
can claim that these detailed restrictions on what corporations or 
labor unions and within the body of the bill, individuals, political 
parties or organizations, can do when they are communicating about an 
election and so much as naming a political candidate.
  The American Civil Liberties Union, in writing about this provision 
in connection with last February's debate, wrote:

       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, 
     more often than not, is a congressional incumbent during an 
     election season.

  This argument doesn't even go to the desirability of such a provision 
but simply to the fact that it is clearly a violation of the first 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  One can go beyond that and wonder why this phrase ``electioneering 
communication'' only applies to radio and television. I think at the 
time of our previous debate the definition was broader than that. But 
here we have a situation in which a particular form of communication 
about public issues--of speech about public issues--is banned but an 
identical speech about the same public issues using the same words is 
not banned or controlled in any respect whatsoever--radio and 
television; not newspapers, not handbills, not direct mail. I believe 
it is likely that these provisions would be found unconstitutional if 
only because of that distinction without a difference between forms of 
communication; that if one form of communication is allowed, how can 
you possibly prohibit another form of communication?
  The rationale, I believe, is that the sponsors of this provision 
believe that radio and television communication is somehow more 
effective than other forms of communication and so they will ban it 
only. But the fundamental position of the opponents to this bill is 
that this whole section, the whole subtitle dealing with independent 
and coordinated expenditures, dealing with what can and cannot be done 
within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of the general 
election, clearly abridges the ``freedom of speech'' clause of the 
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  In both Congress and the courts, there have been frequent appeals to 
certain limitations on certain forms of speech and the broadest 
definition of that word when that speech is asserted to be obscene. 
Much of that debate revolves around whether or not James Madison and 
the Founding Fathers would have protected certain forms of speech--
obscenity, even advertising and the like. We debated that issue in 
connection with proposed tobacco legislation earlier this year. But 
clearly the draftsmen of the first amendment, the Founding Fathers, 
were absolutely certain and clear in their belief that political 
speech, the debate about political ideas, be absolutely free and 
unfettered. And they succeeded in doing just exactly that.
  In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court said:

       A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can 
     spend on political communication during a campaign 
     necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting 
     the number of issues discussed, the depth of their 
     exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is 
     because virtually every means of communicating ideas in 
     today's mass society requires the expenditure of money.

  I may return to this issue in a few moments, but it does represent 
only one-half--one section of this bill. The other element of the bill, 
the prohibition of what is called ``soft money,'' probably is not 
subject to the same constitutional strictures. It is simply 
overwhelmingly undesirable. Congress, in 1974, in a portion of its 
campaign finance regulations passed in that year, limited the amount of 
money that one individual could give to another individual's political 
campaign for Federal office. That portion of the 1974 statute was found 
to be valid, though the limitations on actual expenditures by a given 
candidate from that candidate's own money or from other sources was 
found to be invalid, under the Constitution, for the very reasons that 
I have just read, from the Supreme Court's opinion in Buckley v. Valeo.

  What has been the inevitable result of those restrictions? What has 
been the inevitable result of those restrictions as the limitations 
passed in 1974 have shrunk by the operation of inflation in our society 
so that the $1,000 per individual per campaign limitation in 1974 is 
worth roughly $380 or $390 today? Mr. President, the response on the 
part of people who feel strongly about political ideas and about 
political campaigns has been to cause them to switch a great deal of 
their support from individual candidates to the political parties under 
whose aegis those candidates run for office.
  Now, I think that this is, at least, a modest step in the wrong 
direction. Why? Because, of course, every dollar spent by a candidate--
whether that candidate has written a check out of his or her own pocket 
or whether or not that money has been solicited from others--every 
dollar spent by an individual candidate on a communication is subject 
to criticism from the newspapers, television stations, and from other 
candidates to exactly the extent that it is deceptive or dodges the 
perceived real issues in a political campaign. Each candidate, in other 
words, can be held responsible, and candidates are generally held 
responsible, for the quality of their own communications. A candidate, 
however, cannot nearly so easily be held responsible for communications 
coming from that candidate's party. So to exactly the extent that we 
have limited--have choked off the ability of candidates other than the 
wealthiest of those candidates to raise--
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

[[Page S10079]]

  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me first express my admiration for the Senator from 
Washington's interest in first amendment and free speech issues, and 
his very careful presentation.
  I would just like to ask, in light of his earlier comments, if he 
believes the Buckley v. Valeo decision was correctly decided?
  Mr. GORTON. He does, though in this case I am not sure that Buckley 
v. Valeo would have been so decided, even with respect to the 
limitation on contributions to individual candidates, had those 
limitations been, say, $380 or $390 today. That is to say, a 
restriction or a limitation that is constitutional under one set of 
circumstances could easily find itself to be unconstitutional under 
another set of circumstances, if the Court deemed those limitations to 
be unreasonably restrictive.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I recognize the point that in Buckley v. 
Valeo the Court did suggest that there was some magnitude of 
contribution that might be needed to constitute a corrupting influence 
on the political process. But the Senator apparently accepts the notion 
that it is constitutional to have some kind of limitation on what a 
person can give to a candidate.
  Mr. GORTON. That is the decision in Buckley v. Valeo, and while I 
question the wisdom of the limitation, I don't question the 
constitutionality.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I think the Senator has been--if I can continue, Mr. 
President--has been very candid on the floor as to whether it would be 
constitutional to prohibit soft money contributions. I think you have 
spoken to that. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have 
indicated you believe that, under Buckley v. Valeo, it would be 
constitutional to do that although it may not be wise to do so. Is that 
a fair statement of the Senator's position?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. The point the Senator from Washington was making was 
simply this, Mr. President: That limitations, constitutional as they 
may be, on the ability of candidates, other than those who can finance 
their own campaigns, to solicit money from others, has forced that 
money into a channel in which the electioneering communications are far 
less the responsibility of the individual candidate than they are when 
that candidate spends for himself.
  From a public policy point of view, it is the view of this Senator at 
least that money spent by political parties is less desirable because 
there is less responsibility for it than money spent by individual 
candidates. But of course those aren't the only two alternatives for 
spending money for political purposes.
  As and when these limitations on contributions to political parties 
become law, to the extent they are found constitutional, the interest 
of those who feel a vital necessity to communicate political ideas to 
advance causes of either ideas or for candidates is not going to be 
eliminated, it is not even going to be diminished.
  What do we have under those circumstances, Mr. President? Under those 
circumstances, we have the individual who can no longer give a 
significant amount of money to a candidate of his or her choice, can no 
longer give what he or she considers a sufficient amount to the 
political party of that candidate engaged in one or two other political 
activities: Either in independent expenditures on behalf of an 
individual candidate or an idea or in issue advocacy. Under those 
circumstances, the communications are even less the responsibility of 
the candidate who benefits from them than they are when the money is 
spent by that candidate's political party.
  The political party is not responsible for the content of any such 
electioneering communications either, but we then get to the very 
unconstitutional limitations on express advocacy that are included in 
this bill. The sponsors of the bill run up against the fact that the 
limitations that they can impose constitutionally simply force money 
used on politics into areas that they cannot constitutionally touch 
because the Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the 
freedom of speech.
  The amount of money spent on political ideas and political advocacy 
is no less--in fact, in many respects it may be more--it is simply that 
it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to criticize a candidate 
for money that is, for all practical purposes, being spent on behalf of 
that candidate.

  That, Mr. President, is the fundamental reason that even those 
portions of this bill which are arguably constitutional are highly 
undesirable. They will not lessen the amount of money spent during the 
course of political campaigns. They will make the spending of that 
money less responsible than it is at the present time. They have 
nothing to do with an argument about corruption, other than to 
encourage the kind of subterfuge which so marked the 1996 elections.
  If, for example, the money spent in 1996 could have been legally 
given directly to the candidates and disclosed at the time, we wouldn't 
be in the midst of one more search for an independent counsel to 
examine the results of those elections.
  The net results of this bill, it seems to me, are twofold: They are 
to force political money into less and less responsible channels in 
which disclosure is less than it is at the present time and, to the 
extent that they attempt to control those expenditures, to come afoul 
of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. No, 
Mr. President, we would be far, far better off in encouraging, rather 
than discouraging, contributions directly to candidates and requiring 
their immediate disclosure, and in encouraging rather than discouraging 
support of our political parties.
  Most of us who are engaged in partisan politics through most of our 
careers have been exposed to the academic proposition, at least, that 
one of the shortcomings of the American political system, in comparison 
with the parliamentary systems of most other democracies, is the almost 
total absence of party discipline and party responsibility. We are 
often criticized for the fact that each one of us as an individual--
that a voter cannot be at all certain when he or she votes for a 
candidate of the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party, for that 
matter, that they will get what they believe to be the platform of that 
political party adopted, because the candidates, in each case, are 
independent agents.
  Most academics would ask us to increase the power, the degree of 
influence, of political parties over their members, especially over 
their elected officials, so that we could have a brighter line of 
distinction between the parties and their platforms, so that voters 
would have what they consider to be a more significant choice.
  I may say that I don't necessarily buy that argument. I am not sure I 
buy it at all. But there are few arguments put forward by either 
academics or, I think, by practicing politicians that political party 
organizations of the United States should be weaker and of less account 
than they are today.
  This bill, to the extent that it is constitutional, weakens, 
marginalizes, almost eliminates, the effect of political party 
organizations, and it does so to exactly the extent that it increases 
the authority and the influence of nonparty organizations of the most 
narrow of special interest organizations in political campaigns.
  No, Mr. President, we should strengthen the candidates' 
organizations. We should require candidates to be more responsible for 
the money that is spent on their behalf, and we should probably be 
strengthening political party organizations at the same time.
  What we do in this bill is to continue the weakening of the 
candidates, to add to that the weakening of the parties, and we 
encourage, because of the unconstitutional nature of the second part of 
this bill, the portion of spending in our political system for which 
the spenders and the political parties and the candidates are least 
accountable.
  This bill is no better than it was in February when it was defeated. 
It is no better than it was nearly 2 years ago when it was defeated.
  The comments during the course of the debate a year ago last fall 
from George Will are as applicable today as they were then. And I will 
conclude by quoting him:

       Nothing in American history--not the left's recent campus 
     ``speech codes,'' nor the right's depredations during 1950s 
     McCarthyism, or the 1920s ``red scare,'' not the Alien

[[Page S10080]]

     and Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the 
     First Amendment posed by campaign ``reforms'' advancing under 
     the protective coloration of political hygiene.

  That was true last year. It is true this year. It will be true next 
year. It is the fundamental reason that this bill violating first 
amendment rights of free speech should be rejected by this body once 
again.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator has yielded the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I was wondering if the Senator would briefly be willing 
to continue the discussion of the constitutional issues.
  Mr. President, I appreciated the Senator's candid responses on the 
relationship of the Buckley v. Valeo decision to the issues of 
contributions. He also talked a little bit about corporate and union 
spending and what should be done there.
  Does the Senator have a constitutional problem with the current law's 
ban on corporate union spending in connection with Federal elections?
  Mr. GORTON. This Senator has some question on that subject, but this 
Senator is completely convinced that, as undesirable as he regarded the 
political campaigns in 1996 by labor unions, that they were, are, and 
will remain completely constitutional, totally within the rights of 
those unions, and that they cannot be restricted in any respect 
whatsoever by the Congress.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Is the Senator aware that since 1904 corporations have 
not been able to make contributions directly, and since 1943 labor 
unions cannot? That is current law.
  Mr. GORTON. That is current law, but that has to do with the direct 
contribution to a candidate. It has nothing to do with the express 
advocacy that is covered by the second part of this bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If the corporation or union simply ran campaign ads, 
the prohibition would apply as well, would it not?
  Mr. GORTON. It is very difficult to see the difference between what 
was done during the course of the 1996 elections in direct campaign 
ads, and they were distinctions without a difference.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is exactly the point.
  To continue, is that not a reason that a majority of this body, as 
expressed in the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, believes that this is a very 
simple and logical extension on the ban of corporate and union 
campaigning by saying that a corporation and union cannot directly fund 
issue ads that directly mention a candidate's name in the last 60 days? 
Is that not simply an extension of, in effect, what has always been the 
law?
  Mr. GORTON. No, I do not believe under any circumstances that it is. 
There is an absolute prohibition against so much as mentioning the name 
of a candidate in a 60-day period before an election in this bill. I 
simply refer the Senator to the first amendment. If that is not a law 
abridging the freedom of speech, we could not pass a law abridging the 
freedom of speech. Any other limitation or restriction would be valid. 
It flies directly into the teeth of the plain meaning of the first 
amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It is interesting that the Senator makes that comment 
because a few years ago, for example, there was no question that Philip 
Morris could not write out a million-dollar check and run ads like 
that, but somehow now it is almost standard practice. Somehow the law 
has been moved away from almost a century-long prohibition on corporate 
spending in connection with Federal elections to the ability to have 
unlimited spending on Federal elections through the ruse of pretending 
that an issue ad is an issue ad when it actually does everything but 
say the words, of course, ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' a certain 
candidate.
  Isn't that just, in effect, eliminating the whole corporate 
prohibition that has existed for such----
  Mr. GORTON. The quarrel that the Senator from Wisconsin has is not 
with this Senator but the Supreme Court of the United States and the 
first amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that is exactly what we would hope to 
determine with the passage of this bill. We would find out if in fact 
the Supreme Court would find that an ad that does everything to promote 
a candidate or attack a candidate but say ``vote for'' really is an 
issue ad. That would be a matter for the Supreme Court to determine.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from 
Washington in responding to a series of questions.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, be 
added as a cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold amendment before the body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin, and I 
thank him and the senior Senator from Arizona for their leadership on 
campaign finance reform. They have been faithful to the cause. They 
have been leaders on the floor and they have, I think, engaged the 
American people at long last in a colloquy so that I believe, as I will 
comment later in my remarks, the American public now has a better 
understanding of what is at issue here.
  Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong supporter of 
the legislation brought to the floor by Senators McCain and Feingold. I 
must say that I am pleased--``overjoyed'' may be an understatement--
that the Senate has at last an opportunity to revisit this issue.
  Although campaign finance reform has been derailed in the past by a 
perennial filibuster, the event of passage of the Shays-Meehan 
legislation in the House has provided us with a golden opportunity to 
move past the procedural maneuvering that has obstructed this important 
legislation for far too long.
  The volume of evidence from our most recent Federal elections clearly 
demonstrates that our current system has spiraled completely out of 
control. It is no longer a system of rules but a system of loopholes, 
and through these loopholes has poured a staggering amount of money 
that continues to escalate each and every campaign cycle.
  We no longer have a system in which candidates are encouraged to 
debate their records and their positions on the issues. We no longer 
have a system in which candidates are encouraged to look for votes by 
shaking hands at a coffee shop or greeting workers at a factory gate 
and knocking door to door at residents' homes.
  Sadly, the system in place today encourages candidates to look not 
for votes but for money. It is a money chase, Mr. President. And all of 
us are part of this unsavory system. And only we can change it. It is a 
shameless and demeaning system. And that just speaks to the 
extraordinary sums of money that candidates themselves are required to 
raise and spend.
  Add to that the millions and millions of dollars raised and spent by 
the national political parties and outside special interest groups who 
have perfected the art of saturating an entire State with political ads 
months and months before the election day.
  Mr. President, those who continue to oppose meaningful campaign 
finance reform must be living in a different world. I simply cannot 
fathom how anyone can look at the chaos of our past and current 
elections and suggest that the response of the U.S. Senate should be to 
do nothing.
  During the recent August recess, I had the opportunity to travel 
widely throughout my home State of Nevada and to meet face to face with 
thousands of my constituents. In fact, by automobile I traveled more 
than 3,000 miles through Nevada, visiting with some of the smallest 
communities in our State and holding 17 townhall meetings during the 
course of this recess.
  Time and time again, the issue of campaign finance reform was raised 
at these townhall meetings. It was deeply unsettling to see firsthand 
how disgusted the American people are with the absolute scandal taking 
place in our campaign finance system. These were not politicians 
talking about the need for reform. These were ordinary people who have 
become so disillusioned with our political process that they no longer 
feel any sort of connection to our democratic system. This is a 
dangerous threat to democracy itself.

  Let me also point out that as often as this issue was raised, not a 
single person, not one, expressed opposition

[[Page S10081]]

to the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform. No one. 
Absolutely no one.
  Thankfully, the House of Representatives has provided us with the 
opportunity to at least stop the hemorrhaging of our current finance 
system. Several weeks ago, on a strong, bipartisan vote, the House 
passed the Shays-Meehan bill which was modeled on the McCain-Feingold 
legislation before us today. This was not just a handful of Republicans 
voting with Democrats to pass this legislation. In point of fact, one 
quarter of the entire House Republican conference voted for that 
bipartisan bill which passed by a margin of 252-179.
  Now, I have heard some of our colleagues, in expressing opposition to 
campaign finance reform, argue that just because the House has passed 
this legislation, it does not mean we should do so. I must say I have a 
different interpretation of the present situation. Shame on the Senate 
for not passing campaign finance reform in the past; shame on the 
Senate if we refuse to do so now when we have the opportunity to do so.
  Some of us, myself included, would have preferred more comprehensive 
reform legislation than McCain-Feingold offers. But it is an important 
step, a vital step, on the road to campaign finance reform. Its 
centerpiece is the ban on the so-called soft money. Banning these 
unlimited and unregulated contributions would represent the most 
important political reform enacted by the Congress in more than two 
decades. Let me repeat this: Banning these unlimited and unregulated 
contributions would represent the most important political reform 
enacted by the Congress in more than two decades.
  Despite the 3-year long filibuster of this legislation, we have heard 
very few opponents come down to the floor and stand up and defend the 
virtues of a $250,000 in soft money contribution or more. Soft money is 
an embarrassment to the American political system. It is the mother of 
all campaign finance loopholes and perhaps the most ingenious money-
laundering system in history. Soft money as we know it refers to the 
unlimited and unregulated contributions from corporations, labor unions 
and wealthy individuals that flow to the political parties, unchecked 
and unregulated, outside the accepted contribution limits and reporting 
requirements of Federal law. This soft money, with little or no 
disclosure, is then poured into what have become known as issue ads, a 
nickname given to television and radio advertisements that skirt 
Federal election laws and fall under no regulations. This money is 
raised and spent with virtually no limits and no disclosure.
  How much soft money can be contributed? Sadly, the sky is truly the 
limit. In fact, there are no limits to this incredulous, bizarre 
system. In 1992, just 6 years ago, the two parties raised and spent a 
combined $86 million in soft money. In just 4 years, soft money more 
than tripled, exploding from $86 million in 1992 to $262 million in 
1996; $260 million that was raised and spent, completely outside the 
scope of Federal election law.
  Perhaps the only thing worse than to know how this soft money is 
raised is to know how this soft money is being spent. In recent years, 
the airways have been bombarded, saturated with political ads paid for 
with soft money. These political ads specialize in shredding various 
candidates without telling the viewers who paid for the ad, where the 
money came from, and who was responsible for its content.
  It should come as no surprise to any of us that more and more 
Americans are repulsed by these anonymous assaults and the sheer volume 
of money pouring into our election system. As a consequence, they are 
distancing themselves from the political process. That is the greatest 
tragedy of all. Americans are so turned off by our political system 
that they don't even vote on election day. When they do vote, often it 
is not the sense of voting for the better of two candidates; it is a 
perception that they are voting for the lesser of two evils on the 
ballot.
  With a tidal wave of campaign cash flowing into our political system, 
the torrent of negative advertising on the airways, and the lack of 
meaningful disclosure or accountability, it is becoming increasingly 
difficult, almost impossible, for the American people to feel good 
about any candidate, or their participation in the democratic process.
  Just last week, in my home State of Nevada, we had a critically 
important primary election. Not only is there an open gubernatorial 
seat in a hotly contested primary, there were primaries for the U.S. 
Senate, an open House seat, and a number of seats in the State 
legislature. I am sad to report that only 28 percent of all registered 
voters in Nevada turned out for this election--28 percent. Let me make 
an important distinction. That is not 28 percent of all Nevadans who 
were eligible to register and to participate in the system. That is 28 
percent of those who are actually registered. This is a tragedy. It is 
not good for our system. Seventy-two percent of all registered voters 
in Nevada did not vote. And Nevada is not alone.
  I have heard it said that if one looks at the entire primary election 
cycle this year--and I presume they are factoring in those who are 
eligible to register and chose not to do so, as well as those who are 
eligible to vote, having registered but chose not to vote--less than 17 
percent of the people in America have participated in the electoral 
process this year. This is a disaster wherever one comes down in the 
political scale. Whether one registers himself or herself more closely 
aligned with Democrats or Republicans, independent Americans or 
Libertarians, wishes to revive the old Know Nothing party, would like 
to see the old Whig party revived, or want to be part of the avant 
garde 1990s and become a member of the vegetarian party, wherever one 
comes down on the political spectrum, 72 percent of those registered to 
vote not participating is a system that we cannot sustain and still 
have a representative democracy in America.
  In addition to cutting down the soft money system, the McCain-
Feingold proposal would place significant restriction on the issue ads 
which I have just described. Under the Snowe-Jeffords modification, if 
a radio or television advertisement mentions a candidate's name within 
30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, the 
funds used to pay for that advertisement must be raised under Federal 
election law and must be fully disclosed. Some outside organizations 
have suggested that they have a constitutional right to freely discuss 
an issue with the electorate. I agree. In fact, under this legislation, 
any organization can run an advertisement on any issue they want--
whether it is health care reform, gun control, or any other issue--with 
no restrictions.
  That is a true issue ad and a sort of communication that the Supreme 
Court has said is free from government regulation, and properly so. The 
Supreme Court has also said that we can regulate advertisements that 
are not meant to advocate issues, but instead are meant to advocate 
candidates. That is what this legislation provides. True issue ads 
would be exempt from this legislation. However, if an organization 
chooses to run an ad in the weeks before an election, and if that ad is 
clearly designed to advocate for or against a particular candidate who 
is involved in that election, this legislation will define that 
activity as election related, and the money used for those ads will be 
required to be raised and spent under the provisions of Federal 
election law.
  Finally, in addition to banning soft money and enacting tough 
restrictions on candidate ads, the legislation includes a number of 
provisions that will improve the disclosure of fundraising activities 
and provide the Federal Election Commission with greater tools to 
detect and to investigate campaign finance abuses.
  Unfortunately, it appears that once again it will require 60 votes to 
move this important legislation through the U.S. Senate. I, for one, 
would like to see us move past these procedural games and start having 
real votes and real issues and debate campaign finance reform on the 
merits, on the substance. Let's vote on whether or not we should ban 
all soft money. Let's vote on whether these thinly disguised attack ads 
should be considered election and campaign ads subject to Federal 
election law, and let's vote on whether we should strengthen our 
disclosure requirements under the Federal Election Commission and 
provide that Commission with greater tools to ensure that

[[Page S10082]]

all candidates and all parties and outside groups are playing by the 
rules.
  After the outrageous amount of money spent in the 1996 election, 
after all the charges and countercharges of abuse, impropriety and quid 
pro quo, and after what we have already witnessed in the opening months 
of the election season this year, it would be appalling, in my 
judgment, if the 105th Congress were to adjourn without passing a 
single reform of this deplorable system.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-Feingold 
legislation and begin the process of restoring a sense of integrity and 
confidence to our democratic process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I note that at least two Senators are on 
the floor who wish to introduce a resolution on another subject, a 
subject that I think is appropriate. At this point, I yield to the 
Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Missouri, I be granted 
time to express my support for what he is about to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

                          ____________________