[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10144-S10145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this debate about the campaign finance 
bill is really about a single question, and that is what should 
determine the outcome of our Federal elections? Should money determine 
the outcome of our Federal elections or should instead we have those 
elections determined by a balanced discussion, a complete and a 
balanced discussion about the differences between the candidates and 
the different positions they are taking? Should it be money or should 
it be helpful information for voters? Should it be money or should it 
be a robust debate on issues?
  The question that I just posed has been obscured because opponents of 
campaign finance reform are hiding behind what I believe are mistaken 
Supreme Court decisions, and in doing so they have tried to equate 
money and speech. They argue that money is speech, and therefore to 
limit money is to limit speech. They say that money means more robust 
debate. They say that more money means more helpful information for 
voters. They say that even more money means more complete and balanced 
discussion about the differences between the candidates.
  In my view, this argument does not pass the laugh test. Any reasoned 
observer of our Federal campaigns knows that the argument is without 
merit. Ask any challenger to an incumbent Senator the following 
question: Have not the millions more in dollars that the incumbent has 
been spending on his or her reelection meant more robust debate? Have 
not the millions of dollars that the incumbent has been spending meant 
more helpful information to the voters and more complete and balanced 
discussion about the differences between the candidates? The 
challenger, I am sure, would laugh out loud at that notion.
  Ask any voter who has been deluged with negative television 
advertisements funded by very large campaign war chests whether those 
TV ads have produced more robust debate and more helpful information 
for the voters and more complete and balanced discussion of the 
differences between the candidates. Again, those voters will think that 
you are crazy to even suggest that idea. The vast increase in money 
spent on political campaigns has not produced more robust debate. It 
has not produced more helpful information for voters and more complete 
and balanced discussion about the differences between candidates.
  More money has produced just exactly the opposite. Voters themselves 
will tell you that money does not equal speech. In fact, they will tell 
you that money is not speech and that money too often results in an 
undermining of our ability to meaningfully discuss issues in a 
campaign. They are very specific about this. Voters were surveyed by 
Princeton Survey Associates recently and those voters said that 
campaign money leads elected officials to spend too much time 
fundraising--63 percent of the public believes that; that money not 
speech determines the outcome of elections under the current system--52 
percent of voters believe that.
  Even more importantly, voters believe that campaign money gives one 
group more influence by keeping other groups from having their say in 
policy outcomes. They believe that campaign money keeps important 
legislation from being passed. They think campaign money leads elected 
officials to support policies that even those elected officials do not 
think are in the best interests of the country. And finally, the public 
believes that campaign money leads elected officials to vote against 
the interests of their own constituents, the people who have sent them 
to Congress to represent them.
  Let me add parenthetically that in this very Senate session the 
killing of the tobacco bill in June, Congress' refusal now to even 
consider serious HMO reform in the Senate, these are recent 
vindications of the people's beliefs about the effects of money on our 
policymaking efforts.
  So the argument by opponents of campaign finance reform that money is 
speech and that it should in no way be limited simply does not pass the 
laugh test with the American people. People are right that we 
desperately need to reform our campaign finance system. We need to 
reduce the amount of money raised and spent in our campaigns. We need 
to increase the amount of robust debate and helpful information that we 
provide to voters. We need to increase the discussion, the complete 
discussion about differences between candidates on issues of importance 
to the people.

  The modified McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill offered to the 
Senate today is a big step in that direction. It

[[Page S10145]]

does at least two very important things. First, it will reduce the 
amount of big, unregulated donations from corporations and unions and 
wealthy individuals in our campaigns. Second, it will regulate the huge 
amounts of money spent by so-called ``independent'' special interest 
groups on advertising, which is disguised as ``issue ads'' but in fact 
is designed to advocate the defeat of a particular candidate.
  The original McCain-Feingold bill did even more, but the bill had to 
be scaled back to reduce the objections from some of the opponents to 
campaign finance reform. I stand ready to support the motion to allow a 
vote on the modified version of McCain-Feingold. I hope today that 
minority of Senators who have repeatedly denied the people an up-or-
down vote on this bill will change their minds. I hope that with the 
historic passage of the bill by the House--representing a majority of 
the voters of the United States--this minority of Senators will see 
that they should not again thwart the clearly expressed will of the 
people.
  I hope this minority of Senators will not want to be the single force 
responsible for continuing the undermining of our national political 
system that is accomplished each day by the millions and millions of 
dollars of unregulated campaign money when today they have a unique and 
historic opportunity to change all of that.
  So, I hope those who have, in recent months, opposed the will of the 
people on this vote, on this issue, will vote for cloture, will give 
the people the up-or-down vote they very much want and very much 
deserve.

                          ____________________