[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 146 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12582-S12583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the 105th Congress is nearing its 
conclusion. As we look over the past two years of this Congress, one 
issue that consumed hours of effort and debate, exposed problems that 
strike at the heart of our government, and whose ramifications are 
nothing less than a cancer eating at the body politic, remains 
unresolved. I'm talking about campaign finance reform.
  In January 1997, this Congress launched multiple investigations into 
events associated with the 1996 federal elections. Dozens of hearings 
were held,

[[Page S12583]]

and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee issued a 9,575 page 
report. Bipartisan legislation addressing the major issues was 
introduced and debated on the floor of the Senate and the House. 
Majorities on both sides of the Capitol voted in support of reform, to 
strengthen federal election laws. In the Senate, a majority supported 
the McCain-Feingold bill. In the House, a majority voted for the Shays-
Meehan bill. Both bills sought to ban soft money, treat phony issue ads 
as campaign ads they are, strengthen disclosure, and streamline 
enforcement. Despite majority support in both Houses, we are ending 
this Congress without major campaign finance reform.
  It is a tragedy. Given the controversy and criticisms following the 
1996 elections, the failure to enact meaningful campaign finance reform 
is unjustifiable, it is inexplicable, and it is wrong.
  As many of us have said repeatedly, the problem with the 1996 
elections is that the vast majority of the conduct most loudly 
condemned was not illegal--it was legal. Most involved soft money--the 
solicitation and spending of undisclosed and unlimited election-related 
contributions, despite laws now on the books requiring federal campaign 
contributions to comply with strict limits and be disclosed. Virtually 
all the foreign contributions so loudly condemned involved soft money. 
Virtually every offer of access to the White House or the Capitol 
Building or to the President or the leadership of the Senate or the 
House involved contributions of soft money.
  Opponents of campaign finance reform contend that soft money is not a 
problem and that the laws on the books do not need reform, but the 
truth is that legal limits which once had meaning have been virtually 
swallowed up by the loopholes. The limits on individual, corporate and 
individual contributions have become a sham. Campaign contribution 
limits, for all intents and purposes, do not exist.
  The law now states, for example, that no one may contribute more than 
$1,000 per election to a candidate; no one may contribute more than 
$20,000 per year to a political party; and corporations and unions may 
not make federal campaign contributions at all except through a PAC. 
But the soft money loophole makes these limits meaningless. For 
example, under the current system, a corporation, union or individual 
can give $1 million to a candidate's party and have that party televise 
so-called issue ads in that candidate's district during the election, 
using an ad that is indistinguishable from candidate ads which have to 
be paid for with regulated funds. That's exactly what is happening. In 
the 1998 elections, for example, the Republican National Congressional 
Committee is conducting a $37 million advertising effort dubbed 
``Operation Breakout'' in which the party runs television ads in areas 
where there are close Congressional races, claiming that the ads 
discuss issues and are not efforts to elect or defeat the candidates 
they mention by name. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 
is spending $7 million on similar issue ads. These multi-million dollar 
advertising efforts by both parties demonstrate how the loopholes have 
effectively erased the campaign limits.
  Other, more fundamental problems with current law are illustrated by 
a recent court decision, issued October 9th in the Charlie Trie 
prosecution, holding that the law as currently worded does not prohibit 
soft money contributions by foreign nationals.
  The plain truth is that the federal election laws now on the books 
are too often unenforceable. While the Republican leadership rails at 
the Attorney General for not doing more and threatens her with 
impeachment for not appointing an independent counsel to investigate 
the 1996 federal elections, they simultaneously block efforts to 
clarify and strengthen the very laws that they say they want her to 
enforce.
  The soft money loophole exists, because we in Congress allow it to 
exist. Foreign involvement in American election campaigns exists, 
because we in Congress allow it to exist. Phony issue ads exist, 
because we in Congress allow them to exist. Weak enforcement of 
campaign laws continues, because we in Congress allow the current 
loophole-ridden statutes to continue on the books unchanged.
  It is long past time to stop pointing fingers at others and take 
responsibility for our share of the blame for this system. We alone 
write the laws. Congress alone can close the loopholes and reinvigorate 
the Federal election laws.
  We could have made significant progress during this Congress. The 
House passed meaningful campaign finance reform. The majority of the 
Senate voted to do the same, but the Republican leadership brought 
sufficient pressure to bear so that the chief sponsor of the 
legislation in the Senate, Senator McCain, withdrew his reform 
amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. We had 52 votes in favor 
of his amendment to include the McCain-Feingold legislation in that 
bill. But rather than allow the majority to prevail, the Republican 
leadership sank the campaign finance reform effort. And when Senator 
Feingold announced his intention to offer the same amendment again to 
force another vote, the leadership chose to pull the Interior bill from 
the Senate floor. And since the Interior appropriations bill was pulled 
from the Senate floor in September, there has been no must-pass bill on 
the Senate floor that supporters could seek to amend to forward the 
campaign finance reform effort.
  Instead the Interior bill, along with a number of other 
appropriations bills, have been folded into a so-called omnibus 
appropriations bill. That means that anyone who wants to enact campaign 
finance reform by amending the omnibus spending bill would be forced to 
hold up almost all government appropriations--essentially to shut down 
the government--in order to debate the issue.
  The question is whether these strong-arm tactics will prevail. 
Whether, given the obstacles thrown in the path of campaign finance 
reform, we give up this fight or whether we continue to press on. 
Senators McCain and Feingold have said publicly that they will be back 
in the next Congress to fight for reform. I plan to stand with them. I 
believe the stakes are nothing less than the integrity of our electoral 
system.
  The time is over for empty rhetoric about the 1996 campaign and the 
need for stronger enforcement of the campaign laws already on the 
books. The laws now on the books are too often unenforceable, and 
everyone knows it. It is time to wipe away the crocodile tears and see 
clearly what the American people see. Campaign finance reform is long 
overdue.

                          ____________________