[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 65 (Thursday, May 6, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4902-S4907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Kerry):

  S. 982. A bill entitled ``Clean Money, Clean Elections Act''; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.


                    CLEAN MONEY, CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr President, I am here today to introduce the ``Clean 
Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform legislation. It is in 
some ways the ``gold standard'' of true campaign finance reform, 
against which any more modest legislation ought to be assessed. The 
conceptual approach it embodies--replacing special interest money in 
our current system with clean money--is being adopted by state 
legislatures and in referenda across the country.
  Some of my colleagues might respond to this announcement by saying 
that there are other issues that have arisen in this session that are 
more important than a debate over whether we will comprehensively 
reform our campaign finance laws. Some might argue that the American 
people appear to care more about other issues. I would argue, though, 
that public concern about one issue does not necessarily have to come 
at the expense of another. And while it is clear that Americans care 
very deeply about a variety of issues--Kosovo, taxes, education, and 
Social Security reform first among them--it is also clear that they 
care very much about the nature of our political system. When asked, 60 
percent of Americans say they think that reforming the way campaigns 
are financed should be a high priority on our National agenda. There is 
no question in my mind that these people are right--reforming the way 
campaigns are financed should be, must be, a high priority on our 
agenda.
  Many people believe our political system is corrupted by special 
interest money. I agree with them. It is not a matter of individual 
corruption. I think it is probably extremely rare that a particular 
contribution causes a member to cast a particular vote. But the special 
interest money is always there, and I believe that we do suffer under 
what I have repeatedly called a systemic corruption. Unfortunately, 
this is no longer a shocking announcement, even if it is a shocking 
fact. Money does shape what is considered do-able and realistic here in 
Washington. It does buy access. We have both the appearance and the 
reality of systemic corruption. And we must act.
  In the House, a bipartisan effort is currently underway to force 
consideration of the Shays-Meehan bill, and the number of signers is 
slowly building. Yesterday, moderate House Republicans met with Speaker 
Hastert to ask for an early vote on the bill. Today, Representative 
Tierney is introducing the ``Clean Money'' companion bill with 38 
original co-sponsors. The House is acting on campaign finance reform, 
as should we on the Senate side. Here in the Senate, we must push 
forward this spring on tough, comprehensive reform.
  I wonder if anyone would bother to argue that the way we are moving 
toward a balanced federal budget is unaffected by the connection of big 
special-interest money to politics? The cuts we are imposing most 
deeply affect those who are least well off. That is well-documented. 
The tax breaks we offer benefit not only the most affluent as a group, 
but numerous very narrow wealthy special interests. Does anyone wonder 
why Congress retains massive subsidies and tax expenditures for oil and 
pharmaceutical companies? What about tobacco? Are they curious why 
Congress permits a health care system dominated by insurance companies? 
Or

[[Page S4903]]

a version of ``free trade'' which disregards the need for fair labor 
and environmental standards, for democracy and human rights, and for 
lifting the standard of living of American workers, as well as workers 
in the countries we trade with? How is it that Congress ever considers 
major legislation that directly promotes the concentration of ownership 
and power in the telecommunications industry, in the agriculture and 
food business, and in banking and securities? For the American people, 
how this happens, I think, is no mystery.
  I think most citizens believe there is a connection between big 
special interest money and outcomes in American politics. People 
realize what is ``on the table'' or what is considered realistic here 
in Washington often has much to do with the flow of money to parties 
and to candidates. We must act to change this.
  We must act to change this because the American people have lost 
faith in the system. People are turning away from the political 
process. They are surrendering what belongs most exclusively to them, 
their right to be heard on the issues that affect them, simply because 
they don't believe their voices will carry over the sound of all that 
cash. The degree of distrust, dissatisfaction, and outright hostility 
expressed by the American people when asked about the political process 
overwhelms me. According to recent polls, cynicism abounds:
  92 percent of all Americans believe special-interest contributions 
buy votes of members of Congress.
  88 percent believe that those who make large campaign contributions 
get special favors from politicians.
  67 percent think that their own representative in Congress would 
listen to the views of outsiders who made large political contributions 
before they would listen to their own constituents' views.

  And nearly half of all registered voters believe lobbyists and 
special interests control the government in Washington.
  We must act on campaign finance reform. We must act to restore 
Americans' trust in our political process. We must act to renew their 
hope in the capacity of our political system to respond to our 
society's most basic problems and challenges. We must act to provide a 
channel for the anger that many Americans feel about the current 
system, and acknowledge the grassroots reform movement that's been 
building for years. These are our duties, and we must act to move the 
reform debate forward.
  As Members of Congress, most pressing for us should be the question 
of why so many people no longer trust the political process, especially 
here in Congress, and what we can do to restore that trust. Polls and 
studies continue to show a profound distrust of Congress, and of our 
process. Many Americans see the system as inherently corrupt, and they 
despair of making any real changes because they figure special 
interests have the system permanently rigged.
  I do not need to rehash the many serious problems with our campaign 
financing system. The bottom line is indisputable: the system does not 
have--and has not had for many years--the confidence of the American 
people. People have lost faith in Congress as an institution, in the 
laws we pass, and in the democratic process itself, because of the 
money chase and its accompanying systemic corruption. Too often in our 
system, money determines political viability, it determines the issue 
agenda, and it determines to whom legislators are accountable: cash 
constituencies, not real constituencies. Most troubling, money often 
determines election outcomes, and the public knows it.
  Too many Americans believe that a small but wealthy and powerful 
elite controls the levers of government through a political process 
which rewards big donors--a system in which you have to pay to play. 
Why do you think corporate welfare has barely been nicked, but welfare 
for the poor and needy in this country has been gutted? The not-so-
invisible hand of corporate PACs and well-heeled lobbyists, and huge 
corporate soft money contributions can be seen most openly here.
  Too many Americans see our failures . . .
  to alleviate the harsh, grinding poverty that characterizes the lives 
of too many of our inner-city residents,
  to reduce the widening gulf between rich and poor,
  to combat homelessness, drug addiction, decaying infrastructure, 
rising health care costs, and an unequal system of education.
  And they want to know why we can't, or won't, act to address these 
problems head-on. Americans understand that without real reform, 
attempts to restructure our health care system, create jobs and rebuild 
our cities, protect our environment, make our tax system fairer and 
more progressive, fashion an energy policy that relies more on 
conservation and renewable sources, and solve other pressing problems 
will remain frustrated by the pressures of special interests and big-
money politics.
  In thinking about reform legislation, I start with the premise that 
political democracy has several basic requirements:
  First, free and fair elections. It is hard to say with a straight 
face that we have them now. That's why people stay home on election 
day, why they don't participate in the process. Incumbents outspend 
challengers 8 or 10-1, millionaires spend their personal fortunes to 
buy access to the airwaves, and special interests buy access to 
Congress itself, all of which warps and distorts the democratic 
process.
  Second, the consent of the people. The people of this country, not 
special interest big money, should be the source of all political 
power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not 
a narrow elite.
  Third, political equality. Everyone must have equal opportunity to 
participate in the process of government. This means that the values 
and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our 
attention by waving large campaign contributions in front of us, must 
be considered in the political debate. One person, one vote--no more 
and no less--the most fundamental of democratic principles.
  Each of these principles is undermined by our current system, funded 
largely through huge private contributions. Contributions that come 
with their own price tag attached--greater access and special 
consideration when push comes to shove. It's time for real reform.
  Over the years, I have introduced and re-introduced campaign finance 
reform legislation, pushed amendments, organized my colleagues, given 
speeches, observed a self-imposed fundraising code stricter than 
current law, fought filibusters, and otherwise tried in every way I 
could to get tough, sweeping reform enacted into law. All to no avail. 
To my great regret, campaign finance reform so far has been 
successfully blocked in Congress by those who oppose it, staunch 
defenders all of the status quo.

  Which is why I stand here today, re-introducing the ``Clean Money, 
Clean Elections'' legislation that we introduced during the last 
Congress. We have tightened and strengthed some of the nuts and bolts 
of the legislation, but it is much the same bill that it was when we 
first introduced it: simple and sweeping, fundamental campaign finance 
reform.
  If the 1994 elections are remembered as the year the Republicans 
swept into power in Congress, then the 1998 elections should go down as 
the year that special-interest money smothered Washington. Money has 
always played a role in American politics and campaign spending is not 
a new problem, but it has exploded during the 1990s. In the 1993-94 
election cycle, the national political parties raised $18.8 million in 
soft money contributions. By the 1997-98 election cycle that figure was 
up to $193.2 million in soft money. That's nearly a five-fold increase 
in just under five years. There can be no doubt that big money has 
become the primary currency of democracy in Washington.
  In the 1995-96 election cycle, corporations, groups, and individuals 
representing business interests outspent labor by 12-1. Individuals and 
PACs representing the natural resource industries (such as gas and oil 
companies) outspent environmental interests by an estimated 27-1 in 
contributions to congressional candidates. Political contributions 
representing finance, insurance, and real estate interests were in 
excess of $130 million for the last election cycle. In the 1996 
election

[[Page S4904]]

cycle, less than one-quarter of one percent of the American people made 
contributions of more than $200 in a Federal election. Yet an 
astounding eighty percent of all political money came from this tiny 
group. Of all the economically-interested money given to Congressional 
candidates, almost none represented the millions of Americans who are 
poor, or parents of public school children, or victimized by toxic 
dumping or agri-chemical contamination, or who are small bank 
depositors and borrowers, or people dependent on public housing, 
transportation, libraries, and hospitals. It is clear who is 
represented under the current system and who is shut out.
  The bill I am introducing today strikes directly at the heart of the 
crisis in the current system of campaign finance: the only way for 
candidates of ordinary means to run for office and win is to raise vast 
sums of money from special interests, who in turn expect access and 
influence on public policy. Real campaign finance reform needs to 
restore a level playing field, open up federal candidacies to all 
citizens, end the perpetual money chase for Members of Congress, and 
limit the influence of special interest groups. This legislation does 
all of these things by offering:
  The strictest curbs on special-interest money and influence. The 
``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' legislation bans completely the use of 
``soft money'' to influence elections, discourages electioneering 
efforts masquerading as non-electoral ``issue ads,'' provides 
additional funding to clean money candidates targeted by independent 
expenditures, and most importantly, allows candidates to reject private 
contributions if they agree to participate in the clean money system of 
financing.
  The greatest reduction in the cost of campaigns. Because it 
eliminates the need for fundraising expenses and provides a substantial 
amount of free and discounted TV and/or radio time for Federal 
candidates, this legislation allows candidates to spend far less than 
ever before on their campaigns.
  The most competitive and fair election financing. By providing 
limited but equal funding for qualified candidates, and additional 
funding for clean money candidates if they are outspent by non-
participating opponents, this legislation allows qualified individuals 
to run for office on a financially level playing field, regardless of 
their economic status or access to larger contributors. Right now, the 
system is wired for incumbents because they are connected to the 
connected. The big players, the heavy hitters, tend to be attracted to 
incumbents, because that is where the power lies. This bill would allow 
all citizens to compete equally in the Federal election process.
  And an end to the money chase, shorter elections, and stronger 
enforcement. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform 
frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of continuous 
fundraising and thus allows public officials to spend their time on 
their real duties. In effect, it also shortens the length of campaigns, 
when the public is bombarded with broadcast ads and mass mailings, by 
limiting the period of time during which candidates receive their 
funding. Moreover it strengthens the enforcement and disclosure 
requirements in Federal election campaigns.
  What I am proposing are fundamental changes, necessary changes if we 
hope to ever regain the public's confidence in the political process. 
This legislation is both simple to understand and sweeping in scope. As 
a voluntary system this bill is constitutional, and it effectively 
provides a level playing field for all candidates who are able to 
demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. ``Clean Money, Clean 
Elections'' strengthens American democracy by returning political power 
to the ballot box and by blocking special interests' ability to skew 
the system through large campaign contributions.
  Most importantly, this legislation attacks the root cause of a system 
founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather 
than treating the symptoms. The issue is no longer one of tightening 
already existing campaign financing laws, no longer a question of 
what's legal and what's illegal. The real problem is that most of 
what's wrong with the current system is perfectly legal. Big money 
special interests know how to get around the letter of the law as it is 
now written. This current system of funding congressional campaigns is 
inherently anti-democratic and unfair. It creates untenable conflicts 
of interests and screens out many good candidates. By favoring the deep 
pockets of special interest groups, it tilts the playing field in a way 
that sidelines the vast majority of Americans. This legislation takes 
special interest out of the election process and replaces it with the 
public interest, returning our political process to the hallowed 
principle of one person, one vote.
  I am not naive about the prospects for campaign finance reform during 
this Congress, and realize that the sweeping reform bill that I am 
introducing today is a ``vision bill.'' But that's okay, for as Yogi 
Berra is reported to have said, ``If you don't know where you're going, 
you may end up someplace else.'' This is where I want to go, and where 
I believe the vast majority of Americans would also like to go. In one 
recent survey, 48% percent of respondents thought they would be more 
likely to see Elvis than real campaign finance reform. And while this 
is obviously a somewhat toungue-in-cheek response for many people, I 
think it also reflects a deeply cynical electorate. For once let's not 
live down to their worst expectations, and let's pass tough, 
comprehensive campaign finance reform during this Congress.
  I ask consent that a summary of the bill and a section-by-section 
analysis be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Short Summary of ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' Campaign Finance 
                           Reform Act of 1999


                       ``clean money'' financing

       Candidates voluntarily forgot private contributions and 
     accept strict spending limits in exchange for publicly 
     financed election funds, as well as other benefits such as 
     free or reduced rate prime access broadcast time.
       Amount of ``clean money'' candidates receive in general 
     election based on state's Voting Age Population (VAP).
       If the voting age population is less than 4 million: 
     $320,000 + VAP(.24)=clean money funding amount
       If the voting age population is greater than 4 million: 
     $320,000 + VAP(.20)=clean money funding amount
       Candidates receive 67% of general election funding for 
     contested primary election.
       Additional clean money financing provided to match non-
     participating opponents' expenditures in excess of spending 
     limits, as well as independent expenditures made against 
     clean money candidate or in favor of non-participating 
     opposition candidate.


                             soft money ban

       Prohibits national parties from soliciting or receiving 
     contributions or spending funds not subject to the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act (FECA).
       Certain necessary state level activities are excluded from 
     these prohibitions, and the establishment of ``state party 
     grassroots funds'' is allowed for certain generic campaign 
     activity.


             independent expenditures and express advocacy

       Creates new, tighter definition of independent expenditures 
     to ensure proper distance from candidates.
       Toughens reporting requirements for independent 
     expenditures.
       Creates new definition for express advocacy using three 
     independent standards, any one of which meets definition 
     (provides ``fall back'' standard should any part of 
     definition be declared unconstitutional).
       Exempts voting records and voting guides from definition of 
     express advocacy.


                        reporting and disclosure

       Limits a party's coordinated expenditures to 10 percent of 
     the amount of clean money the candidate is eligible to 
     receive for the general election.
       Tightens the definition of party coordination, and requires 
     a party to limit its coordinated and independent 
     expenditures.
       Doubles the penalties for ``knowing and wilful'' violations 
     of federal election law.
       Requires Senate candidates to file disclosure reports and 
     disclosures electronically and directly with the Federal 
     Election Commission (FEC), which must then be made available 
     on the Internet within 24 hours.
       Requires that campaign advertisements contain sufficient 
     information to clearly identify the candidate on whose behalf 
     the advertisements are placed.
       Establishes new reporting requirements for issue 
     advertisements.
                                  ____


 The Clean Money, Clean Elections Campaign Finance Reform Act--Section-
                               by-Section

       Section 1. Short title; table of contents.

 TITLE I--CLEAN MONEY FINANCING OF SENATE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. pp. 2-32.

       Section 101. Findings and declarations. Section 101 states 
     the purposes of the legislation.

[[Page S4905]]

       Section 102. Eligibility requirements and benefits of 
     ``clean money'' financing of Senate election campaigns. 
     Section 102 of the bill would create a new Title V in the 
     1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 431). It defines 
     ``clean money,'' establishes the requirements for a major 
     party or other candidate to qualify and receive clean money; 
     establishes the dates and methods for receiving clean money; 
     places restrictions, including spending limits, on clean 
     money candidates; establishes the amounts of clean money to 
     be provided to candidates for primary and general elections; 
     and allows for providing additional clean money to match 
     expenditures by and on behalf of an opponent which exceed a 
     trigger-amount above the voluntary spending limit adopted by 
     the clean money candidate.
       The section defines clean money as the funds provided to a 
     qualifying clean money candidate. Clean money will be 
     provided from a Senate Election Fund established in the 
     Treasury and composed of unspent seed money contributions, 
     qualifying contributions, penalties, and amounts appropriated 
     for clean money financing of Senate election campaigns.
       The clean money candidate qualifying period begins 270 days 
     prior to the date of the primary election. To qualify for 
     clean money financing for a primary or a general election, a 
     candidate must be certified as qualified by 30 days prior to 
     the date of that election. Prior to the candidate receiving 
     clean money from the Senate Election Fund, a candidate 
     wishing to qualify as a clean money candidate may spend only 
     ``seed money.'' Seed money contributions are private 
     contributions of not more than $100 in the aggregate by a 
     person. It is the only private money a clean money candidate 
     may receive as a contribution and spend. A candidate's seed 
     money contributions are limited to a total of $50,000 plus an 
     additional $5,000 for every congressional district in the 
     state over one. Seed money can be spent on campaign related 
     costs such as to open an office, to fund a grassroots 
     campaign or hold community meetings, but cannot be spent for 
     a television or radio broadcast or for personal use. At the 
     time that a clean money candidate receives clean money, all 
     unspent seed money shall be remitted to the Federal Election 
     Commission (FEC) to be deposited in the Senate Election Fund.
       To qualify for clean money financing, a major party 
     candidate must gather a number of qualifying contributions 
     equal to one-quarter of 1 percent of the state's voting age 
     population, or 1,000 qualifying contributions, whichever is 
     greater. A qualifying contribution is $5, made by an 
     individual registered to vote in the candidate's state, and 
     is made during the qualifying period. Qualifying 
     contributions are made to the Senate Election Fund by check, 
     money order, or cash. They shall be accompanied by the 
     contributor's name and address and a signed statement that 
     the purpose of the contribution is to allow the named 
     candidate to qualify as a clean money candidate.
       A major party candidate is the candidate of a party whose 
     candidate for Senator, President, or Governor in the 
     preceding 5 years received, as a candidate of that party, 25 
     percent or more of the total popular vote in that state for 
     all candidates for that office.
       Clean money candidates qualify for clean money for both the 
     primary and the general election. A qualifying candidate will 
     receive clean money for the primary election upon being 
     certified by the FEC, and once the ``primary election 
     period'' has begun. A candidate will be certified within 5 
     days of filing for certification if the candidate has 
     gathered the threshold number of contributions, has not spent 
     private money other than seed money, and is eligible to be on 
     the primary ballot. The primary election period is from 90 
     days prior to the primary election date until the primary 
     election date. The qualifying period begins 180 days before 
     the beginning of the primary election period. A candidate 
     must be certified as a clean money candidate 30 days prior to 
     the primary election in order to receive clean money 
     financing for the primary election.
       A clean money candidate who wins the party primary and is 
     eligible to be placed on the ballot for the general election 
     will receive clean money financing for the general election. 
     A candidate not of a major party who does not qualify as a 
     clean money candidate in time to receive clean money 
     financing for the primary election period may still qualify 
     for clean money financing for the general election by 
     gathering the threshold number of qualifying contributions by 
     30 days prior to the general election and qualifying to be on 
     the ballot.
       The amount of clean money a qualified candidate receives 
     for the primary and general election is also the spending 
     limit for clean money candidates for each respective 
     election. The clean money amount for the general election for 
     a qualified clean money candidate is established according to 
     a formula based on a state's voting age population. The 
     section establishes a clean money ceiling for the general 
     election of $4.4 million, and a floor of $760,000. The clean 
     money amount for a contested major party primary is 67 
     percent of the clean money amount for the general election. 
     In the case of an uncontested primary or general election, 
     the clean money amount is 25 percent of the amount provided 
     in the case of a contested election.
       To qualify for clean money financing, a candidate who is 
     not a major party candidate must collect 150 percent of the 
     number of qualifying contributions that a major party 
     candidate in the same election is required to collect. A 
     candidate who is not a major party candidate must otherwise 
     qualify for clean money financing according to the same 
     requirements, restrictions and deadlines as does a major 
     party candidate. A candidate who is not a major party 
     candidate who qualifies as a clean money candidate in the 
     primary election period will receive 25 percent of 
     the regular clean money amount for a major party candidate 
     in the primary. A candidate who is not a major party 
     candidate who qualifies as a clean money candidate will 
     receive the same clean money amount in the general 
     election as will a major party candidate.
       Additional clean money financing, above the regular clean 
     money amount, will be provided to a clean money candidate to 
     match aggregate expenditures by a private money candidate and 
     independent expenditures against the clean money candidate or 
     on behalf of an opponent of the clean money candidate, which 
     are, separately or combined, in excess of 125 percent of the 
     clean money spending limit. The total amount of matching 
     clean money financing received by a candidate shall not 
     exceed 200 percent of the regular clean money spending limit.
       The section establishes penalties for the misuse of clean 
     money and for expenditure by a clean money candidate of money 
     other than clean money.
       Section 103. Reporting requirements for expenditures of 
     private money candidates. Section 103 requires private money 
     candidates facing clean money opponents to report within 48 
     hours expenditures which in aggregate exceed the amount of 
     clean money provided to a clean money candidate. A report of 
     additional expenditures, in aggregate increments of $1,000, 
     will also be required.
       Section 104. Transition rule for current election cycle. 
     Section 104 allows a candidate who received private 
     contributions or made private expenditures prior to enactment 
     of the Act not to be disqualified as a clean money candidate.

 TITLE II--INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES; COORDINATED EXPENDITURES, pp. 33-
                                  50.

       Section 201. Reporting requirements for independent 
     expenditures. Section 201 amends Section 304(c) of the 1971 
     FECA (2 U.S.C. 434(c)) to require reporting of independent 
     expenditures made or obligated to be made by a person in 
     support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for office. 
     Prior to 20 days before the date of the election, each such 
     independent expenditure which exceeds in aggregate $1,000 by 
     a person shall be reported within 48 hours. After 20 days 
     prior to the date of the election, each such independent 
     expenditure made or obligated to be made which exceeds in 
     aggregate $500 shall be reported within 24 hours.
       Section 202. Definition of independent expenditure. Section 
     202 amends section 301 of the 1971 FECA (2 U.S.C. 431) to 
     create a new definition of independent expenditure. An 
     independent expenditure would be an expenditure made by a 
     person other than a candidate or candidate's authorized 
     committee that is made for a communication that contains 
     express advocacy; and is made without the participation or 
     cooperation of, and without coordination with, a candidate.
       The section defines express advocacy as a communication 
     that is made through a broadcast medium, newspaper, magazine, 
     billboard, direct mail, or other general public communication 
     or political advertising and that advocates the election or 
     defeat of a clearly identified candidate, including a 
     communication that contains a phrase such as ``vote for'', 
     ``re-elect'', ``support'', ``cast your ballot for'', ``(name 
     of candidate) for Congress'', ``(name of candidate) in 
     (year)'', ``vote against'', ``defeat'', ``reject''; or 
     contains campaign slogans or individual words that in context 
     can have no reasonable meaning other than to recommend the 
     election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate;

     OR

       A communication that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate in a paid advertisement that is broadcast through 
     radio or television; involves aggregate disbursements of 
     $5,000 or more; and is made within the last 60 days before 
     the date of the general election.
       The section provides a fall back definition of express 
     advocacy should a portion of the above definition not be in 
     effect. The fall-back definition would be in addition to any 
     portion of the above still in effect. The fall-back 
     definition establishes that express advocacy would be a 
     communication that clearly identifies a candidate, and taken 
     as a whole, with limited reference to external events, 
     expresses unmistakable support for or opposition to the 
     candidate; or is made for the clear purpose of advocating the 
     election or defeat of the candidate, as shown by a statement 
     or action by the person making the communication, the 
     targeting or placement of the communication, and the use by 
     the person making the communication of polling, demographic 
     or other similar data relating to the candidate's campaign 
     for election.
       Each standard is severable from the others and any one 
     standard is sufficient to meet the definition of express 
     advocacy. Voting records and voting guides are exempted from 
     the definition of express advocacy.
       Section 203. Limits on expenditures by political party 
     committees. The section amends section 315(d)(3) of the 1971 
     FECA (2 U.S.C.

[[Page S4906]]

     441a(d)(3)) to limit a party's coordinated expenditures in a 
     race involving a clean money candidate. In the case of any 
     Senate election in which 1 or more candidates are clean money 
     candidates, the amount that any party may spend in connection 
     with that race or in coordination with a candidate is limited 
     to 10 percent of the amount of clean money a clean money 
     candidate is eligible to receive for the general election.
       Section 204. Party independent expenditures and coordinated 
     expenditures. The section, modeled after H.R. 417, the Shays-
     Meehan bill, strictly tightens the definition of party 
     coordination in numerous ways. The section also requires a 
     party which makes a coordinated expenditure in connection 
     with a general election campaign for Federal office in excess 
     of $5,000 to file a certification that the party will not 
     make any independent expenditures in connection with that 
     campaign. The section further tightens the definition of 
     coordinated expenditure by persons other than a party. It 
     establishes that coordinated expenditures shall be considered 
     to be contributions made to a candidate (with an exception 
     that allows the limited party coordinated expenditures on 
     behalf of a clean money candidate as provided in Section 
     203).

                TITLE III--VOTER INFORMATION, pp. 50-60.

       Section 301. Free broadcast time. The section provides 
     clean money candidates with 30 minutes of free broadcast time 
     during the primary election period and 60 minutes of free 
     broadcast time during the general election period. The 
     broadcasts shall be between 30 seconds and 5 minutes in 
     length, aired during prime time for television or drive time 
     for radio. Any one station shall not be required to provide a 
     clean money candidate with more than 15 minutes of free time 
     during an election period.
       Section 302. Broadcast rates and preemption. A clean money 
     candidate in a contested election shall be charged 50 percent 
     of the lowest charge described in section 315(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)) for purchased 
     broadcast time during the 30 days preceding the primary and 
     60 days preceding the general election.
       Section 303. Campaign advertisements; issue advertisements. 
     The section requires that campaign advertisements contain 
     sufficient information clearly identifying the candidate on 
     whose behalf the advertisements are placed. The information 
     shall include an audio statement by the candidate where 
     applicable which states that the candidate approves the 
     communication, and a clearly identifiable photographic or 
     similar image of the candidate where applicable. Private 
     money candidates shall include the following statement: 
     ``This candidate has chosen not to participate in the Clean 
     Money, Clean Elections System and is receiving campaign 
     contributions from private sources.''
       The section also establishes new reporting requirements for 
     issue advertisements, including the amount of the 
     disbursement for an issue advertisement, the name and address 
     of the person making the disbursement, donors of $5,000 or 
     more to the person during the calendar year, and the purpose 
     of the advertisement. An issue advertisement is an 
     advertisement which is not an independent expenditure or 
     contribution that contains the name or likeness of a Senate 
     candidate during an election year, and recommends a position 
     on a political issue.
       Section 304. Limit on Congressional use of the franking 
     privilege. The section prohibits franked mass mailings during 
     an election year by a Senate candidate who holds 
     Congressional office, except for a notice of public meeting 
     which contains only the candidate's name, and the date, time, 
     and place of the public meeting.

                    TITLE IV--SOFT MONEY, pp. 60-77.

       This title prohibits political party soft money and is 
     identical to that found in H.R. 417, the Shays-Meehan bill.
       Section 401. Soft money of political parties. The section 
     prohibits national parties from soliciting or receiving 
     contributions or spending funds not subject to the Federal 
     election Campaign Act. It prohibits state, district or local 
     committees of a political party from spending money during an 
     election year for activity that might affect the outcome of a 
     Federal election unless the money is subject to the FECA. The 
     section establishes certain activities excluded from the 
     above prohibition, which are legitimate or necessary 
     activities of the committees.
       The section prohibits parties or their committees from 
     solicting funds for, or making any donation to, tax-exempt 
     organizations. It also prohibits candidates and Federal 
     office-holders from receiving or spending funds not subject 
     to the FECA.
       Section 402. State party grassroots funds. The section 
     allows establishment of state party grassroots funds solely 
     for the purpose of generic campaign activity, voter 
     registration, or other activities specified in the FECA, and 
     the development and maintenance of voter files. The fund 
     shall be separate and segregated.
       Section 403. Reporting requirements. The section 
     establishes new reporting requirements for national parties 
     and congressional campaign committees for all receipts and 
     disbursements.
       Section 404. Soft money of persons other than political 
     parties. The section requires individuals other than a 
     committee of a political party that make an aggregate 
     disbursement in excess of $50,000 during a calendar year in 
     which there is a Federal election to file a statement with 
     the Federal Election Commission. The section does not apply 
     to a candidate or a candidate's authorized committees, or to 
     an independent expenditure.

   TITLE V--RESTRUCTURING AND STRENGTHENING OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION 
                         COMMISSION, pp. 78-91.

       Section 501. Appointment and terms of Commissioners. The 
     President shall appoint 6 members of the Commission with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate and 1 member from among 
     persons recommended by the Commission.
       Section 502. Audits. The section authorizes random audits 
     and investigations by the Commission to ensure voluntary 
     compliance with the FECA. The subjects of such audits and 
     investigations shall be selected on the basis of impartial 
     criteria established by a vote of at least 4 member of the 
     Commission.
       Section 503. Authority to seek injunction. The section 
     authorizes and sets out standards for initiation by the 
     Commission of a civil action for a temporary restraining 
     order or preliminary injunction.
       Section 504. Standard for investigation. The section grants 
     the Commission greater discretion in opening an 
     investigation.
       Section 505. Petition for certiorari. The section allows 
     petition to the Supreme court on certiorari.
       Section 506. Expedited procedures. The section allows the 
     Commission to order expedited proceedings based on clear and 
     convincing evidence that a violation of the FECA has 
     occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur, to avoid harm 
     or prejudice to the interests of the parties.
       Section 507. Filing of reports using computers and 
     facsimile machines; filing by Senate candidates with 
     Commission. The section instructs the Commission to require 
     the filing of reports in electronic form in certain cases, 
     and instructs the Commission to allow the filing of reports 
     by facsimile machines. The Commission is required to make 
     information filed electronically available on the Internet 
     within 24 hours of filing.
       The section requires Senate candidates to file 
     designations, statements, and reports directly with the 
     Commission.
       Section 508. Power to issue subpoena without signature of 
     chairperson. The section allows the Commission to issue a 
     subpoena without the signature of the chairperson or vice 
     chairperson.
       Section 509. Prohibition of contributions by individuals 
     not qualified to vote. The section prohibits contributions in 
     connection with a Federal election by an individual who is 
     not qualified to register to vote in a Federal election, and 
     prohibits receiving contributions from any such individuals.
       Section 510. Penalties for violations. The section 
     increases and tightens penalties for knowing and willful 
     violations of Federal election law.

     TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE, P. 91

       Section 601. Effective date. The Act and the amendments 
     made by the Act would take effect on January 1, 2000.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my friends, Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, and commend them on 
the introduction of their campaign finance reform proposal, the Clean 
Money bill. I am very pleased that they are once again introducing this 
far reaching and visionary piece of legislation. I think it is 
important as we deal in this Senate with the more limited bill that I 
have proposed with the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, that the 
American people understand that we do not believe that the job will be 
completed if that bill becomes law.
  Of course, I also want to thank Senators Kerry and Wellstone for 
their strong support of the McCain-Feingold bill. I also want to make 
it very clear that these two pieces of legislation are completely 
consistent and complimentary. The Clean Money bill introduced today 
contains the central components of the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan 
bills--a soft money ban, provisions to deal with phony issue ads, and 
improved enforcement and disclosure. But it adds a comprehensive system 
of financing Senate campaigns, based on initiatives that have been 
endorsed by the voters in Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona for their 
state elections, to provide public funding to qualified candidates for 
state officeholders.
  Mr. President, when I first ran for the Wisconsin State Senate many 
years ago, my race would literally not have been possible were it not 
for Wisconsin's system of partial public financing. Under the state 
system in effect at that time, I had to raise approximately $17,500 
from friends and family, and the state election fund provided a grant 
of the same amount. So once I raised my share, my fundraising work was 
done, and I could spend my time going door to door campaigning. I won 
that first race by only a few votes, and I'm convinced that my retail 
campaigning was the difference. So I believe it is fair to say that I 
wouldn't be

[[Page S4907]]

in the United States Senate today if Wisconsin didn't have that system 
of public financing, that allowed a person of limited means to run for 
office, and win.
  Today, all over the country, citizens are coming to realize that the 
money chase that is required to run for office is depriving them of 
good candidates and representatives. Not everyone who would be a 
hardworking and effective public servant comes from a wealthy 
background or from a community of friends or business associates who 
can finance a campaign. And so the Clean Money movement is taking hold 
in state after state. Overwhelming majorities in polls taken on this 
issue support a Clean Money system, where candidates raise a large 
number of very small contributions to qualify for a limited public 
grant to run an adequate, but not an extravagant, campaign. These 
polls, and the successful ballot initiatives in Maine, Massachusetts, 
and Arizona show that the public is not only ready, but eager, for a 
new way of financing our elections.
  Obviously, Mr. President, a majority in the United States Senate is 
not yet ready for such a clean break with the current system. But I 
believe that over time we in the Senate will catch up with public 
sentiment, and this is the way we will have to go. I am convinced that 
Clean Money is the future of campaign financing in this country, at 
both the state and federal level. And so I am very pleased that 
Senators Kerry and Wellstone have decided to reintroduce their bill and 
I thank them for their leadership.
                                 ______