[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 139 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12610-S12620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, there is a difficulty in a free country, one that 
guarantees the right of free speech and the press, to tell a group of 
citizens they cannot raise money and speak out at any time they choose 
to carry forth the message they believe in deeply. We are not talking 
about a game here. It is nice to sit around and say: How can we do 
something about this money in campaigns? It is such a burden to raise 
money. People try to buy influence. It is true people do try to 
ingratiate themselves to Members of Congress. How do you stop it? How 
do you do it, consistent with the great democracy of which we are a 
part?
  This bill as it is written, the ``McCain-Feingold lite''--the final 
version that has been altered, as we have gone by--is a feeble, sad 
attempt, really, to control spending in a way that is not going to be 
at all effective. In fact, it is going to be counterproductive and 
unwise, at the same time undermining the great first amendment of our 
Constitution.
  This bill would fundamentally only ban contributions of soft money; 
that is, contributions of money of certain amounts that are limited in 
the statute. If you give more than that to a party, then that becomes 
soft money. It would ban these contributions to parties or party 
organizations.
  Parties are good things. A lot of fine political scientists have been 
concerned over a number of years that parties have begun to lose their 
strength. But they go out to educate the public. People can call them 
to get information. They help young, inexperienced candidates get into 
the political fray. They help them fill out their forms right and make 
sure they comply with the campaign laws and the other laws involved in 
these elections. They serve good purposes. They are, at their 
foundation, a group of American citizens who share a general view of 
government who desire to come together to further those ends through 
their organization. So we are banning money to them. Who does not get 
soft money or money over the $1,000 contribution limits? Parties cannot 
get it. At the same time, there would be no ban on contributions to 
organizations that are not historic, that will not continue to exist 
from election to election. They will go away.

  In Alabama, in 1996, the ad that was voted the worst ad in America 
was run in our supreme court race. It was a skunk ad, and it was a 
despicable ad. It was done by money that apparently was given by a 
trial lawyers' association to an organization. I think the title of it 
was the ``Good Government Association.'' They raised this money and put 
it into this thing. It had one

[[Page S12611]]

purpose. It didn't register voters, didn't answer the phone, didn't 
produce literature--it ran attack ads against a good and decent 
candidate for the supreme court of the State of Alabama. This bill 
would not stop that kind of thing. That could still go on.
  That is why I believe it would do nothing to deal with that 
fundamental problem. When people care about an election, they are going 
to speak out. These fly-by-night groups that come together, they have 
no integrity to defend over the years as a political party does. Their 
leaders oftentimes are people you will never hear from again. But a 
chairman of a political party, the candidates and members of that 
party, Republican or Democrat, have a vested interest in trying to 
maintain the integrity of their party. I think, in truth, there are 
going to be fewer abuses by a political party, frankly, than another 
kind of institution. I will just say these would be legal under this 
bill. It would not deal with the fundamental question with which we are 
most concerned.
  We know one of the union labor leaders has promised to spend $46 
million in 35 congressional races to defeat Republican candidates and 
take over the House of Representatives. He has announced that: Over $1 
million per race. This bill would provide no control over that.
  What if you are a candidate in Alabama and all of a sudden you wake 
up and you have been targeted and they are spending $2 million--it 
could be $2 million, maybe $3 million--against you, running attack ads 
daily? You go around to ask people to raise money to help you and they 
cannot give but $1,000 and you cannot get your message out because you 
have been overwhelmed. That is not fairness. It would not control that 
kind of immense funding in any way. That is not fair. That is all I am 
saying. That is not fair. We do not need to do that thing, in my view.
  If there is a problem in campaign finance and funding, one of the 
most amazing and aggravating things to me is that a union member who 
favors me or someone else, another candidate, may have his money taken 
or her money taken and spent for the person they oppose. They have no 
choice in it whatsoever. They have to work, they have to pay union 
dues, and the money is spent. This bill throws up a figleaf and says, 
if you are not a union member, then you can object, if they are taking 
your union dues, and maybe get a little bit of it back if you protest 
and demand it back. But as far as dealing fundamentally with the 
freedom of working Americans to decide who their money is spent on, it 
would do nothing. That is a wrong, if you want to know what is wrong in 
this country.
  I submit this bill is a shell, a pretend bill. It will not stop soft 
money. That is so obvious as to be indisputable. It is going to 
continue. It is just going to go through organizations other than 
political parties. It will not stop unions from spending $46 million on 
a few targeted races. It is not going to stop political action 
committees with special interests from raising funds, involving 
themselves in elections. Indeed, how can it? Should it be able to? 
Probably not. How can we stop people from doing that?
  I don't like it. I don't like people running ads against me and I 
have had them run against me saying: Call Jeff Sessions and tell him 
you don't like what he is doing. It is basically an attack ad. It is 
not going to change.

  What can we do? I can suggest a few things. Let's raise the 1974 
spending limits. That is way out of date. It is time to bring those up 
to date. Then a person who cares about an election, if he gives $2,000 
or $3,000, may not believe he needs to carry on by giving money to a 
special committee to argue the case further. He may be satisfied with 
that. That would be natural and normal. It would reduce the pressure 
for soft money.
  I believe we need more prompt disclosure. People need to know who is 
giving this money. It would have been helpful for the voters of Alabama 
to have known that a skunk ad came from defense lawyers, plaintiff 
lawyers, and business interests on one side of that debate. They would 
be more understanding of what it means and may be able to hold somebody 
accountable in a way they would not otherwise.
  Frankly, we ought to start enforcing the law. I spent 15 years as a 
Federal prosecutor. We are not doing a very good job, in my view, of 
finding people who violate existing laws and seeing that people are 
held accountable. There are going to be mistakes, and I am not talking 
about witch hunts and trying to disturb honest and decent candidates 
who have done their best to comply with many regulations, but we really 
need to watch those cases where we have serious enforcement problems.
  The Senator from Utah talked about Mr. Tamraz who gave $300,000 to 
the Democratic Party to meet with the President, and the State 
Department people said he is a bad character and they should not see 
him. But he was invited to the White House and the President saw him 
anyway. That is helpful and may not be an absolute violation of the 
law, but that is the kind of thing we ought to know about and stand up 
against. But this is freedom fundamentally to speak out.
  My time is up. Our cure, I am afraid, is more dangerous than the 
disease. We have a lot of problems in elections and because of them 
people get upset. But fundamentally in America, today you can campaign 
and get your message out, and the American people accept the results of 
those elections. We do not have riots when one candidate wins and 
another one does not. It is because people feel they have an adequate 
opportunity to have their say.
  This legislation clearly, in my opinion, would weaken the first 
amendment right to free press and freedom of speech. It would be 
dangerous because the incumbents will be setting the rules. As Members 
of this body, we are going to set rules which protect and resist 
activities that we as incumbent politicians do not like. Every now and 
then, it might be healthy for somebody who wants to raise a bunch of 
money and run against some of us. It might be good for us. One can make 
an issue of it if they think it is unfair, but how can we say they 
cannot do that? Many of the rules we are talking about cannot be 
enforced. They will not be enforced or do not even attempt to avoid 
certain loopholes which we close in a little gate and then the whole 
fence is down when we allow this money to go through other political 
groups and just barring parties from spending the money.
  This plan will not work. It will not achieve the goal of the parties 
submitting it. It will not do that. It encroaches on the first 
amendment and is not good public policy.
  I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, campaign finance reform was the first issue on which I 
chose to speak when I was duly elected to the Senate almost 3 years 
ago. I occupied this desk and talked about my understanding of the 
state of campaign financing in America. I had just gone through one of 
the most expensive Senate races in the history of the United States 
where I was outspent some 3\1/2\ to 1. I am lucky to be here.
  The current status of campaign financing in America is a moral swamp; 
it is full of skunks; it is full of special interests out to buy their 
way into the heart of the American Government. Those of us in this 
Senate, 100 selected, want to make sure the public interest prevails, 
not special interests. I tip my hand and my hat to two fine Members of 
this body who day in and day out, year in and year out, have fought the 
good fight in cleaning up this moral swamp of campaign financing.
  My dear friend and fellow Vietnam veteran, Senator John McCain, and 
my seatmate, Senator Feingold, have put together an effort which I 
believe has a reasonable chance of succeeding.
  I can remember sitting here a couple years ago after a whole year of 
sitting on the Governmental Affairs Committee and listening to one 
horror story after another about problems of campaign financing in 
America, and a majority of our Governmental Affairs Committee decided 
we needed campaign financing; we needed the McCain-Feingold bill. I was 
an original cosponsor of it and a majority of the Senate supported it, 
but we could not get 60 votes.

  Senator McCain, in those days, said something like: It is a question 
of time. This Senate will pass campaign finance reform. It is just a 
matter of

[[Page S12612]]

when, and it will be whether or not we are here.
  I am glad the issue of campaign finance reform is back before this 
distinguished body, and it is none too late. In 1998, the last general 
election in this country, we had higher spending, more negativity, 
greater public cynicism, and not coincidentally, lower voter turnout 
than at any time in this century. We are at a turning point. I thank 
Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold for offering to us, 
again, a chance to clean up this moral swamp.
  My dear colleague from Arizona and I were in the Vietnam war. We have 
been shot at before. We have been attacked before. We have been 
criticized before. But his integrity is still intact. He is 
incorruptible, he is unbought and unbossed, and I am honored to serve 
with him today.
  Over the years, opponents of McCain-Feingold have continued to 
concentrate their spoken criticisms on its alleged violations of free 
speech, though that is, in my opinion, a flawed equation of money with 
speech.
  I look back at the 1976 decision by the Supreme Court which, in 
effect, equated the ability to spend money with free speech. In the 
campaign finance hearings a couple of years ago, I asked the simple 
question: If you do not have any money in this country, does that mean 
you do not have any speech? Of course not. The problem is we have 
equated money with speech and the ability to get on the air with 30- 
and 60-second spots which make us want to throw up.
  I share the concern of the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. 
Sessions, about these negative attack ads that come from out of State 
and seem to originate from God knows where. They come in and 
assassinate someone's character. That is not the country for which 
Senator McCain and I fought. That is not the kind of democracy we 
intend to serve. That is one reason why I have bonded with him in such 
a close way: to support cleaning up this incredible process.
  Right now we have a system where every millionaire in America can 
expect to run for public office. The rest of us will have to take a 
back seat.
  I would say there is little doubt about the commitment of James 
Madison, father of the Constitution, an architect of the Bill of 
Rights, and President of the United States, to the great cause of free 
speech. Madison was the author of the first 10 amendments to the 
Constitution, the Bill of Rights. In The Federalist Papers, Madison put 
the challenge of governing this way. He said:

       But what is government itself, but the greatest of all 
     reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no 
     government would be necessary. In framing a government which 
     is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty 
     lies in this: you must first enable the government to control 
     the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control 
     itself.

  We have to control this campaign finance system or it will eat us 
alive. Our system of elections is fast becoming a system of auctions. 
While Madison was certainly both a revolutionary and a visionary, he 
never allowed himself to stray too far from the practical realities of 
the world in which he lived. To him, the lack of human perfection was 
thus the basis for government and a factor which must be taken into 
account in providing a government with sufficient powers to accomplish 
its necessary functions.
  The last time the Senate debated McCain-Feingold, back in 1997, 
Senator Fred Thompson, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, delivered a very fine statement on the Senate floor about 
campaign finance reform and free speech in which he pointed out that, 
in the real world, the debate about campaign finance reform and free 
speech is not one of absolutes, as some would have it. There is not a 
choice between a system of unfettered free speech and government 
regulation, for our current system recognizes many instances in which 
there is a legitimate and constitutional public interest in regulating 
speech, from slander laws, to prohibitions on the disclosure of the 
identities of American intelligence agents, to the campaign arena 
itself, with a longstanding ban on corporate contributions and quarter-
century and older limits on other forms of contributions and disclosure 
requirements.

  So the debate isn't really over whether or not there will be 
government regulation of campaigns but on what form that regulation 
will take. In the words of Dr. Norm Ornstein, a noted political 
scientist and a witness in the Governmental Affairs hearings, the 
question is whether or not we will erect some ``fences'' to prevent the 
worst abuses from recurring.
  As I have told anyone who has asked me, I love being a Senator. I 
cherish this body. As does Senator Byrd, I cherish its traditions. 
Having the privilege of representing my State in this body, where such 
giants as Clay and Webster and Calhoun and Norris and LaFollette and 
Dirksen and Russell and Senator Byrd have served with great 
distinction, is the greatest honor of my life. But, my fellow Members 
of the Senate, I was not honored by the process that I and every other 
candidate for the Senate had to undergo in order to get here.
  We have to spend years in raising millions of dollars just to defend 
ourselves out there in the marketplace. I have not felt privileged 
sitting here day by day, with evidence continually mounting in 
congressional hearings, in newspaper reports, of campaign abuses, or 
public opinion surveys chronicling the loss of public trust in the 
political process, or the ongoing massive fundraising which takes place 
all the time in this, the Nation's Capital. The current system is 
broken, and it cries out for reform.
  We have heard a lot of talk, and we will hear more talk, about these 
abuses, and about the general topic of campaign finance reform. But the 
time is coming when we must take action. Certainly the revised McCain-
Feingold package is not perfect; it is not all that I think needs to be 
done to remedy our problem, but it is an essential first step, aimed at 
dealing with the worst of the abuses which currently plague our 
campaign system.
  It is fascinating how the term ``soft money'' has grown up. It is 
really not soft money; it is hard money with soft laws. It is now time 
to correct that abuse. The revised bipartisan campaign finance reform 
proposal does not contain spending limits. I wish it did. 
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has declared that unconstitutional. It 
does not contain limits on PACs. The current law does. It does not 
provide free discounted broadcast air time for Federal candidates. I 
think we ought to have that. And the bill does not place any 
limitations on sham issue ads, which we need very badly. We need to 
place some limitations on that, especially 60 days out from an 
election.
  But what the proposal does do is this:
  One, it bans soft money contributions to and spending by national 
political parties and candidates for Federal office. That, in and of 
itself, is an achievement.
  Two, it curbs soft money contributions to and spending by State 
parties when such activities are related to Federal elections.
  And three, it strictly codifies the Beck decision concerning the 
right of nonunion members to have a refund of any union fees used for 
political purposes to which they object.
  There are certainly areas where I believe this package should be 
strengthened, but we must not let the pursuit of a politically 
unattainable ideal prevent us from adopting the very useful and 
important provisions in this package.
  Let us remember that it was soft money which was at the heart of most 
of the egregious campaign abuses uncovered by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee's investigation of the 1996 campaign. I sat through a whole 
year of listening to those horror stories, and it convinced me it is 
long since time that we act.

  The country is watching what we do on campaign finance reform. Make 
no mistake about that. They are understandably skeptical that we will 
take action to reform the very system under which we all were elected, 
and, shall we say, expectations are extremely low. Unfortunately, based 
on our behavior to date, those expectations are being fulfilled.
  But this is a real opportunity, the best we will have in this 
Congress to show we can take the hard but necessary steps to help begin 
to restore the public's faith in the workings of our great experiment 
in democracy.
  Earlier this year, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, the

[[Page S12613]]

House of Representatives approved the Shays-Meehan bill, which goes far 
beyond the measure currently before the Senate. The President of the 
United States stands prepared to sign any reasonable version of either 
of the bills into law. Now the ball is clearly in our court.
  As we consider the McCain-Feingold legislation, I hope we will at 
long last be allowed to engage in the normal amendment process whereby 
the Senate can truly work its will and seek to improve the pending 
legislation. There are a number of areas in which I think the existing 
bill can and should be improved. For my part, I will be offering a 
series of amendments related to enforcement of existing laws by 
strengthening the Federal Elections Commission and campaign disclosure 
requirements. The FEC is the referee in this ballgame. It is time we 
gave the referee some strength.
  One of the most glaring deficiencies in our current Federal campaign 
system is the ineffectiveness of this referee. The FEC, whether by 
design or through circumstance, has been beset by partisan gridlock, 
uncertain and insufficient resources, and lengthy proceedings which 
offer no hope of timely resolution of charges of campaign violations. 
It is similar to a referee in a football game blowing a whistle and 9 
months later throwing the flag.
  Thus, the first major element of my amendments is to strengthen the 
ability of the Federal Election Commission to be an effective and 
impartial enforcer of Federal campaign laws.
  I will be offering amendments to do several things:
  One, alter the Commission structure to remove the possibility of 
partisan gridlock by adding a seventh member, who would serve as 
Chairman and would be appointed by the President --with the advice and 
consent of the Senate--from among 10 nominees recommended by the 
Supreme Court.
  Two, require electronic filing of reports to the FEC; authorize the 
FEC to conduct random audits; give the FEC independent litigating 
authority, including before the Supreme Court; and establish a right of 
private civil action to seek court enforcement in cases where the FEC 
fails to act, all of which should dramatically improve the prospects 
for timely enforcement of our campaign finance laws.
  Three, provide sufficient funding of the FEC from a source 
independent of congressional intervention by the imposition of filing 
fees on Federal candidates, with such fees being adequate to meet the 
needs of the Commission.
  There is another area to be addressed by my amendments. The area I 
would like to address is to enhance the effectiveness of campaign 
contribution disclosure requirements.
  I have to admit, of all the laws, of all the requirements I have seen 
at the State level and the Federal level, over the years in which I 
have been dealing with the question of campaign finance reform--and I 
was the State official in Georgia for 12 years who was the State 
elections officer, and I pushed for campaign finance reform then, and 
now I am pushing for it as a Senator. Of all the requirements I have 
seen, of all the laws and the rules and regulations, I think the most 
effective brake on abuse in the campaign finance system is disclosure. 
As Justice Brandeis once observed: Publicity is justly commended as a 
remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the 
best of disinfectants.

  This is certainly true in the realm of campaign finance. Let there be 
more sunlight. Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Watergate 
reforms of a quarter century ago is the expanded campaign and financial 
disclosure requirements which emerged from that tragedy. By and large, 
those increased disclosure requirements have served us well, but as 
with everything else, they need to be periodically reviewed and updated 
in the light of experience.
  Therefore, based in part on testimony I heard during the last 
session's Governmental Affairs Committee investigation and in part on 
the FEC's own recommendations for improved disclosure, my amendments 
would make several changes in current disclosure requirements.
  Specifically, I am recommending a reform which will make it more 
difficult for contributors and campaigns alike to turn a blind eye to 
current disclosure requirements by requiring those who contribute $200 
or more to provide a signed certification that their contribution is 
not from a foreign national and is not the result of a contribution in 
the name of another person.
  In addition, I will offer amendments embodying a number of disclosure 
recommendations made by the FEC in its reports to the Congress and by 
other campaign finance experts, including, among others: One, requiring 
all reports to be filed by the due date of the report; two, requiring 
all authorized candidate committee reports to be filed on a campaign-
to-date basis rather than on a calendar-year cycle; three, mandating 
monthly reporting for multicandidate committees which have raised or 
spent or anticipate raising or spending in excess of $100,000 in the 
current election cycle; again, clarifying that reports of last-minute 
independent expenditures must be received at the FEC within 24 hours of 
when the expenditure is made; and, finally, requiring that noncandidate 
political committees which have raised or received in excess of 
$100,000 be subjected to the same last-minute contribution reporting 
requirements as candidate committees.
  It is so easy to be pessimistic about campaign finance reform 
efforts. The public and the media are certainly expecting this Congress 
and this Senate to fail to take significant action in cleaning up this 
swamp. The scandalous campaign system, though, under which we all now 
suffer must be changed.
  I suggest we cannot afford the luxury of complacency. We may think we 
will be able to win the next election or reelection because the level 
of outrage and the awareness of the extent of the vulnerability of our 
political system have perhaps not yet reached critical mass. I am 
confident it is only a matter of time, as Senator McCain has said, and 
perhaps the next election cycle, which will undoubtedly feature more 
unaccountable soft money, more sham issue ads, more circumvention of 
the spirit and, in some cases, the letter of current campaign finance 
laws, before the scales are decisively tilted in favor of reform.
  We will have campaign finance reform, Mr. President. The only 
question is whether or not this Congress and this Senate step up to the 
plate and fulfill their responsibility to the American public and give 
them a system in which they can have confidence.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of Members, the manager 
of the bill and the minority are trying to work out a time. We expect 
there will be a vote at 6 on the underlying amendment. All Members 
should keep that in mind. We don't have it yet, where we can enter a 
unanimous consent request, but we are very close to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as we begin the debate on 
campaign finance reform to discuss my thoughts and hopes on the actions 
the Senate will be taking in the coming days.
  First, let me thank the sponsors of the legislation, Senators McCain 
and Feingold, for their tireless perseverance to enact campaign finance 
reform. Without their hard work and vast knowledge, we would not be at 
this important point. I would also like to thank the majority leader, 
Senator Lott, for working with Senators McCain and Feingold to schedule 
this time for what I hope will be a full and open debate on this 
important issue. I look forward to hearing and debating the many ideas 
of my colleagues and believe the Senate should strive over the next 
couple of days to show why we are considered the greatest deliberative 
body in the world.
  Mr. President, I was first elected to Congress following the 
Watergate scandal, right around the time Congress last enacted 
comprehensive reform of our campaign finance system. I have watched 
with growing dismay over my almost 25 years in Congress as the number 
of troubling examples of problems in our current campaign finance 
system have increased. These problems have led to a perception by the 
public that a disconnect exists between themselves and the people that 
they have

[[Page S12614]]

elected. I believe that this perception is a pivotal factor behind the 
disturbingly low voter turnouts that have plagued national elections in 
recent years.
  While some may point to surveys that list campaign finance reform as 
a low priority for the electorate, I believe that the public actually 
strongly supports Congress debating and enacting comprehensive reform 
this year. It is important to reverse the trend of shrinking voter 
turnout by reestablishing the connection between the public and us, 
their elected representatives, by passing comprehensive campaign 
finance reform.

  As I said earlier, I look forward to a full and open debate on the 
issue of campaign finance reform including the amendments that will be 
offered. At the end of this debate, the Senate should be able to pass 
comprehensive campaign finance reform. That to me is the most important 
aspect of any bill the Senate may pass, it must be comprehensive. If we 
fail to address the problems facing our campaign finance system with a 
comprehensive balanced package we will ultimately fail in our mission 
of reforming the system. Closing one loophole, without addressing the 
others in a systematic way, will not do enough to correct current 
deficiencies, and may in fact create new and unintended consequences.
  Mr. President, we have all seen first-hand the problems with the 
current state of the law as it relates to sham issue advertisements. I 
have focused much time and effort on developing a legislative solution 
on this topic with my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe, and was pleased 
that this solution was adopted by the Senate during the last debate on 
campaign finance reform. I was also proud to cosponsor the 
comprehensive campaign finance bill Senators McCain and Feingold 
introduced earlier this year that included this legislative solution.
  While I understand the rationale my colleagues used in crafting the 
base legislation that we are debating, I feel strongly that the 
legislation the Senate must ultimately vote on include some kind of 
changes to the current law concerning sham issue advertisements. I feel 
that we have crafted a reasonable, constitutional approach to this 
problem and will be offering it as an amendment during this debate.
  That does not mean, though, that we will stop working with our 
colleagues to craft additional, and perhaps different, ideas to address 
the problems with the current law on sham issue advertisements. My 
ultimate goal is to create a comprehensive campaign finance bill that 
will garner the support of at least 59 of my other colleagues, and 
hopefully more.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the upcoming full and open debate on 
this important issue, and pledge to continue working with my colleagues 
to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform into law this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
underlying amendment occur at 6 o'clock this evening, and that the time 
be divided equally between the respective parties prior to that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator repeat the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. REID. It is that the vote on the underlying amendment would occur 
at 6 o'clock, there would be no second-degree amendments in order, and 
that the time between now and 6 o'clock be divided between the 
proponents and opponents of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I don't object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am also informed--and I believe it is the 
case--that after the vote at 6 o'clock, there will be 20 minutes on the 
VA-HUD Appropriations bill.
  That is for the information of Senators. It hasn't been determined by 
the leaders for sure, but that is what I expect will happen.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me second what the assistant 
Democratic leader has said. That is the anticipation with regard to the 
VA-HUD.
  Mr. President, seeing no one on the floor at the moment, I thought I 
might make a few observations about the debate in which we are 
currently engaged.
  One of the commonly stated myths that we have heard throughout the 
day is that soft money in our current campaign finance system is the 
cause of unprecedented public cynicism about, and distrust of, 
government. The truth is, according to a study published by Oxford 
Press in 1999, which was coordinated by the faculty of the Kennedy 
school and which benefited from the participation of scholars from the 
University of Michigan, the University of Arizona, and the University 
of Illinois, public trust in government and cynicism about government 
predates not only soft money but also the events that prompted the 
original Federal Election Campaign Act. According to this study, public 
trust in the Federal Government has suffered a fairly steady decline 
since 1958, when 75 percent of the American people trusted the Federal 
Government most of the time.
  By the end of the Carter administration, this number had dropped to 
approximately 25 percent. This trend was temporarily reversed during 
the Reagan administration, but during the subsequent administrations, 
it again declined to near pre-Reagan levels of distrust. The fact that 
our campaign finance system and soft money have not caused a 
precipitous drop in public trust and an unprecedented increase in 
cynicism is confirmed by an even more recent study by two Harvard 
professors, which is going to press at the Princeton University Press. 
This study shows that trust in government did not precipitously decline 
during the scandal-ridden 1996 Presidential campaign.
  These studies show that, according to most recent data available to 
these distinguished scholars, levels of public trust in government are 
currently no higher than they were in 1994 or at the end of the Carter 
administration in 1980. Simply put, the best and most recent 
scholarship establishes that public distrust of government predates our 
current campaign finance system and soft money, and the advent of our 
current campaign finance system and soft money have not accelerated the 
relatively steady decline in public trust that began in 1958. So it is 
clear that this debate we are having has absolutely nothing to do with 
the steady decline of confidence in our government.

  Now, the prescription for this steady decline that has been offered 
by a variety of so-called reformers around here has been tried in some 
other democracies.
  Let's look at Canada, for example. Our neighbors to the north already 
have passed many of the types of regulations supported by the 
proponents of the various reforms that are before the Senate or have 
been before the Senate in recent years. Canada has adopted the 
following regulations of political speech: spending limits that all 
national candidates must abide by to be eligible to receive taxpayer 
matching funds. Candidates can spend $2 per voter for the first 15,000 
votes they get, $1 per voter for all the votes up to 25,000, and 50 
cents per voter beyond 25,000.
  Canada also has spending limits on parties that restrict parties to 
spending the product of a multiple used to account for cost of living 
times the number of registered voters in each electoral district in 
which the party has a candidate running for office. Right now, it comes 
out to about a dollar a voter.
  Canada also has indirect funding via media subsidies. The Canadian 
Government requires that radio and television networks provide all 
parties with a specified amount of free air time during the month prior 
to an election. The government also provides subsidies to defray the 
costs of political publishing and gives tax credits to individuals and 
corporations which donate to candidates and/or parties.
  That is the prescription in Canada. It is not all that dissimilar to 
the ones that have been promoted here in recent years, up to and 
including the bill we currently have before us.

[[Page S12615]]

  Let's look at the attitude about government in Canada after all of 
these reforms. The most recent political science studies of Canada 
demonstrate that, despite all of this regulation of political speech by 
candidates and parties, the number of Canadians who feel ``the 
government doesn't care what people like me think'' has grown from 
roughly 45 percent to 67 percent. Confidence in the national 
legislature, after the enactment of all of these speech controls, has 
dropped from 49 percent to 21 percent. The number of Canadians 
satisfied with their system of government has declined from 51 percent 
to 34 percent.
  Let's take a look at Japan. According to the Congressional Research 
Service:

       Japanese election campaigns, including campaign financing, 
     are governed by a set of comprehensive laws that are the most 
     restrictive among democratic nations.

  After forming a seven-party coalition government in August 1993, 
Prime Minister Hosokawa placed campaign finance reform at the top of 
his agenda. He asserted that his reforms would restore democracy in 
Japan. In November 1994, his reform legislation passed. After this 
legislation, the Japanese Government imposed the following restrictions 
on political speech:
  Candidates are forbidden from donating to their own campaigns. Any 
corporation that is a party to a government contract, grant, loan, or 
subsidy is prohibited from making or receiving any political 
contributions for 1 year after they receive such a contract, grant, 
loan, or subsidy.
  There are strict limits on what corporations and unions and 
individuals may give to candidates and parties. There are limits on how 
much candidates may spend on their own campaigns.
  Candidates are prohibited from buying any advertising in magazines 
and newspapers beyond the five print media ads of a specified length 
that the government purchases for each candidate.
  Parties are allotted a specified number of government-purchased ads 
of a specified length. The number of ads a party gets is based on the 
number of candidates they have running. It is illegal for these party 
ads to discuss individual candidates.
  In Japan, candidates and parties spend nothing on media advertising 
because not only are they prohibited from purchasing print media ads, 
but they are also prohibited from buying time on television or radio.
  The government requires TV stations to permit parties and each 
candidate a set number of television and radio ads during the 12 days 
prior to the election.
  Each candidate gets one government-subsidized televised broadcast.
  The government's election management committee provides each 
candidate with a set number of signboards and posters that subscribe to 
the standard government-mandated format.
  The Election Management Committee also designates the places and 
times candidates may give speeches.
  The government says when candidates may speak, and where they may 
speak.
  You may ask: What happened after these exacting regulations on 
political speech that amount to a reformer's wish list were imposed in 
Japan? Did cynicism decline? Did trust in government increase? Not so, 
as you notice.
  Following the imposition of these regulations, the number of Japanese 
saying they had no confidence in legislators rose to 70 percent.
  Following these regulations, only 12 percent of Japanese believe the 
government is responsive to the people's opinions and wishes.
  The percentage of Japanese satisfied with the Nation's political 
system fell to 5 percent.
  Voter turnout continued to decline.
  Let's take a look at France.
  In France, there is significant regulation of political speech with 
government funding of candidates, government funding of parties, free 
radio and television time, reimbursement for printing posters, and for 
campaign-related transportation.
  In France, they ban contributions to candidates by any entity except 
parties to PACs.
  Individual contributions to parties are limited.
  Strict expenditure limits are set for each electoral district in 
place.
  Every single candidate's finances are audited by the Commission 
Nationale, generally known as CCFP, to ensure compliance with the 
rules.
  Despite all of these regulations on political speech in France, the 
latest studies indicate the French people's confidence in their 
government and political institutions has continued to decline. Voter 
turnout has continued to decline.
  Let's look at Sweden.
  Sweden imposed the following regulations on political speech: There 
is no fundraising for spending for individual candidates at all. 
Citizens merely vote for parties which assign seats on the proportion 
of votes they receive.
  The government subsidizes print ads by the parties.
  Despite the fact that Sweden allows no fundraising or spending for 
individual candidates, since these requirements have been in force the 
number of Swedes disagreeing with the statement that ``parties are only 
interested in people's votes, not in their opinions'' has declined from 
51 percent to 28 percent.
  The number of people expressing confidence in the Swedish Parliament 
has declined from 51 percent to 19 percent.
  So it is clear that many assertions made by the proponents of 
additional campaign finance regarding the causal link between the 
campaign finance system or soft money, and voter turnout, public 
cynicism, national pride, and the health of our democracy are not 
supported but actually contradicted by the best and most recent 
scholarship and empirical data available from prestigious academics at 
institutions such as the Kennedy School at Harvard and the University 
of California System's Center for the Study of Democracy, and contrary 
to the experience of the other industrialized democracies that have 
passed the type of measures desired by proponents of more regulation of 
political speech.
  The rationale for all of this has been that we need to clean up the 
system, squeezing out all of these private interests so everybody will 
have more confidence in the government.
  That didn't work anywhere overseas. So let's take a look at the 
United States.
  Voter turnout at home: In the end, we don't even have to look at 
other countries to see that speech controls do not increase confidence, 
nor do they increase voter turnout. In 1974, as we all know, the 
Federal Election Campaign Act was expanded to limit the amount of money 
that Presidential candidates could raise and spend. That is the system 
under which the current candidates for President operate.
  So if the reformers premise that limiting speech increases turnout is 
true, then surely voting in American Presidential elections would have 
increased over the last 25 years. Let's look at the statistics.

  In the 1950s and 1960s, before the passage of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act, the average voter turnout was consistently at 60 percent 
or higher.
  So post-1974 must have been higher, right? After all, we passed the 
Federal Election Campaign Act. After all, the Congress supposedly gave 
us ``comprehensive reform'' for the Presidential system in 1974.
  But the numbers show the emptiness of the reformers' rhetoric. The 
voter turnout for every Presidential election postreform has never 
reached 60 percent. In fact, the postreform high was 1992 when voter 
turnout reached 55 percent.
  Even if one accepts the reformers' notion that voter turnout and 
voter confidence are problems in America, banning issue speech by 
political parties is clearly not the solution. Having less speech, less 
debate, and less discussion is clearly not going to have a positive 
impact on voter turnout, and there are simply no statistics--none 
whatsoever--to substantiate the claim that passing the kind of 
legislation which is before us today, or the kind that has been before 
us seemingly annually for the last 10 or 12 years, would have any 
impact whatsoever on reducing cynicism or raising turnout.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we start from the most fundamental of all 
propositions, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States. That amendment reads as it affects this debate, ``Congress 
shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press''--
``no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.''

[[Page S12616]]

  The Supreme Court of the United States quite properly has determined 
that meaningful freedom of speech requires the expenditure of money and 
has been loathe to accept any restrictions upon the use of money to 
broadcast one's ideas about political propositions in the United 
States.
  At least several speeches that I have heard during the course of the 
day--most notably earlier this afternoon by the junior Senator from 
California--quarreled with that fundamental proposition in the first 
amendment. About 30 of the Members of this body a year or so ago were 
courageous enough to vote for a constitutional amendment that would 
have limited first amendment rights. They were wrong, in my view, but 
they were highly principled to do so. Any meaningful limitation on 
political speech, in the view of this Senator, will require an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GORTON. I yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Will the Chair illuminate me on 
whose time is being used at this time and whose time is remaining so I 
might understand the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky spoke in opposition 
to the amendment and used 5 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Washington is speaking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is speaking on the 
time of the proponents.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am sorry to interrupt the Senator from Washington, but 
I don't quite understand.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Washington is speaking on the same side 
as the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be adjusted accordingly.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. The quarrel of the general proponents of these ideas is 
with the Constitution of the United States and most expressly with the 
first amendment. The drafters of that amendment did not say that the 
Congress could attempt to equalize the rights of speech of each 
individual citizen of the United States. They simply said that 
political speech was open and could not be restricted in any way by the 
Congress of the United States.
  If unlimited or, rather, if the right of some people to communicate 
more widely than others could be restricted, presumably we could treat 
as soft money the money spent by the New York Times to editorialize on 
this issue or that of a television network. Obviously, the editorial 
director of the New York Times has a stronger voice heard by more 
people than the average citizen. And so, of course, does a group or a 
corporation, for that matter, whose rights and money is at risk in 
debate here in Congress.
  Those who feel at risk with respect to the policies that we adopt 
have an absolute right to speak out in that connection. It is a right 
that the proponents of this bill in general terms don't want to 
restrict. Few of them, however, have proposed constitutional amendments 
or limits on free speech in the arts or in literature or with respect 
to pornography. We are faced with the paradox in this debate that the 
proponents think the only kind of speech that ought to be limited is 
political speech, the kind of speech the first amendment drafters had 
in mind when they wrote the first amendment.
  In a narrow phase of this bill as it appears before the Senate, the 
only evil organizations whose activities are to be controlled or whose 
contributions are to be not limited or banned of a certain kind are the 
two major political parties and their organizations. This bill at this 
time has no limitation on the contribution of soft money to other 
organizations that have political agendas. It cannot constitutionally 
limit issue advocacy. It can't even limit individual express advocacy 
as long as that advocacy is disclosed.
  I suppose I find it most paradoxical the proposition that we base 
these controls on corruption or the appearance of corruption when the 
appearance of corruption is primarily created by those who want these 
limitations. Presumably, whenever they say that a particular act 
carries with it the appearance of corruption, that means it is the case 
and that the limits they propose on political speech are, therefore, 
valid.
  That simply is not the case. Political controversy in the United 
States from the time of the first Congress in 1789 and the passage of 
the first amendment has often been disorderly; it has involved a number 
of outrageous charges as well as careful political thought; it has 
benefited those who want to put the greatest amount of time and money 
and effort and press into expressing their ideas. It has not been 
regulated by the Congress of the United States and somehow or another 
we have been successful.
  The idea that cynicism or opting out of the political process is 
going to be improved by passing laws is a triumph of hope over 
experience. It hasn't happened in connection with any such law here or 
in any other State at any time in the past. We have gotten this far in 
the history of the United States with its most successful free 
government by prohibiting the control of political speech on the part 
of the Government of the United States. We will survive the next 200 
years far better without any such prohibitions than if we grant them.
  Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That is 
our command. This is an attempt to cause such an abridgement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a minute before my 
colleague from Wisconsin speaks for the purpose of asking unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the American Bar 
Association and a letter from the League of Women Voters. I so ask.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         American Bar Association,


                                  Governmental Affairs Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: As the Senate begins consideration of 
     campaign finance reform legislation, I write on behalf of the 
     American Bar Association to urge you to support reform that 
     will strengthen the electoral process; reduce the influence 
     of special interests; allow members and candidates to devote 
     more time to substantive issues, rather than fundraising; and 
     preserve the First Amendment rights of eligible individuals 
     to participate in political campaigns.
       The American Bar Association (ABA) has long been concerned 
     with campaign finance and electoral issues. In 1973, the ABA 
     created its Standing Committee on Election Law with the 
     purpose of developing and examining ways to improve the 
     federal electoral process. The overriding premise of these 
     efforts has been to support candidate and citizen 
     participation in the electoral process, and to increase 
     public confidence through accountability and disclosure.
       As you know, campaign finance laws have not been 
     substantially revised by Congress for over twenty years. 
     Changes in campaign finance mechanisms, the infusion of 
     ``soft money'' into the system, the burgeoning use of 
     electronic media, and the emergence of issue advertisements 
     have literally transformed the ways in which campaigns are 
     financed and run. Yet, our laws and regulations have not kept 
     pace with the innovations in campaign activities. The 
     statutory and regulatory framework for campaign finance 
     regulation needs to be modified to address these changing 
     trends in order to ensure the integrity of the campaign 
     finance system.
       The American Bar Association believes the following 
     principles should be included as part of any campaign finance 
     legislation:
       Full Disclosure. Disclosure is a vital and necessary 
     component to maintaining the integrity of the campaign 
     finance system. The ABA supports full and timely disclosure 
     of campaign contributions and expenditures in excess of 
     minimal amounts. All contributions to and expenditures by 
     state and federal party committees should be reported 
     publicly and electronically. In addition, the Federal 
     Election Commission should be required to maintain a central 
     clearinghouse with respect to data concerning both 
     contribution and expenditure reports.
       Reasonable Contribution Limits, Adjusted and Indexed for 
     Inflation. Campaign contributions to candidates and political 
     parties should be limited to reasonable amounts. The current 
     contribution limit was set in 1974, and has not been adjusted 
     to take into account inflation, increases in the size of the 
     electorate and the dramatic rise in campaign costs. Raising 
     the individual contribution limit would allow candidates to 
     spend less time fundraising and more time discussing 
     substantive issues, help level the playing field between 
     incumbents and challengers, and channel money currently being 
     contributed outside the federal system (soft money) back into 
     the regulated process. Therefore, the ABA believes that 
     current individual campaign contribution limits should be 
     adjusted for inflation and indexed thereafter.

[[Page S12617]]

       Soft Money. The ABA opposes the solicitation and use in 
     presidential and congressional campaigns of ``soft money'', 
     i.e., contributions to political party committees in 
     unlimited amounts by corporations, labor unions and 
     individuals, and supports the effort to prohibit such 
     contributions. Soft money has been used as a method by which 
     contribution limits and prohibitions under the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act have been successfully circumvented and 
     has created at least the appearance, if not the reality, of 
     corruption in the political system. This issue must be 
     addressed in order to help restore public confidence in the 
     electoral process.
       Public Participation--Legal Permanent Residents. Campaign 
     finance laws should not discourage the participation of 
     individuals, political parties, and organized political 
     groups in all aspects of the electoral process. Of particular 
     concern are efforts to restrict the political activities of 
     legal permanent residents. The fundamental rights of free 
     speech and association are an integral part of this nation's 
     democratic process and are not restricted only to citizens. 
     Legal permanent residents, who bear most of the same civic 
     responsibilities as citizens, including paying taxes and 
     registering for the draft, must not be prevented from 
     exercising their constitutional right to participate in the 
     political process. The ABA therefore opposes any diminution 
     of the existing rights of legal permanent residents to make 
     campaign contributions and expenditures to the same extent as 
     U.S. citizens.
       Public Financing. The ABA supports partial public financing 
     of congressional and presidential elections as a desirable 
     means of providing a floor for campaign funds, promoting and 
     ensuring an effective and competitive electoral process, and 
     minimizing the importance of wealth and the need for large 
     contributions.
       Reforming campaign finance laws to reflect the foregoing 
     principles will help ensure increased citizen and candidate 
     participation and restored public confidence in the electoral 
     process. We urge you to keep these principles in mind as the 
     Senate debates campaign finance reform legislation.
       If you would like further information, please do not 
     hesitate to contact either me or Kristi Gaines in the ABA 
     Governmental Affairs Office.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert D. Evans,
     Director.
                                  ____

                             The League of Women Voters 


                                         of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 28, 1999.
     Re  Campaign finance reform.

     To: Members of the U.S. Senate
     From: Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, Ph.D., President
       The League of Women Voters urges you not to support the 
     modified version of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance 
     reform legislation, S. 1593.
       The decision to remove the ``sham issue ad'' provisions 
     from the original bill, S. 26, means that the current system 
     that allows large, undisclosed contributions from corporate 
     and union treasuries and from wealthy individuals to go 
     toward elections advertising will go unchecked. We believe 
     that real reform legislation must address this growing 
     problem rather than ignore it.
       Proponents of the modified legislation argue that it 
     ``bans'' soft money. This is simply not the case because sham 
     issue ads are a form of soft money. Soft money consists of 
     corporate and union treasury money and funds from wealthy 
     individuals that operate outside the current regulatory 
     regime. Sham issue ads are clearly part of this problem. 
     Because the modified legislation fails to deal with sham 
     issue ads, it fails to fully address the soft money crisis.
       In fact, the modified bill will drive soft money into sham 
     issue ads, expanding the current loophole. To avoid the 
     provisions of the bill, corporations, unions and wealthy 
     individuals can simply reconstitute their contributions into 
     sham issue ads designed to elect or defeat candidates. In 
     addition, because contributions to sham issue ads are 
     undisclosed while traditional soft money contributions are 
     disclosed, the overall system may actually be made worse by 
     the modified bill. It will transform disclosed contributions 
     into undisclosed campaign money.
       Sham issue advocacy--campaign ads designed to elect or 
     defeat clearly identified candidates by masquerading as issue 
     advocacy--provides a useful conduit for those with large 
     amounts of money to influence federal elections without 
     leaving any fingerprints.
       Unlimited, undisclosed money is overwhelming the election 
     system. By running ads immediately preceding an election that 
     savage a candidate's opponent, special interests can provide 
     something of great value to the candidate they support, while 
     avoiding disclosure requirements and contribution limits.
       In addition, candidates are losing control of their own 
     campaigns. Representative government depends on elected 
     officials being responsible to their constituencies. Unless 
     the sham issue ad loophole is closed, outcomes of elections 
     will more and more be determined by the irresponsible actions 
     of outsiders, unfettered by the need to represent the 
     interests of the citizens of a state or district.
       Even more troubling is the possibility that foreign donors 
     will exploit sham issue advocacy to influence U.S. elections 
     and public policy. The sham issue advocacy loophole provides 
     a perfect--and perfectly legal--route for domestic or foreign 
     interests to influence our elections and add a corrupting 
     influence to public policy debates.
       Given current expenditures on issue advocacy, the potential 
     for abuse is enormous. The Annenberg Public Policy Center at 
     the University of Pennsylvania estimates the amount of issue 
     advocacy advertising during the 1996 election season at $150 
     million, over one-third of the $400 million spent on 
     advertising by all candidates for President and Congress 
     combined. For the 1998 election, the Annenberg Center 
     estimates that $275 to $340 million was spent on issue ads, 
     double what was spent in 1996.
       The Annenberg studies also demonstrate that issue ads 
     frequently bear more than a passing resemblance to campaign 
     ads. Although issue ads ostensibly have the primary purpose 
     of promoting a sponsor's ideas or policies, fewer than one in 
     five ads from the 1996 campaign directly advocated the 
     sponsor's own position! In addition, nearly nine in ten issue 
     ads referred to a clearly identified candidate for office. 
     Less than five percent advocated support or opposition to a 
     piece of legislation. In the 1998 election cycle, 80 percent 
     of issue ads in the last two months mentioned candidates for 
     office by name.
       We are strong proponents of closing the ``soft money'' 
     loophole and for campaign finance reform generally. By 
     excluding the provisions developed by Senators Snowe and 
     Jeffords to ensure that funding for sham issue ads is 
     effectively covered by election rules, the modified bill 
     falls too short.
       The League of Women Voters believes strongly that the 
     Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, or other similar language designed 
     to ensure that funding for ``sham issue ads'' is effectively 
     covered by election rules, is an essential part of campaign 
     finance reform.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the letter is from Mr. Robert Evans, of 
the American Bar Association:

       I write on behalf of the American Bar Association to urge 
     you to support reform that will strengthen the electoral 
     process; reduce the influence of special interests; allow 
     members and candidates to devote more time to substantive 
     issues. . . .

  They support full disclosure, reasonable contribution limits, 
adjusted and indexed for inflation. The ABA opposes campaigns of soft 
money, and also public participation of legal permanent residents.
  Also, the League of Women Voters, referred to earlier by the Senator 
from Kentucky, says that Senator McConnell's statement on the floor 
suggested the League of Women Voters is in support of his position. On 
the contrary. The League's position is opposite that of Senator 
McConnell, who in their words ``opposes any meaningful campaign finance 
reform.''
  They support comprehensive campaign finance reform. In fairness, the 
League of Women Voters thinks the Senator from Wisconsin and I are now 
too weak in our approach.
  To assume somehow that as one may have in listening to the statement 
of the Senator from Kentucky this morning that the League of Women 
Voters was in agreement with this position is not the fact as 
demonstrated in this letter.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator from Arizona have an estimate, a guess, an 
observation of how much this Senator and my opponent spent in the last 
general election I was involved in in Nevada.
  We spent about an equal amount of money. Does the Senator have a 
guess, estimate, or observation?
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Nevada, I am from a neighboring 
State and I paid a lot of attention to that race. It was a very close 
and hard-fought race--I mean this in all due respect--in what is a 
relatively small State, population-wise, although dynamically growing. 
I think percentage-wise, it is the fastest growing State in America.
  I believe--I may be wrong--it was about $10 million each.
  Mr. REID. The State of Nevada had less than 2 million people at that 
time. The Senator is absolutely right; the two of us spent with State 
party soft money, plus our hard money accounts, over $20 million. That 
does not count the independent expenditures, and we really don't know 
how much they are because they are hard to track.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend, some of the estimates I heard on 
the independent campaign expenditures were as high as the $20 million 
spent by both you and your opponent?

[[Page S12618]]

  Mr. REID. Probably not; I guess another $3 million.
  In a small State such as Nevada, is the Senator surprised that $23 
million was spent?
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Nevada, it is a compelling 
argument for reform. I have a lot of friends who live in your State. In 
all due respect to the quality of the commercials that were run during 
that campaign, I heard many friends of mine who live in Nevada say they 
had enough, considering they were inundated--for how long? The campaign 
went on for a year and a half?
  Mr. REID. The campaign went on for a long time. The television money 
was spent, of course, in a relatively short period of time.
  I do not know if my colleague is aware that my opponent, John Ensign, 
and I talked on several occasions. Even though there was that much 
money spent on the campaign, we never campaigned against each other. 
There were all these outside interests. We never had a chance to 
campaign for ourselves.
  So I would say if there is no other example given on the floor of the 
Senate regarding campaign finance reform, all you have to do is look at 
the relatively sparsely populated State of Nevada and there is a 
compelling reason we need to do something about the present campaign 
system in America.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has only been the first day of debate 
on this issue. I do note a marked shift in the strategy of our 
opponents. They are not talking so much about how the first amendment 
to the United States Constitution Bill of Rights would be violated by 
our version of the bill, the soft money prohibition. There have been a 
few comments, but this has not been the main thrust.
  There is a good reason for it. That is because there is not a 
credible case that can be made that banning soft money contributions to 
the political parties is unconstitutional. I think it is useful at this 
time to lay out a few of the reasons why this is the case, so no one 
can be confused by the desperate attempt that has been made to label 
any attempt at campaign finance reform, regardless of what its 
provisions might be, as unconstitutional. It has become a mantra, a 
standard line, but it does not hold water regarding the bill before us.
  The first proposition is very straightforward and that is that 
Congress can prohibit corporate and labor contributions. Congress 
prohibited the contributions by corporations in 1907 in the Tillman 
Act, and then in 1947 it prohibited the same kinds of contributions by 
unions under the Taft-Hartley Act. The courts have recognized that 
corporate treasury money can amount to an undue influence or an unfair 
advantage. That is why in a couple of key cases the courts have so 
ruled.
  In Massachusetts, Citizen For Life v. FEC, 1984, for example, they 
stated:

       Direct corporate spending on political activity raises the 
     prospect that resources amassed in the economic marketplace 
     may be used to provide an unfair advantage in the 
     political marketplace. Political ``free trade'' does not 
     necessarily require that all who participate in the 
     political marketplace do so with exactly equal resources.
       Relative availability of funds is after all a rough 
     barometer of public support. The resources in the treasury of 
     a business corporation, however, are not an indication of 
     popular support for the corporation's political ideas. They 
     reflect instead [the court said] the economically motivated 
     decisions of investors and customers. The availability of 
     these resources may make a corporation a formidable political 
     presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no 
     reflection of the power of its ideas.

  Then, after making that very clear with regard to the ability of 
restricting direct corporate contributions, the Austin case made it 
clear and affirmed this decision, saying:

       We therefore have recognized that ``the compelling 
     governmental interest in preventing corruption support[s] the 
     restriction of the influence of political war chests funneled 
     through the corporate form.''

  It is clear law, indisputable law, that Congress can prohibit 
corporate and labor direct contributions to candidates or to the 
political parties.
  Furthermore, so there is no confusion because there was a lot of talk 
today about somehow we have to demonstrate actual corruption in each 
instance before we can do something about it, that is not the law with 
regard to our ability to limit individual contributions. The Court has 
been clear that we can limit individual contributions either in the 
case of actual corruption, the reality of corruption, or the appearance 
of corruption. This is the system that was validated in the most 
significant ruling of many decades in the area of campaign finance 
reform, Buckley v. Valeo, 1974. Let me put some of the language in the 
Record from that decision that supports that. The court said:

       By contrast with a limitation upon expenditures for 
     political expression, a limitation upon the amount that any 
     one person or group may contribute to a candidate or 
     political committee entails only a marginal restriction upon 
     the contributors' ability to engage in free communication. A 
     contribution serves as a general expression of support for 
     the candidate and his views, but [the court said, that it] 
     does not communicate the underlying basis for the support. 
     The quantity of communication by the contributor does not 
     increase perceptibly with the size of his contribution, since 
     the expression rests solely on the undifferentiated, symbolic 
     act of contributing.

  Later in the decision the court continued:

       It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act's primary purpose 
     to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption regarding 
     from large financial contributions--in order to find a 
     constitutionally sufficient justification for the $1,000 
     contribution limitation.

  The Court then said:

       To the extent large contributions are given to security 
     political quid pro quo's from current and potential office 
     holders, the integrity of our system of representative 
     democracy is undermined.

  That had to do with the quid pro quos. And then the Court continued:

       Of almost equal concern as the danger of actual quid pro 
     quo arrangements 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.

  The Buckley case makes it clear you can limit the individual 
contributions. The Court said:

       We find that, under the rigorous standard 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.

  So these are the court cases. If you do not believe my word on it 
alone, I suggest one take a look at the letter we have from 126 legal 
scholars, constitutional scholars around the country who say 
specifically that it is entirely constitutional to ban soft money given 
to the parties.
  These scholars wrote as a group in a letter:

       We believe that such restrictions are constitutional. The 
     soft money loophole has raised the specter of corruption 
     stemming from large contributions (and those from prohibited 
     sources) that led Congress to enact the federal contribution 
     limits in the first place. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme 
     Court held that the government has a compelling interest in 
     combating the appearance and reality of corruption, an 
     interest that justifies restricting large campaign 
     contributions in Federal elections. . . . Significantly, the 
     Court upheld the $25,000 annual limit on an individual's 
     total contributions in connection with federal elections.

  And so on.
  Mr. President, 126 constitutional scholars have backed up this almost 
obvious notion we can ban the soft money given to the political 
parties.
  I might add, since the Senator from Kentucky is fond of quoting the 
ACLU as one of his allies on this issue, in fact, every living former 
president, executive director, and legal director of the ACLU all think 
that it is perfectly constitutional to ban soft money.
  Finally, if you do not believe any of those folks, I hope you would 
believe the Senator from Washington, one of the strongest opponents of 
our bill. Senator Gorton, on this floor, in a candid moment, said:

       In fact, with my own views on where the constitutional line 
     is likely to be drawn, McCain-Feingold restrictions on money 
     to political parties might well be upheld, probably would be 
     upheld, at least in part. It is possible that they would be 
     upheld in their entirety.

  So even one of our most learned and effective opponents on this 
issue, Senator Gorton, has said on this floor that it is perfectly 
constitutional to ban soft money. That is why you are not hearing much 
about the constitutional problems in this bill, as you did last

[[Page S12619]]

year. I think some of those arguments weren't too strong, but they 
certainly were stronger.
  This bill would pass constitutional muster quite easily. I believe 
there is no legitimate authority to contradict that. I believe it is 
important to have this in the Record. Perhaps this will be returned to 
later on, as an argument. I have noticed a strong diminution in the 
reliance on the constitutional argument. There are other arguments 
being made: That somehow this is a dagger to the heart of one party or 
another; the attempt to have Senator McCain answer very specific 
questions about comments he made in his Presidential campaign. The 
opposition seems very diffused on this point on a number of issues, but 
the constitutional question is not being very effectively or seriously 
raised.
  Mr. President, I suggest that is because there is no legitimate 
constitutional argument against what we are trying to do.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time remaining is on the side of the 
proponents.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining is 8 minutes 41 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about 
where the so-called constitutional scholars are on the 
constitutionality of this measure and its other incarnations we have 
had before us in the last few years.
  One of the scholars cited by the proponents of this legislation, 
Professor Robert W. Benson of Loyola Law School, wrote an article 
before NAFTA was enacted called, ``Free Trade as an Extremist 
Ideology.'' The article, to put it mildly, is critical of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement.
  In it, Benson states:

       Ideological extremism . . . is pushing an agenda of radical 
     risk taking in the form of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs.

  He says free trade is ``a classic extremist ideology, just as, until 
recently, Marxism and Leninism was.''
  He says the idea of free trade fits ``two criteria that characterize 
extremist ideologies . . . [its] adherents are oblivious to cognitive 
dissonance contradicting their analyses, and (2) . . . [they] are 
willing to plunge themselves and others into great risks in the name of 
ideology.''
  He argued that enacting NAFTA would ``erode Democratic government in 
the United States.''
  This is one of the so-called constitutional scholars on this lengthy 
list being quoted.
  He also wrote an article that purported to be about legal theory 
entitled, ``Deconstruction's Critics, the TV Scramble Effect and the 
Fajita Pita Syndrome.''
  Among academics, he is considered an expert on international law. He 
is not a constitutional law professor.
  Many in favor of campaign finance reform and relying on Professor 
Benson's view of campaign finance reform disregarded Professor Benson's 
warnings about the North American Free Trade Agreement, an issue within 
his area of expertise. These Members, of course, include a number of 
the proponents of this legislation.
  Another one of the constitutional scholars quoted by the other side 
is Professor Daan Braveman of Syracuse University College of Law. This 
outstanding scholar wrote an article discussing the first amendment----
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand the opponents' time is gone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time remaining is for the proponents.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to yield time to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Since I support the amendment, wouldn't that qualify 
me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator is a proponent of the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am indeed.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Can a Senator speak as both a proponent and opponent of 
an amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am not aware of any opponents to this amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I believe the Senator from Kentucky previously was 
counted, with regard to time, as an opponent in this process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator is a proponent----
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent 
that our time be restored to what it was prior to the remarks of the 
Senator from Kentucky and that we have our full measure of time. I have 
no objection to his having additional time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I don't want to delay the vote. I will be happy to 
make my remarks later with regard to the outstanding qualifications of 
a number of the constitutional scholars cited by my friend from 
Wisconsin. I look forward to going into some of their interesting 
writings. I am happy to yield the floor, and the vote will occur at 6 
o'clock.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I certainly want the Record to note I had no objection 
to the Senator from Kentucky speaking, as long as it did not come out 
of our time. In fact, I was happy to give additional time.
  I want to make a comment or two about what he is talking about 
because he is launching, apparently, an attack on people who signed the 
letter, 127 constitutional scholars. Apparently there is a problem. One 
of the men who wrote an article about NAFTA--I do not know what it has 
to do with his ability to comment on this.
  I am surprised to hear Senator McConnell say some of this. Back when 
we presented this letter, he said he could easily come up with 127 
scholars on his own who would say banning soft money is 
unconstitutional. He has not done that, and it has been a long time 
since that time, and I frankly doubt he ever will.
  Anyone who knows anything about the law and the legal academy would 
agree that instead of picking individual people out of this list and 
attacking them personally, they would have to concede that many of the 
people on the list are very distinguished law professors. Professor 
Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of Southern California Law Center, 
Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School, Professor Frank Michelman of 
Harvard Law School, and Professor Norman Dorsen of NYU Law School know 
something about the law. In fact, they know more than just about 
anybody in this body.
  The executive director and the legal director of the ACLU says a ban 
on soft money is constitutional. Of course, the ultimate arbiter, the 
Supreme Court, said in the Buckley case that individual contributions 
can be limited and, in the Austin case, that corporate contributions 
can be prohibited.
  If Senator McConnell does not believe these authorities, he should, 
again, consult with the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, one of his 
strongest supporters on the floor in opposing reform, who has 
essentially conceded that banning party soft money would likely be 
found constitutional.
  This notion that the Senator from Kentucky could easily come up with 
his list of constitutional scholars which we have never seen is a ploy 
that I, frankly, do not understand. Where is the list? Instead, he 
wants to pick apart one or two people on the list. I question that. 
These folks gave it their best shot and indicated what everybody 
concludes with any credibility on this subject, and that is that it is 
perfectly constitutional to ban soft money.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to vote on the 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S12620]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Amendment No. 
2294. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 327 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Bond
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chafee
     Kennedy
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 2294) was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________