[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 140 (Friday, October 15, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12681-S12682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to describe why I 
think it is very important to hang on to the bill the Senator from 
Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona have put before us on campaign 
finance reform.
  There will be all kinds of amendments offered to change the bill, 
some of which I support strongly. It seems to me our only chance of 
getting this legislation passed is to stick as closely as possible to 
the bill we currently have in front of us.
  I have had a fair amount of experience in soliciting soft money 
contributions from donors. I can say that both the contributors and 
myself, and anybody else who solicits, would have a difficult time 
denying they are extremely uncomfortable with the dollar

[[Page S12682]]

amounts that are coming into political parties, or for that matter--I 
have never done it--for individual organizations that are spending 
money in a so-called generic fashion as well.
  One of the reasons, I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, I feel 
strongly that change is needed is because we have added a fourth 
requirement to the Constitution for service in the Senate. The 
Constitution lays out three requirements for someone who wants to run 
for office--you have to be a U.S. citizen for 9 years; you have to be 
30 years of age; and you have to live in the State for whose office you 
are running. But there has been a fourth requirement added, and that is 
you have to be able to raise enough money or you will not be a credible 
candidate.
  Those who have been challenged before, those who have run for office 
will tell you, if you do not have enough money to advertise on 
television--I know the Senator from Wisconsin ran on an anti-incumbent 
strategy, but it is very difficult for most citizens. In Nebraska, 
there are only a handful of people who are eligible given that fourth 
requirement.
  I wonder if the Senator from Wisconsin will tell me if what I am 
saying is true. I like Shays-Meehan. I like the bill. The junior 
Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, has an amendment I like as well. The 
trouble is, when these amendments are adopted, if these amendments are 
adopted, it reduces the chances of our defeating a declared filibuster. 
It makes it much more likely we will fail to break a filibuster and, as 
a consequence of that failure, fail to enact legislation, and as a 
consequence of that, we will never go to conference and never change 
the law.
  I wonder if he can comment on that a bit because there are a lot of 
us who will be facing amendments coming up on this bill. The comment we 
will have is: Gee, I like that amendment; why not vote for it? There 
may be a good answer why not to vote for it. It may be the amendment 
will make it difficult for us to succeed in changing the law and 
reducing, in my mind--I understand and appreciate the problem of 
apparent corruption. I would like to get that out of the system. The 
big thing I see in the system right now is we have a very high barrier 
to public service, and it is much harder, as a consequence, to persuade 
men and women that they ought to take one of us on and try to come and 
serve their State and Nation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for 
his question. I first compliment him. Not only has he, obviously, done 
a good job when he was in the role of being a leader for our political 
party committee, which involved fundraising, but he has always been an 
ardent supporter of campaign finance reform at the same time. He knows 
very well because he was involved.
  The fact that people do not have a lot of money can keep them out of 
politics. It almost kept me out of politics. That is the reason I got 
involved in this issue in the first place. I certainly was not aware of 
what soft money was at that time.
  In answer to the Senator's question, this clearly is not 
comprehensive reform; Shays-Meehan is not comprehensive reform. But 
when we get to the point of simply banning soft money, we should take 
the opportunity.

  In specific answer to his question about what happens when these 
amendments come up, all I can do is tip my hat and say let's follow the 
example of the other body which, on two occasions, has shown us what to 
do.
  You have to be willing on some occasions to vote against a good 
amendment in which you believe--I am even prepared, if necessary, to 
vote against a bill that has my name on it--if you believe the reason 
for putting that amendment on is to destroy the chance to pass a 
reasonable and appropriate bill. They had to do that in the House. 
Members had to vote against amendments that had to do with disclosure, 
almost an indisputable principle. They had to vote against other 
amendments they liked very much in order to make sure they could pass a 
reasonable bill, such as the Shays-Meehan bill, that included a number 
of important provisions.
  We have to be ready to do the same thing. I believe in some cases, I 
say to the Senator from Nebraska, the amendments that will be offered 
will be helpful and do not threaten our ability to win, but in some 
cases I think they are poison pills and we need to work together to 
defeat them. I am confident we have a majority of people in this body 
who are reformers and understand the importance of taking the vote you 
have to take in order to win this battle.
  Mr. KERREY. The Senator is very kind to say I have always been a 
supporter. Actually I have not always been a supporter. When I came to 
the Senate in 1989, this was not a very important issue. Indeed, at one 
point, I joined the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, to defeat 
campaign finance reform.
  Then I had the experience of going inside the beast in 1996, 1997, 
and 1998 when I was Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
Committee--I do not want to raise a sore subject for the Senator from 
Maine. It changed my attitude in two big ways: One, the apparent 
corruption that exists. People believe there is corruption. If they 
believe it, it happens. We all understand that. If the perception is it 
is A, it is A even though we know it may not be, and the people believe 
the system is corrupt.
  Equally important to me, I discovered in 1996, 1997, and 1998 that 
there are men and women who would love to serve. They say: I can't be 
competitive; I can't possibly raise the money necessary to go on 
television; oh, and by the way, my reputation could get damaged as a 
consequence of what could be said on television against me.
  I am persuaded this law needs to be changed for the good of the 
Republic, for the good of democracy. I hope Members, such as myself, 
who are enthusiastic about changing that law will take the advice of 
the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona to heart 
because we may have to vote against things we prefer in order to make 
certain we get something that not only we want but the Nation 
desperately needs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I can respond briefly, I cannot think 
of a more helpful remark than what the Senator from Nebraska just said. 
What he is talking about--and this is his nature--is to actually get 
something done. Not just posture but actually accomplish something. I 
am grateful because that is the discipline we are going to need when we 
start voting next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
thoughtfulness.

                          ____________________