Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 141 (Monday, October 18, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 141 (Monday, October 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12734-S12776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
return to consideration of S. 1593, which the clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

A bill (S. 1593) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.

[[Page S12735]]

Pending:

Daschle amendment No. 2298, in the nature of a substitute.
Reid amendment No. 2299 (to amendment No. 2298), of a
perfecting nature.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before making my comments on the campaign
finance reform measure before us, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for
his splendid work on this issue. This has been an issue on which he has
spent a good deal of time. An issue this complicated is very demanding.
As so frequently is the custom of the Senator from Kentucky, he has put
his heart and soul into this issue. Many of us appreciate his dedicated
effort in trying to deal with this issue in a very responsive manner.
It is characteristic of the Senator from Kentucky to do this kind of
work for the Senate. We all appreciate and respect him for it.
The Denver Rocky Mountain News ran an editorial on September 21st in
response to the passage of the Shays/Meehan bill, expressing the
paper's belief that soft money campaign contributions are a form of
political expression and, as such, are protected by the First
Amendment.
I don't bring this up now as a part of the Senate debate on campaign
finance reform just because The News is a local paper. I am bringing
this editorial up now because it is from a local paper with an
exceedingly sound view.
In the editorial they use an example of an average citizen who might
decide to distribute leaflets against a city pot hole problem. If this
hypothetical citizen is stopped from doing so by a city council, it
would be a clear-cut violation of freedom of speech.
The editorial then goes on, correctly, to explain that the difference
between this simple form of election activity control and the kinds
contained in the two main campaign finance measures considered on the
Hill this year--Shays/Meehan and McCain/Feingold--is merely a
difference of degrees, not type.
Donors who want to give to the Republican National Committee or the
Democrat National Committee are expressing their political views.
I ask unanimous consent that the Rocky Mountain News editorial be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Denver Rocky Mountain News, Tues., Sept. 21, 1999]

Free Speech vs. `Reform'

Suppose that you were upset about potholes in a
neighborhood street. Imagine that you started cranking out
leaflets to win the support of fellow residents and maybe
even to get them to consider the issue in the next city
council election. And now suppose that the city government
told you to cut it out on the ground that the amount of money
you were spending on those leaflets was corrupting
politicians. You just might suspect someone was messing with
your freedom of speech, right?
Your assessment would be correct. And it would be equally
correct to believe that a campaign finance bill passed
recently in the House of Representatives would abridge the
First Amendment guarantees of untethered political
expression. The bill is aimed principally at money that's
given to political parties for reasons other than directly
influencing a candidate's election or defeat at the polls.
The legislation would ban those kinds of unregulated
contributions, and the cheers have been deafening.
But why is it that applauding throngs are so eager to quell
free speech? Can't they see that it's as much an abuse of
power to stop a rich donor from piling money at the door of
the Republicans or the Democrats as it would be to limit the
distribution of leaflets by a neighborhood activist? The
Senate sponsors of a similar bill reportedly plan to drop one
particularly obnoxious provision of the House legislation--
regulating the content of issue advertisements that comment
on candidates--but the proposed law remains an anti-
democratic restriction of political discussion.
This so-called reform may be stopped this year by
filibuster. It ought to be stopped because members of
Congress recognize that the best cure the current system's
many ills is more complete disclosure of contributors and
even more freedom for direct campaign contributions, not less
liberty for all of us.

Mr. ALLARD. As the Supreme Court has ruled, political spending equals
political expression. Attempting to stop this political expression,
however distasteful some might find soft money, is an attempt to stifle
activities protected by the Constitution. And so it is our duty as
legislators to find a better--a constitutional--way.
``Don't let perfect be the enemy of good'' is an expression we hear
often on this matter. It's a slogan urging baby steps: small moves
toward a distant goal.
The thought is that a soft money ban is one part of a move towards an
ideal campaign finance system, and is part of an incremental process of
improvement.
But alone, it is not good. It's not even merely average. Banning soft
money will only give us different and arguably worse evils.
Let's take a look at just a few of them:
First, in some of my colleagues' minds it is a step towards taxpayer
financed elections. This would be an absolute monstrosity with the
bureaucracy calling the shots on campaigns. Our democratic process is
voluntary and fiercely competitive.
Mandating completely taxpayer financed campaigns would force citizens
to support candidates they disagree with, it would place bureaucrats in
the position of legitimizing political candidates, and it unjustly
allows candidates influence beyond their natural appeal to voters.
Let me explain also that I feel that a soft money ban is biased.
It might just be coincidental that the Republican caucus is leading
the opposition to this bill instead of the Democrat caucus, but it
might also have something to do with the fact that a ban on party soft
money will ultimately benefit Democrat candidates over Republican ones.
If political parties are curbed, the Democrats already have a
cohesive constituency ready and able to step up and assume party
functions. Organized labor is just that--coordinated people ready to
work. They are also ready to spend.
Senators Snowe and Jeffords were kind enough to provide us all with a
copy of the October 12th Washington Post article covering the
announcement by the AFL-CIO that they were going to spend $46 million
on the upcoming elections.
I don't begrudge the Democrat National Committee this labor and
funding base, but it is unbalanced and blatantly partisan to attempt to
shield this type of spending while attacking its counterbalancing
force, the areas where the RNC instead has the advantage.
The natural constituencies of each party tend to balance each other
out, but they do so in different ways.
If you will excuse this minor diatribe, I want to digress here for a
moment and lament what seems so obvious to everyone and that is
organized labor is not a Republican constituency.
I support the American worker. My party supports the American worker.
We are the party of the individual worker, not a worker controlled by
government.
In a more perfect world--of course, meaning a world that runs more
according to my beliefs--the Republican agenda would be passed and
would aid American workers tremendously.
The tax refund bill pushed by the Republican majority would have
passed and returned money to taxpayers, also known as American workers.
The legislation I offered last year to pay down the debt would have
benefitted all American workers in myriad ways.
The Social Security lock box would have passed and guaranteed this
benefit for American workers.
I am therefore a little perturbed that the leaders of organized labor
are so adamant against goals which I feel will greatly benefit the
workers of America.
The nature or our political differences has resulted in the current
situation where there is no other single entity willing to be so
dedicated to a single party.
The Republican Party counters this absence by seeking contributions
from diverse sources. Once these individuals give to the candidates
they support, because they have not been coerced into giving and are
without the option of labor unions to further spread their general
message, they give to the Republican National Committee. To try and
``un-level'' the whole playing field by denying one side an outlet for
political expression and clout, even if the objection is based an
abhorrence of fund raising, is flagrant factionalism.
It is also, as I have said, unconstitutional.

[[Page S12736]]

The Supreme Court, in the case we are hearing about a lot this week,
Buckley v. Valeo, said just that.
The Supreme Court struck down spending levels, because, and I quote,
``So long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express
term advocate the election or defeat of clearly identified candidate,
they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate
and his views.''

They allowed campaign donation limits, not because they did not
interfere with First Amendment rights, but because the interference
they impose can be grudgingly tolerated in light of the overriding
interest in ensuring clean and fair elections.
To further limit soft money donations, or to attempt a different way
to cut campaign spending, both of which a ban on party soft money would
do, there must first be shown the corresponding overwhelming corruption
it brings.
I feel compelled to respond to earlier discussion on this floor by
pointing out that the mere lack of authorization for appropriations,
while certainly unfortunate and unsound practice, is not by itself
proof positive of corruption. We have not authorized the State
Department in years. It is hardly pork barrel spending to fund the Drug
Enforcement Agency, another unauthorized agency.
Just because large amounts of money flow around elections does not
mean that the elections automatically become corrupt.
The Supreme Court has said that large gifts directly to a candidate
could be corrupting. That is why the hard money limits are in place. I
agree with these.
If a candidate were to receive a huge--say, in the millions--donation
from one donor and could run an entire campaign from it, it would be
awfully hard to tell it apart from what is commonly called ``being
bought.''
But one donor making even a huge donation to a political party is not
buying the party philosophy, they are supporting it. And we cannot tell
people how and what to support politically.
Many of the proponents of other campaign finance bills try to reduce
the influence of ``special interests'' by suppressing their donations
and thus their speech.
First, I am not even sure suppressing special interests is an
admirable goal, since ``special interests'' are citizens expressing a
particular viewpoint, such as the Sierra Club, Chambers of Commerce,
Common Cause and countless others.
That's the point of politics: advocating your goal during the march
towards a collective good. There needs to be more interests in
politics, not less!
I believe the absolute best way to ensure there are no undue special
interest influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government.
If the government rids itself of special interest funding and
corporate subsidies, then there would be less of a perception of any
attempts to buy influence through donations.
A simplified tax code, state regulation flexibility, local education
control--these are less government approaches to problems that would
also lower the desperate need for access.
Meddlesome outside influences--another horror of campaigning--are a
function of the hard money limits, not soft money availability.
Candidates lose control of their message when they lose the right to
accept money people want to spend and will end up spending on their
behalf.
The simple fact that large sums of money are spent on elections does
not mean those elections are corrupt.
In my campaign for Senate, I was outspent by three-quarters of a
million dollars. That money obviously did not buy the election. That
money did not corrupt the election.
Supporters say that the election system is drowning in soft money.
They say that soft money has consumed the entire political process.
Let me say this. Or, rather, allow me to share what the Supreme Court
has to say:

The First Amendment denies government the power to
determine that spending to promote one's political views is
wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained
by our Constitution it is not the government but the people--
individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as
associations and political committees--who must retain
control over the quantity and range of debate on public
issues in a political campaign.

The Supreme Court has been very clear in its rulings concerning
campaign finance and the First Amendment.
Since the post-Watergate changes to the campaign finance system
began, twenty-four Congressional actions have been declared
unconstitutional, with nine rejections based on the First Amendment.
Out of those nine, four dealt directly with campaign finance reform
laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political
spending--even if obviously excessive--is equal to political speech.
Even today, the Supreme Court is addressing a case regarding Missouri
contribution limits, showing their continued dedication to protecting
the freedom of speech expressed through political support.
Besides the constitutional question, there is the simple matter of
plain reality. People with money and political views will not give up
their desires to express themselves.
Like water flowing downhill, politically active Americans who find
themselves blocked will just find different outlets to reach their
goal.
Hard money was regulated, so soft money was invented. If soft money
is banned, something else will take its place.
The problem is that the regulations and laws that go further and
further towards cutting money also go further and further towards
unconstitutionality.
Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire
for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict,
and that we can't have both.
The only effective dam, they say, would be to change the First
Amendment so as to allow the abridging of political speech.
I don't support that belief. Fortunately for those of us who believe
in the First Amendment rights of all American citizens, the founding
fathers and the Supreme Court do not either.
They believe, and I believe, that we can have free political speech
and fair campaigns.
Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills believe
that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force give-aways of
public and private resources then we will be improving the campaign
finance system.
The Supreme Court again disagrees and is again very clear in its
intent on campaign spending. The Buckley decision says,

. . . the mere growth in the cost of federal election
campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental
restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending. . . .

Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how
great or small the means.
The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' to the most ``expensive
modes of communication'' are both indispensable instruments of
effective political speech. We should not force one sector to freely
distribute our political ideas just because it is more expensive than
all the other sectors.
So no matter how objectionable the cost of campaigns, the Supreme
Court has stated that this is not reason enough to restrict the speech
of candidates or any other groups involved in political speech.
Despite my objections to this current legislation, I think I can
agree with this bill's cosponsors that improvements can be made to
today's system. I have some ideas on that. To that end I have
introduced S. 1671, the Campaign Finance Integrity Act of 1999.
My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of
their contributions from individuals in the state or district in which
they are running; equalize contributions from individuals and political
action committees (PACs) by raising the individual limit from $1,000 to
$2,500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5,000 to $2,500; index
individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation; reduce the
influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party
committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a
candidate above $5,000; require corporations and labor organizations to
seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues,
initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political
activity, and requires annual full disclosure of those activities

[[Page S12737]]

to members and shareholders; prohibit depositing an individual
contribution by a campaign unless the individual's profession and
employer are reported; encourage the Federal Election Commission to
allow filing of reports by computers and other emerging technologies
and to make that information accessible to the public on the Internet
less than 24 hours of receipt; ban the use of taxpayer financed mass
mailings; enhance cuts on the use of federal property for fund raising,
restrict use of White House and Air Force One for fund raising, and
require non-office holders who use government vehicles for campaigns to
reimburse for that usage.
This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate
back into his district or state to raise money from individual
contributions.
It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure requirements
of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of
Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best
disinfectant.
The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what
they want in a political campaign is preserved but the right of the
public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is
also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own
decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely
information.
Objecting to the popular quest of the moment is very difficult for
any politician, but turning your back on the First Amendment is more
difficult for me.
I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense of the First
Amendment. My legislation does this.
As we deal with this issue, I will continue to listen and continue to
fine-tune my belief on this matter. But I will not stray from a firm
belief in the first amendment, a firm belief in fair campaign laws, and
a firm belief that whatever we do here in this body must justly serve
the democratic process.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I shall take just a moment before the
Senator from Colorado leaves the floor to thank him. This is his third
year in the Senate. As he knows and as has been discussed, we seem to
have this debate every year. He has participated every single year in
the debate in an extraordinarily insightful way. His speech made a
whole lot of sense. I listened to every word.
I thank him for the important contribution he has made to this
debate, not only this year but in the other years since he has been in
the Senate. I thank the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank my friend from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I note that the Senator from Idaho is
on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to
engage in what has become an annual debate on campaign finance reform.
But I am also here to honor Senator Mitch McConnell, who has chosen to
be a leader on this issue for all the right reasons and, most
importantly, the right principled reasons. To defend our Constitution
and to defend free speech in this country is an admirable cause. I
thank him for engaging in it.
Along with that kind of leadership comes the risk of errors. I see
that this weekend the New York Times, in its rather typical fashion,
has decided to engage in this debate by simply calling names,
suggesting that the Senate is a ``bordello'' and that Mitch McConnell
is its ``madam.'' Shame on you, New York Times. I thought you were
better than that. But then again, why should we think you are better
than that on this issue, because you have chosen to take what you call
high ground, which is in fact exclusive ground, that only you as
journalists would have to speak out for America when no one else would
have that opportunity.
That is what this debate is all about. It is why I come to the floor,
not only to support Mitch McConnell but to support these important
principles that somehow the New York Times just flat stumbles over on
its way to its version of the truth.
There is another analogy I might use. It is similar to suggesting
that this form of regulation is like a new architectural design for the
Navy that gave us the Titanic. I suspect it is not new at all. In fact,
it is not reform at all. And we have been up this creek one too many
times.
We are here today and we are engaged in a most serious way to debate
what I think is an important issue. The Senate has held more than 100
votes on campaign finance reform during the past dozen years. Although
the definition of ``reform'' has fluctuated widely over that period of
time, the essence of this legislation remains the same--to restrict and
stifle political speech.

The bill now before us would also federalize or nationalize vast
parts of America's politics. For the average citizen listening in
today, let me repeat that phrase. Do you want your Government to
federalize or nationalize political free speech in this country, to
shape it and control it, and to tell candidates and their supporters
how to speak? Someday they might even suggest what to speak. That is
really the importance of why we come to this floor today to debate this
most important topic.
Under the new plan offered by Senators McCain and Feingold, there
would be once again an across-the-board ban on soft money for any
Federal election activity.
You have already heard the sponsors and the supporters of this bill
talk on and on about how soft money is bad, about how President Clinton
rented out the Lincoln Bedroom in exchange for huge soft money
donations, or how foreign nationals paid tens of thousand of dollars
during the President's 1996 election campaign. They say all soft money
is bad. Or should we say that Bill Clinton misused it and so,
therefore, it is bad? I believe that is the kind of connection they are
using.
Sorry, Senator McCain; sorry, Senator Feingold. Don't put me in the
same category with Bill Clinton. Put me in another category. Put me in
a category that recognizes the importance of free speech and that
recognizes there are appropriate ways of handling it.
As I have said in the past, and I say again, a total ban on soft
money will have a significant negative effect on the lives of thousands
of citizens who believe it is their American right to become engaged in
the political process. In the end, you will hear no disagreement on
this point from the sponsors or the supporters of the legislation.
Let me take a few moments to explain how this proposal of a ban on
soft money will affect thousands of citizens involved in America's
politics.
Here in Washington, the national party organizations receive money
from donors. The donations can be from individuals, lobbying groups
that represent their members, businesses, or unions. The political
organizations receiving these donations include the Republican National
Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the Republican Senatorial
Committee, the Democrat Senatorial Committee, the Republican National
Congressional Committee, and the Democratic National Congressional
Committee.
All of these political organizations receive donations from
contributors. What happens next is--and it is very important that we
follow this because this is supposed to be the negative side of
politics; this is supposed to be the side that corrupts. And yet, so
far, it is clearly outside the Halls of the Senate. The money flows to
these national political organizations.
What happens next? These political organizations distribute some of
that money to their respective political parties in counties and
localities all over the country. As you can imagine, there are
thousands of State, county, and local political offices that receive
this financial aid.
Then, under certain conditions already defined by State and Federal
law, the local parties use this money for activities such as purchasing
campaign buttons, bumper stickers, posters, and yard signs to express
an opinion, to express an idea. The money is also used by voter
registration activities on behalf of the partys' Presidential and Vice
Presidential nominees. The money is also used for multicandidate
brochures and even sample ballots.
Can you imagine corruption yet emerging out of this that somehow

[[Page S12738]]

would affect the vote or influence the vote of an individual Senator on
this floor? I know Halloween is close. I know Senators McCain and
Feingold are searching for ghosts. And maybe in this scenario there is
a ghost. But, fellow Senators, it is only a ghost because here is what
happens next.
Let me give you an example. Say it is an election day. You go down to
your local polling site, whether it is at a school, a local church, a
National Guard armory, or your American Legion hall. Sometimes there is
a person there who will hand you what is called a sample ballot listing
all of the candidates in your party running for office. It is a way of
identifying people running for your office or running for office in
your party. As most voters, you are more than likely to choose
candidates of your party. However, under the McCain-Feingold proposal,
it would be against the law to use soft money to pay for a sample
ballot with the name of any candidate who is running for Congress on
the same sample ballot with State and local candidates combined.
Corruption? As I said earlier, it is close to Halloween.

Under the McCain-Feingold legislation, it would be against the law to
use soft money to pay for campaign buttons, posters, yard signs, or
brochures that include the name or picture of a candidate for Federal
office on the same item that has the name or picture of a State or
local candidate. That is called Federal control. That causes the
creation of a bureaucracy to examine every election process right down
to the local county central committee. Imagine the size of the new
building here in Washington. Imagine the Federal agents out on the
ground. Imagine it; that is what ultimately we reduce ourselves to when
we begin to micromanage, as is proposed in this legislation, the kind
of political process that most Americans believe and have reason to
believe is a fair and honest process.
Under McCain-Feingold, it would be against the law to use soft money
to conduct a local voter registration drive 120 days before the
election. These get-out-the-vote drives have proven to be effective
tools for increasing interest among people in the political process.
Frankly, that is what we are all about, getting people interested in
participating in their government. Not enough do now. With McCain-
Feingold, in the end we would probably even cause that to be
restricted.
In fact, in 1979 Congress supported revisions in the law pertaining
to get-out-the-vote drives because they were concerned about important
party-building activities and they promoted citizen participation in
the election process. As we have heard on the Senate floor, the
sponsors and supporters of this bill think this, and what I have just
discussed, is corruption.
Let's look at the reality of what this legislation creates. I will
talk about a man I know by the name of Jack Hardy, the chairman of the
Republican Party in Custer County, ID. Custer County is about as big as
Delaware, New Hampshire, and New Jersey together with only about 4,000
citizens living in that huge geographic area. Jack Hardy, chairman of
the Republican Party in that county, works at a full time job as a
carpenter. He also enjoys spending time with his family. Jack relies on
financial aid from the State and national party organizations to run
his Custer County Republican Party.
There are thousands of Jack Hardys all over the country. Most are
volunteers. They put in long hours supporting their party and their
candidates hoping to make a difference because they believe as
Americans they ought to be involved in the party process to get people
elected who believe in and represent the ideals that the Jack Hardys of
America hold. Jack Hardy is a hard-working man who wants to make a
difference.
McCain-Feingold is saying we will make it tougher, Jack. Here is how
we will make it tougher. We are not going to allow you to use the kind
of resources that come from the State and the Federal parties. You have
to get out and hustle: forget your job. You have to get hard money from
donations, local business money, and individuals to fund any
activities.
Jack already does some of this. He already solicits among individuals
and businesses in his community. But never is there enough on an
election day or before an election day to do the right kind of work.
Jack Hardy relies on his State and Federal party to help him.

People such as Jack Hardy will be forced to take more of their time
off from what is a nonpaid voluntary job to help participate in
American political activities. In other words, fundraising hard money
will become a bigger concern for the State and local officials than
ever before, and whoever raises the most money can fund more political
activities. It is that simple.
Essentially, what we have done is make money the most compelling
factor in campaigns instead of part of what is necessary to run a good
campaign organization.
Frankly, this is silly stuff. Exactly what kind of campaign finance
reform is this? What are we trying to accomplish? We just added more
laws to a system that is already heavily burdened with rules and
regulations, many of which can't even get enforced because the Federal
Election Commission doesn't function too well. Again, it is a federal
bureaucracy that has probably outserved its usefulness.
We have just added more laws to a system that is already not working.
We forced thousands of State and local party officials to raise more
money from their constituents, to confuse the process that we think
works pretty well now.
If the point of McCain-Feingold is to reform the campaign finance
system, then I think the last thing we want to do is ban soft money.
I support the amendment offered by Senator McCain to require State
and local officials to file immediate electronic disclosure of
contributions. That is key to anything we do. Let the voters know
firsthand about the money source coming into their politics. Voters are
not dumb. They are talented, bright Americans who make their own
judgments. And they should be based on the knowledge handed them,
without having to create a monstrously large Federal bureaucracy.
I am bothered by what has been left out of McCain-Feingold. For
example, there is no protection in this bill against union workers.
This issue has already been debated thoroughly on the floor. I noticed
just this past week the AFL-CIO has endorsed Al Gore in his candidacy
for the Presidency. Of course, this will bring in millions of dollars
of reported and millions of dollars of unreported money. Why? In large
part, we have exempted labor unions from certain levels of campaign
requirements and we do not exempt other citizens of our country. Most
importantly, we have said labor bosses can take the dues of their
members and use them for political purposes that maybe even those union
members don't want.
The American political process ought to be a free process. We want it
to be open. We want and must always have full disclosure. If union dues
go to fund Al Gore's campaign, there will be a lot of union people in
Idaho who will be very angry because they openly tell me they cannot
support this candidate. Why? Because he put them out of work. His
policy on public lands and public land resources and this
administration's reaction has cost thousands of union men and women to
be out of work in my State. If their dues go without their ability to
say no, they have a right to be angry. Yet the provision I am talking
about is not in McCain-Feingold. I am talking about a term we call
``paycheck protection.'' This is a very important part of any kind of
campaign finance reform any Member wants to see.
During the 1996 elections, union leaders tacked on an extra surcharge
on dues to their members in order to raise $49.2 million to defeat
Republican candidates around the country. There is no reason not to say
it; that was their intent. They were open about it. The union bosses
have announced they plan to spend much more in the 2000 election. Yet
nothing in this law says they can't do that. We shouldn't say, ``You
can't do it.'' We should say there are rules about how to collect the
money. The right of the citizen is to say yes or no to how his or her
money is used for political purposes.

There are others waiting to speak. This will be an issue we will
debate into the week. It is an important issue, but it is one I think
the American citizens understand quite well.

[[Page S12739]]

When mom and dad come home at night and they sit at the dinner table
and one spouse says to another, ``How was your day?'' my guess is they
do not say, ``And, oh, what about those campaign finance laws that
Senator Feingold is debating in the U.S. Senate? Those are really
important to us.'' I doubt they say that. In fact, I doubt even few
moms and dads have ever said that. I think what they will talk about,
though, is the shooting that happened down the street too close to
their school; or the economy that cost a brother or a sister their job;
or the taxes they paid that denied them the ability to spend more on
their children or put away more for their children's education. Yes,
and they probably even, in a rather disgusted way, talk about some of
the examples of moral decline in this country. My guess is that is what
goes on around the dinner tables of America, not, ``Oh, and by the way,
Senator Feingold has a great campaign finance bill.''
What are important issues, as we debate the issues in the closing
days of this Senate, are issues about public education and safety and
crime and all of that. We will engage in that with our President in the
coming days as we finalize some of these key appropriations bills.
Again, I think what is important to the American people are issues
like crime, the economy, taxes, health care, education, social
security, and the moral decline of the country.
What people really care about is whether their children will get
safely back and forth from school--and whether they'll get a good
education in the public schools.
They care about keeping their jobs and trying to make ends meet while
they watch more and more of their hard earned money slip away to
Washington to satisfy this President's lust for spending.
They care about their future--whether they can save enough money to
retire some day. And if they retire, will there be any money left in
the Social Security system, or will it all be spent on more government
programs.
These are the real concerns of Americans today, and I hope the Senate
will soon be able to turn its attention to these important issues.
Let me conclude by saying we are not wasting our time debating
campaign finance reform. Defending the right of free speech and the
right of citizens to participate in this most critical of American
institutions is our job. To defend and protect that right is the
reasonable goal. So I appreciate joining with my colleagues on the
floor to oppose McCain-Feingold and hope Senators will join with us in
protecting that freedom of expression of America's citizens.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. BENNETT. Before the Senator from Idaho yields the floor, will he
yield to a question?
Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. BENNETT. I was very interested in a comment about the money being
raised by the AFL-CIO. I would like to get the exact figure. Did the
Senator say $49 million?
Mr. CRAIG. That was in the last cycle.
Mr. BENNETT. In the last cycle.
Mr. CRAIG. Specific to those elections.
Mr. BENNETT. Let me ask a question, which I will be asking my friends
on the other side as well. But since my colleague has raised it, I
think he could be an expert on this issue.
Since we are being told repeatedly throughout this debate that the
huge amounts of soft money are corrupting and controlling the votes,
let me ask the Senator from Idaho, who is a member of the Republican
leadership: If the AFL-CIO were to simply give that $49 million to the
Republicans and thus corrupt and influence our votes, would that not be
a better investment on their part than to have it wasted on people who
are already with them?
Mr. CRAIG. That is a unique thought. I guess I had not thought of it
that way. I do not necessarily suggest the $49.2 million is a
corrupting factor.
Mr. BENNETT. I do not believe it is corrupting either, but we are
being told repeatedly that it is.
Mr. CRAIG. What is corrupting about that is when a labor boss says he
is going to take the dues of his member without asking him or her
whether he can use those dues for a political purpose.
Mr. BENNETT. I agree with that.
Mr. CRAIG. Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that. He said
it was wrong, and an individual's money never should be used for those
purposes. That is the corrupting factor, when money you thought you
controlled for the purpose of expressing your political opinion would
get misused. I think in this instance it does.
Mr. BENNETT. I agree with the Senator from Idaho completely about
that. But I want to go back to the argument that has been made again
and again by my friend from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona,
that the tremendous amount of money that is being put into the system
influences how people vote. If I were sitting on a $49 million pot of
money, advising the AFL-CIO, saying what you want is to get more of
your legislation through the Congress, I would say to them: If in fact
the $49 million does change the way people vote, why not give the $49
million to the people who are not voting for us? Why not give the $49
million to the Republicans and turn them all into rabid supporters of
the AFL-CIO?
Mr. CRAIG. In other words, following the logic that money talks and
money influences.
Mr. BENNETT. If we accept that logic, it is perfectly clear it ought
to come on this side of the aisle rather than the other.
Let me ask the Senator from Idaho, if he was to suddenly receive in
his campaign--through, let us say, the State party of Idaho, because it
cannot be given to him directly, there is no way the soft money can
corrupt you because you cannot receive it--but, if the AFL-CIO were
suddenly to give to the Republican Party of Idaho $1 million in cash,
would you change your position on any of the labor issues you have
discussed, paycheck protection, for example?

Mr. CRAIG. How can you change your position on things that are
fundamentally right in America, such as the right of an individual to
control his money or her money for political purposes? Absolutely not.
Mr. BENNETT. I accept the integrity of the Senator from Idaho. Let me
ask him, as a member of leadership----
Mr. CRAIG. Remember the New York Times says I am a member of a
bordello.
Mr. BENNETT. That is why I am raising the question, because in a
bordello you can change what happens by where the money goes, without
any question.
Mr. CRAIG. I wouldn't know.
Mr. BENNETT. I have never been in one, but I am at least told that is
the way it works.
Let me ask the Senator from Idaho, as a member of the leadership, you
know other Members of the Republican Party. Do you know of any Member,
on this side of the aisle, who would change his or her position on
labor issues if the AFL-CIO were to suddenly put $1 million worth of
soft money into his or her State party?
Mr. CRAIG. I not only do not know of anyone, I know if you accused
anyone of changing their opinion because of that, you would have a
fight on your hands. I do not mean just a verbal fight. I say to anyone
who would suggest to any of us that money influences, from the
standpoint it is going to change our philosophy, change our attitude or
corrupt us, as some Senators have suggested on this floor that it
does--out West we call them fighting words. Because you are questioning
a person's integrity. You are basically saying they are for sale.
Shame on those Senators who come to the floor to make that kind of
suggestion. Maybe they know something we do not.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Idaho yield for a similar
question?
Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
Mr. McCONNELL. Most of the Republican Members of the Senate have been
vigorous supporters of tort reform, changes in the legal system of this
country. I ask my friend from Idaho, if the American Trial Lawyers
Association gave $1 million to the Republican National Committee, would
that turn the Republicans in the Senate into vigorous opponents of
legal reform?
Mr. CRAIG. It not only would not, you are speaking of a fantasy idea
that I doubt will ever come to pass. But I thank you for asking that
question.

[[Page S12740]]

Mr. McCONNELL. My final question of the Senator from Idaho: Let's
assume the National Right to Life Committee contributed $100,000 to the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Does the Senator from Idaho--
of course we are not in the best position to answer this, I don't
guess, since it is not our party, but it is still interesting to
speculate. Let's assume the National Right to Life Committee gave a
$100,000 soft money contribution to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee. I ask my friend from Idaho, does he anticipate at that point
the Democrats in the Senate would become pro-life?
Mr. CRAIG. No. I do not believe that a majority of them would. I
think their basis for what they call a pro-choice position is one
firmly grounded on their philosophy. I don't criticize--I don't agree,
but I don't criticize--their right to hold that. But what National
Right to Life is saying is that they want to have the right to give the
Democrat Party money if they choose to. What they are saying is, we
want to have a right to organize individual citizens to come together
to pool their money for the purpose of giving it. What McCain-Feingold
says is: No, you can't do that.

National Right to Life is saying, in this instance: Give us choice,
the right to choose where we want to play in the political process.
Don't deny us what is our right as American citizens or an American
group to participate in the political process.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Idaho, not only for responding
to our questions but also for another outstanding contribution to this
most important debate.
We appreciate his insightful comments. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sorry my friend from Utah last left the
floor. The fact is, the political balance of power is already heavily
tilted toward corporations, by any study that you find. The fact is, in
the last election cycle corporate interests spent about $700 million in
political contributions. That is 11 times more than what unions spent.
And they did not get the permission of their stockholders. While unions
contributed less than 4 percent of the $1.6 billion raised by
candidates and parties in 1996, corporations contributed over 40
percent.

So the disparity between corporate and union spending is not static;
it is growing. In the next election cycle, instead of 11 to 1, it will
probably be 14 to 1. What is so disconcerting about this is for this
so-called soft money, it is even wider.
While both corporations and unions have increased their unrestricted
so-called soft money contributions, since 1992 corporate spending has
grown twice as fast. In 1996, as an example, corporations spent more
than $176 million--19 times more than what the unions spent.
There is all this talk about the unions that represent the working
men and women of this country spending 4 percent of what is spent in
political campaigns. I think it is too bad that working men and women
in this country do not have more of a representation. It is getting
worse. That is why this legislation is before this body.
I think it is important at this time to recognize the work done by
Senator Feingold in making this an issue before the people of America.
I applaud and congratulate Senator Feingold for his position based upon
what he believes is principle.
He not only talks the game; he lives the game, as indicated in his
most recent election. While all over America people were spending huge
amounts of soft money, and it was being spent in Wisconsin against
Senator Feingold, he refused to take any money even though it was
available to him.
So I take this opportunity to say, first of all, let's bring in to
proper perspective the disparity between corporate spending and union
spending and also to congratulate my friend from the State of
Wisconsin.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator mentioned $179 million of corporate
expenditures. Are those for State and local races also?
Mr. REID. Yes. The fact is, that is a lesser figure. What I did say
in the beginning is that in the 1996 election cycle--the one that we
have numbers on--corporate interests spent more; in fact, it is almost
$700 million in political contributions, which is 11 times more than
what unions spent.
Mr. SESSIONS. I do not know about that. But I know Mr. Sweeney has
indicated he had $170-some-odd million, that they would spend $46
million, I believe, on just the 34 Federal congressional races, all of
which is very unregulated and underreported, inaccurately reported, of
course. But I want to get those numbers straight, whether you are
talking about throughout the Nation, including county commission races,
State senate races, and all the races.
The numbers are hard to compare. I think the Senator would probably
agree with that.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alabama, if we took into
consideration State and local races, the corporate skew would be even
further out of whack because unions do get involved in local campaigns.
But it is usually through the grassroots level and very rarely is it
money; where the corporations very rarely are involved in the
grassroots activities and are always involved in the money.

So if we added all that, the number may even be more than 11 times
more than what the unions spent.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. SESSIONS. The numbers I have are that labor spent $370 million
per election cycle on campaigns. I am not sure where all the numbers
come out, but that is quite a lot.
Would the Senator agree with that? Or does he disagree with those
numbers?
Mr. REID. I do not know from where the Senator is getting his
numbers. In the previous question the Senator asked, there was $40
million. And now it is how much?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Sweeney said they were going to spend $46 million
in 34 targeted U.S. congressional races.
Mr. REID. Where does this other number come from?
Mr. SESSIONS. The $370 million includes Federal election campaigns.
Mr. REID. Over what period of time?
Mr. SESSIONS. The last election cycle.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend the numbers that he has, I don't know
from where they came. I do state that in America we have far too much
money being spent, soft money and other kinds of money. The point I was
trying to make in my statement in response to my friend from Utah is
the fact that corporate spending, by any number you pick, is far out of
whack with union spending, whether it is 19 times more or 11 times
more. We all acknowledge it is a growing disparity.
The fact is, what is being attempted by my friend from the State of
Wisconsin is to stop the flow of all this soft money.
The fact is, there is a lot of talk about union money coming from
working men and women in this country. Remember, corporate money is
also money that represents shareholders. Certainly, they get no say in
how that money is spent.
So I suggest that before we start picking on organized labor,
remember, is there anything wrong with the nurses of America, who are
included in these numbers--the AFL-CIO, teachers, carpenters, cement
finishers--being represented? The answer is, they should be able to be
involved in campaigns just as much as somebody who represents tobacco
interests and the very large health care industry in America. So they,
too, need a voice.
I am glad that voice is being represented by this side of the aisle.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has been
waiting a long time.
I will yield to him in 1 minute. But I want to make a quick point
with regard to speech comments by the Senator from Colorado.
He and I had a good discussion the other day about this issue. I
enjoyed it.

[[Page S12741]]

But he said that a soft money ban would be unfair to the Republican
Party. And this very much reflects the comments of the Senator from
Kentucky, who has made similar comments, that a soft money ban would
somehow unfairly limit the ability of the Republican Party, as opposed
to the Democratic Party.

I find this very odd, since the comments this weekend of the chairman
designate of the Democratic National Committee, the mayor of
Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, who is the chair of the DNC, who said in a
column, or was quoted in a column by David Broder:

``If the Republicans pass McCain-Feingold, we would be shut
down,'' Rendell said.

So both parties apparently think it is the end of the line for them
if we ban soft money--but only for one of them. I ask, how is it
possible, since this whole soft money thing only happened 3 or 4 years
ago in terms of the vast amounts of money? We certainly had political
parties before this--pretty good political parties. How can both
parties be right? How can the Senator from Colorado be right and Mr.
Rendell be right?
The fact is, both parties have become addicted to soft money, and
they do not want to give it up. There is no reality to the notion that
the parties will be crippled or any particular party would be severely
harmed by the soft money ban.
Mr. President, I wanted to make that point. At this point, since we
are roughly trying to go back and forth, I hope the Senator from
Massachusetts could proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I notice other colleagues wanting to
address the Senate. I would hope and ask consent--I see my colleague on
the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment? Will the Senator
yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Without losing his right to the floor.
In terms of order, I gather we are still rotating. I ask unanimous
consent that on our side I be able to follow Senator Kennedy. Senator
Levin may come, in which case I can talk with him about how to proceed.
I ask unanimous consent that on our side I be allowed to follow Senator
Kennedy.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I know the occupant of
the chair was here to speak earlier. Is the Senator from Ohio going to
be in the chair until 3?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I have no problem with the Senator's consent
agreement, then, if I may ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Ohio be recognized at 3 to make some remarks. I think that would help
accommodate him. Nobody is trying to quiet anyone. I just want to give
the Senator from Ohio a chance to get in the debate at 3. Does anybody
have a problem with that?
Mr. REID. I have no problem. We will begin rotating at this time. The
Senator from Kentucky knows we have already had several speeches from
Republicans. We will start now rotating.
Mr. McCONNELL. I have no objection.
Mr. REID. So after Senator Kennedy speaks, Senator Voinovich may
speak. If necessary, you may cover the floor for him.
Mr. McCONNELL. We will work that out.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I only planned to speak
for 15 or 20 minutes. I think what the Senator from Kentucky has
proposed will certainly be agreeable, if that is all right.
Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Ohio will be recognized after the
Senator from Minnesota. We will make sure somebody gets in the Chair
and gives him an opportunity to make his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will put in the Record the excellent
summaries of total contributions according to the Center for Responsive
Politics. That is a nonpartisan watchdog group. We can talk about
numbers here and numbers there. However, I think it is important for
the Record that we have summaries from the nonpartisan groups that have
assessed the contributions by unions and corporations--hard money/soft
money. As the Senator from Nevada, the Senator from Wisconsin, and
others have pointed out, the ratio is about 11 to 1. You can slice it
any way you want but the fact remains--it is basically the difference
between the contributions, according to nonpartisan groups. Others have
other ways of adding and subtracting figures; all well and good.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the summary provided
by the Center for Responsive Politics because I think it is helpful to
have the findings of those who have no ax to grind.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[AFL-CIO Fact Sheet]

Corporate vs. Union Spending on Politics--There's Too Much Money in
Politics--But It's Not Union Money

The political balance of power is already tilted heavily in
favor of corporations. In the 1996 election cycle, corporate
interests spent more than $677 million on political
contributions--11 times more than unions spent. So while
unions contributed less than 4 percent of the $1.6 billion
raised by candidates and parties in 1996, corporations
contributed more than 40 percent.
The disparity between corporate and union spending is
growing. Since 1992 (when the ratio was 9-to-1), corporate
political contributions have increased by $229.8 million,
while union contributions rose by only $12.1 million.
In ``soft money'' contributions, the gap is even wider.
While both corporations and unions have increased their
unrestricted, so-called ``soft money'' contributions since
1992, corporate spending grew twice as fast. In 1996,
corporations spent more than $176 million--19 times more than
unions did.
Corporate special interests are pushing initiatives that
would skew the balance even further. By backing special
restrictions on unions while imposing no such limits on
themselves, big corporations are trying to remove working
families and their unions from the political playing field.
Corporations, right-wing foundations and anti-union
lobbying groups are raising hundreds of millions of dollars
to ``de-fund'' unions. At a recent meeting of the Republican
Governors Association, proponents of the initiatives noted
that the de-funding ploy has two strategic benefits: If it
works, unions will lose funding. Even if it doesn't, unions
will be forced to spend millions of dollars in the fight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Corporations Unions Ratio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total contributions:
1996........................... $677,442,423 $60,352,761 11 to 1
1994........................... 492,956,181 48,319,054 10 to 1
1992........................... 447,594,985 48,152,256 9 to 1
====================================
Soft money contributions:
1996........................... 176,108,186 9,505,745 19 to 1
1994........................... 64,753,971 4,293,459 15 to 1
1992........................... 66,342,241 4,251,334 16 to 1
Hard money contributions:
1996........................... 501,334,237 50,847,016 10 to 1
1994........................... 428,202,210 44,025,595 10 to 1
1992........................... 381,252,744 44,067,720 9 to 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Center for Responsive Politics.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, briefly, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. On the number that the Senator said the unions spent,
what was that number?
Mr. KENNEDY. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in
1996, $60 million; 1994, $48 million; 1992, $48 million. On the
corporations, $677 million in 1996; $492 million in 1994; and $447
million in 1992. That is total contributions. It works out to a ratio
of 11 to 1 in 1996, 10 to 1 in 1994, and 9 to 1 in 1992.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note the Washington Post article I was
just looking at indicated there was a $46 million commitment by Mr.
Sweeney in this election cycle for just 34 House of Representatives
races, so those numbers don't sound accurate to me.
Mr. KENNEDY. In 1996, the unions spent $50 million; the corporations,
$501 million. So we are talking 1997, 1998, 1999. That figure may still
be consistent with the 10 to 1 or 11 to 1 figure. I don't find that
there would be any inconsistency if that were the figure being spent.
I was interested to hear our good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig,
talking about people worrying at the dinner table about these issues.
He mentioned people are much more concerned about what is happening
down the street or near the school with regard to a shooting incident.
I say that is right. And it is very interesting that I was not able to
get a report, as a member of the conference committee on the juvenile
violence act, that deals with the availability and the accessibility of

[[Page S12742]]

guns to children in our society and of the criminal element. That has
been locked up now for some 6 weeks. I don't think anyone on this floor
is prepared to say the National Rifle Association doesn't have
something to do with that.
He talked about taxes--people are concerned about taxes. People are
concerned about tax loopholes as well. How do the tax loopholes get
into the Internal Revenue budget? We have $4 trillion of what are
called tax expenditures in the IRS at the present time. That is the
fastest growing expenditure we have in the Federal budget, the
expansion of tax expenditures, tax loopholes. We don't have any debate
on it. Many of us have said, let's do for tax expenditures what we do
for direct expenditures--when we are cutting back on education and
health care; let what is good for the goose be good for the gander. Do
you think you can get those issues raised here on the floor of the
Senate? Of course not. We all understand why.
It is kind of interesting that those who have been the strongest
spokespersons against this proposal also raise incidents in terms of
what is on people's minds. It comes back, in many instances, to what
the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin have talked
about.
This country has waited long enough for campaign finance reform. The
current system is shameful, benefiting only the big corporations and
lobbyists who have seemingly bottomless barrels of money to spend,
while the voice of average citizens goes unheard in the special
interest din.
I commend Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their consistent
leadership on this issue. Their commitment to reform gives us an
opportunity to join the House of Representatives and cleanse our
campaign financing system of special interest abuses. The House took
effective action earlier this year, transcending partisan differences
to adopt long overdue reforms. The large margin by which the Shays-
Meehan bill passed, 252 to 177, demonstrates that the public feels
strongly about the need for reform. The Senate should act now to
support the McCain-Feingold proposal and give the country clean
elections in the years to come.
Effective reform must include a ban on soft money. The McCain-
Feingold bill does just that. Soft money contributions are increasing
at alarming rates, while hard money contributions are barely rising. In
the 1992 Presidential election cycle, both parties raised a total of
$86 million in soft money. Compare this to the $224 million total
raised in the 1998 election cycle--a 150-percent increase of soft money
contributions in only 6 years. A more recent survey shows figures from
January to June 1999, soft money contributions totaled $46.2 million--
and $30.1 million of that total was given by corporations and business
interests. In the 1996 elections, the consumer credit industry alone
gave $5.5 million in soft money. True reform means closing this
flagrant loophole that allows so many special interests to bypass legal
limits on giving money directly to candidates. Until we close it the
special interests will continue to strengthen their hold on the
political process.
The House reforms also ended other serious abuses in campaign
financing. It ends the sham of the so-called issue ads loophole, which
permits special interests to spend big money on campaign advertising
obviously designed to support a candidate, as long as the ads do not
specifically call for the candidate's election. The House bill treats
these ads as the campaign ads they really are, and rightly subjects
them to regulation under the campaign finance laws.
The Senate should learn from the House, and join in ending these
abuses that make a mockery of our election laws. Instead, the Senate
Republican leadership is bent on preserving the status quo. They oppose
campaign finance reform because they do not want to lose the support
they currently receive from their special interest friends.
Our Republican friends say they want to help working families--but
their support of the Paycheck Protection Act demonstrates their
antilabor bias, because that measure is designed to silence the voice
of the American workers and labor unions in the political process. It
is revenge, not reform--revenge for the extraordinary efforts by the
labor movement in the 1996 and 1998 election campaigns. It imposes a
gag rule on American workers, and it should be defeated.
The act's supporters claim they are concerned about union members'
right to choose whether and how to participate in the political
process. But we know better. The Paycheck Protection Act should really
be called the Paycheck Destruction Act. It is part of a coordinated
national antilabor campaign to lock American workers and their unions
out of politics.
And who is behind this campaign? It is not the workers, unhappy with
the use of their union dues for political purposes. It is businesses
and their allies, anxious to reduce the role of labor. It is
organizations like Americans for Tax Reform, which supports Social
Security privatization, vouchers for private schools, and huge tax cuts
for the wealthiest Americans. It is think tanks such as the American
Legislative Exchange Council and the National Center for Policy
Analysis, which support so-called right-to-work laws, the TEAM act, the
flat tax, private school vouchers, medical savings accounts, and other
antiworker legislation. And it is right-wing Republicans in Congress
and in the states.
We know that unions and their members are among the most effective
voices in the political process. They support raising the minimum wage,
protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, improving education,
and ensuring safety and health on the job.
Silencing these voices of working families will make it easier for
those with antiworker agenda to prevail. Sponsors of this legislation
support prevatizing Social Security. They favor private school vouchers
instead of a healthy public school system. They would undermine
occupational safety and health laws, end the 40-hour work week and
permit sham, company-dominated unions. They oppose the Family and
Medical Leave Act. They want to restrict Medicare eligibility and deny
millions of workers an increase in the minimum wage. They are not
trying to help working Americans. To the contrary--they are trying to
silence the workers' participation in the political process so they can
implement an agenda that workers strongly oppose.
Campaign abuses abandon other issues as well. The tobacco industry
has made extensive PAC and soft money contributions, and the Senate
Republican leadership has rejected much needed antitobacco legislation.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids reports that in the last 10 years,
Senators who voted consistently against tobacco reform legislation took
far more money from the industry--four times more--than those who
supported the bill.
The dabate on the Patients' Bill of Rights is another vivid example
of the obstructionist influence of industries and special interests.
Since 1997, the health insurance industry has been making huge
political contributions to Republicans. Blue Cross/Blue Shield and its
state affiliates made $1 million in contributions in the 1997-1998
cycle, with four out of every five dollars going to Republicans.
Managed care PACs--including the American Association of Health Plans,
the Health Insurance Association of America, and Blue Cross/Blue
Shield--gave $77,250 to leadership political action committees.
According to the Center on Responsive Politics, all but $1,500 went to
the Republican majority.
These contributions bought the industry at least 2 years worth of
stall and delay tactics in Congress. And, when the Senate finally
passed legislation this year, it was not what patients needed, but an
industry bill that places HMO profits ahead of patients' health.
Contributions from the credit card and banking industries have had a
similar effect on the bankruptcy reform debate. Master Card, Visa, and
others doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled their spending to encourage
passage of the bill they wanted. Visa increased its 1998 lobbying to
$3.6 million from $900,000 in 1997. Master Card wasn't far behind--
their lobbying expenses rose from $430,000 in 1997 to $1.8 million in
1998. In the 1997-1998 election cycle, commercial banks and financial
service companies gave $20.8 million in large individual contributions,
PAC money and soft money to candidates--

[[Page S12743]]

and two-thirds of that total went to Republicans. The result?
Legislation that House Committee Chairman Henry Hyde described as
``pages and pages and pages of advantages [for] the creditor community
* * *''
Honest campaign finance reform does not include phony proposals that
seek to eliminate political expression by average families. It does
include eliminating the flagrant abuses that enable big corporations
and special interests to tilt the election process in their favor.
Real reform means giving elections back to the people and creating a
level playing field on which all voters are equal, regardless of their
income. Broad campaign finance reform is within the Senate's reach. We
should follow the example set for us by the House. The greatest gift
the Senate can give to the American people is clean elections.
Over the course of debate, we have learned what the other side is
against. We rarely learn what they are for. Senator McCain and Senator
Feingold have laid out something I think we should be for. In the next
few days, hopefully, the American people will speak through their
representatives and support those efforts.
One of the provisions we heard a good deal about, again from my
friend from Idaho, was the whole question about workers and whether
they have control over their dues. Of course, what exists in the
McCain-Feingold provision is an incorporation of the Beck decision,
which permits workers to check off, at the time they pay their dues,
that they are not interested in the political process.
Today, evidently, they want something that is going to be harsher on
working men and women. Those forces that are pressing to restrict the
voice of working men and women are actually the major interest groups
that are strongly opposed to the agenda of working families, whether it
has been an increase in the minimum wage, whether it has been HMO
reforms, whether it has been education and increasing the education
budget. These groups are opposed to workers participating because, in
many instances, the workers have been the ones to try to advance these
interests on our national agenda.
I think it is important. I don't know how many of us are getting the
communications from workers on these particular issues. Yet we have
seen what has happened over this past year, whether it has been on the
HMO reform--the change in expenditures by the insurance companies at
the time when this body was debating whether doctors are going to be
the ones who are going to make the decisions on health care for the
particular patients, rather than the accountants and insurance
industry. Nobody could deny when we were debating those issues that the
contributions and expenditures by the insurance companies skyrocketed
dramatically, escalated significantly. This is the kind of thing that
we are talking about in terms of the impact that campaign finance
reform can have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a couple of unanimous consent
requests, cleared on both sides.
As in executive session, I ask that, at 5:45 today, the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 270, the
nomination of Florence-Marie Cooper to be United States District Judge
for the Central District of California.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then immediately
proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination and, following
that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action
and the Senate then return to legislative session.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield the
floor?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe we have a consent agreement
under which Senator Wellstone was to be recognized next. Am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is what I understand.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as I said earlier, when Senator Levin
came to the floor I would be pleased to yield the floor to him. Senator
McCain is here. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be allowed
to speak, that we then go in order--I understand Senator McCain wants
to speak, and I also know that the Chair, Senator Voinovich, seeks
recognition--and I be allowed to speak after Senator Voinovich.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak after Senator Levin.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Then Senator Voinovich, and I would follow Senator
Voinovich.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from
Arizona was not here at the time, but Senator Voinovich was waiting
patiently a little bit earlier. Would he have any objection to Senator
Voinovich following Senator Levin?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Levin, then a Republican, and then a
Democrat.
Mr. McCONNELL. On this issue.
Mr. McCAIN. Maybe I can sort it out. Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Levin, then Senator Voinovich, then Senator
Wellstone, and then Senator McCain be recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, may I add to the request that Senator
Bennett be recognized after Senator McCain.
Mr. McCAIN. I object to that because we are going back and forth from
one side to the other.
Mr. McCONNELL. The two sides are not parties. The two sides are the
issue, and by adding Senator Bennett and Senator Voinovich we get some
balance on the issue back and forth, which is what we had been trying
to do earlier.
Mr. REID. I think that is appropriate.
Mr. McCAIN. I agree.
Mr. BENNETT. I renew my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I hear the unanimous consent, just to be sure.
Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Levin, Senator Voinovich, Senator
Wellstone, Senator McCain, followed by Senator Bennett.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and all my colleagues. I particularly
thank Senator Wellstone for allowing me to go at this time.
Mr. President, our Federal election laws are broken, and the issue
before the Senate is whether we want to fix them.
In the 1970s, we passed laws to limit the role of money in Federal
elections. Our intent was to protect our democratic form of government
from the corrosive influence of unlimited political contributions.
We wanted to ensure that our Federal elected officials were, neither
in reality nor in perception, beholden to special interests who were
able to contribute large sums of money to candidates and their
campaigns.
Our election laws were designed to protect the public's confidence in
our democratically elected officials. And for many years our election
laws worked fairly well. The limits they set were clear, and those laws
are on the books today.
Individuals aren't supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate
per election, or $5,000 to a political action committee, or more than
$20,000 a year to a national party committee, or $25,000 total in any
one year. Corporations and unions are prohibited from contributing to
any campaign. That is the law on the books today. This is the election
law: $1,000 per individual to a candidate in an election; $5,000 to a
PAC. It is right in these laws--$5,000 PAC contribution to a candidate.
We are supposed to be limiting contributions to candidates. Yet, over
the last few years, we have heard story after story about contributions
of hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals, corporations, and
unions, and even about contributions from foreign sources. Then the
question is, How is it possible, when the law says $1,000 to a
candidate per election, that people can give $100,000, which
effectively helped that candidate in that election? How is it possible?
This pretty good law of ours has holes in it, and both parties have
taken

[[Page S12744]]

advantage of them. There are no longer any effective limits on
contributions. That is the bottom line. That is why we hear about a $1
million contribution to the RNC from a corporation, or a half-million-
dollar contribution from one couple to the DNC.
The Supreme Court in Buckley surely did not have this in mind. They
understood the limits to mean that individuals can't contribute more
than the overall $25,000 limit for a calendar year. Look at what they
said when they upheld that provision in the law. The Buckley Court
described the $25,000 limit as a modest restraint which ``serves to
prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limitation by a person who
might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particular
candidate through the use of unearmarked contributions to political
committees likely to contribute to that candidate or a huge
contribution to the candidate's political party.'' Yet that is exactly
what is happening today under the soft money loophole.
So the Supreme Court foresaw that people would try to evade the
$1,000 limit unless the Congress put in a $25,000 limit. They said that
is one of the reasons the $25,000 limit per year is appropriate.
Yet, under the soft money loophole, precisely what is happening today
is that the $1,000 limit has been obliterated, for all intents and
purposes. Our task is to make the law whole again and, in making it
whole, to make it effective. If we don't, we risk losing the faith the
American people have that we represent their interests and that each
citizen's voice counts fairly.
The principal culprit in this erosion of our laws is the soft money
loophole. Soft money has blown the lid off the contribution limits of
our campaign finance system. Soft money is the 800,000-pound gorilla
sitting right in the middle of this debate.
Look at the most recent data with respect to soft money
contributions. In the 1996 Presidential election year, Republicans
raised $140 million in soft money contributions; Democrats raised $120
million. In 1998, even without a Presidential election, Republicans
raised $131 million in soft money contributions and Democrats raised
$91 million. The 1997-1998 combined soft money total was 115 percent
more than the 1993-1994 total. We are told that the soft money
contributions in the first half of 1999 have increased 55 percent over
the same period in 1997, and they are 75 percent higher this year than
they were in the first half of 1995.
The increases are stunning when we look at specific examples. One
corporation contributed $270,000 in soft money contributions in the
first 6 months of 1997; it contributed $750,000 in the first 6 months
of 1999. One union contributed $195,000 in soft money contributions in
the first 6 months of 1997; it has contributed $525,000 in the first 6
months of 1999.
Those are the increases we are experiencing. They are out of control.
The limits are effectively gone. There are effectively no more limits
on contributions that get into campaigns and support candidates.
That is not what the Supreme Court said in Buckley. The Supreme Court
said in Buckley it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to limit
contributions to candidates and to effectuate that by limiting the
total contribution to $25,000 a year that could be made overall as a
way of implementing, assuring, that the $1,000 contribution would be
upheld and not evaded. Yet with the soft money loophole, we have wiped
out the $25,000 contribution limitation. For all intents and purposes,
there are no more limits on contributions that effectively assist
candidates in campaigns.
One case was discussed in the 1997 hearings. Roger Tamraz was a large
contributor to both parties who became the bipartisan symbol for what
is wrong with the current system. Roger Tamraz served as a Republican
Eagle during the 1980s during the Republican Administrations and as a
Democratic trustee in the 1990s during Democratic Administrations.
Tamraz's political contributions were not guided by his views on public
policy or his desire to support people who shared those views. He was
unabashed in admitting his political contributions were made for the
purpose of getting access to people in power. Tamraz showed in stark
terms the all too common product of the current campaign finance
system--using unlimited soft money contributions to buy access. Despite
the condemnation by the press of Tamraz's activities, when asked at the
hearing to reflect on his $300,000 contribution to obtain access,
Tamraz said: I think next time I'll give $600,000.
How do the parties entice wealthy contributors to make large soft
money contributions? What they often do is offer access to decision
makers in return for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a
single contribution. The parties advertise access. It is blatant. Both
parties sell access for large contributions, and they do it openly. The
larger the contribution, the more personal the access to the decision
maker.
We all know about large contributors to the Democratic National
Committee being invited to radio addresses given by the President, or
to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, or to attend one of dozens of coffees
with the President at the White House.
Look at this invitation to be a DNC trustee. I believe this is from
1996. For $50,000, or if you raise $100,000, the contributor gets two
events with the President, two events with the Vice President,
``invitations to join party leadership as they travel abroad to examine
current and developing political and economic issues in other
countries,'' and monthly policy briefings with ``key administration
officials and Members of Congress.''
It is an open sale of access for large contributions. Does anyone
want to defend that at a town meeting in our home States? Does anyone
want to hold up this invitation from the Democratic National Committee
in a town meeting and ask people whether or not they like this system?
If any Members who oppose this bill banning soft money think their
position is credible with the public, I challenge those Members to go
back to a town meeting and hold up this invitation from the Democratic
National Committee or from the Republican National Committee and ask
our constituents if they think it is right for $50,000 or for $100,000
a year, if they raise it, to get two meetings with the President in
Washington, two meetings with the Vice President in Washington, and
have annual meetings with policy makers and elected officials in
Washington.
Take a look at the Republican National Committee's 1997 Annual Gala.
For $250,000, one gets breakfast with the Majority Leader and the
Speaker of the House and a luncheon with the Republican Senate or House
Committee Chairman of your choice. By the way, they get that for
$100,000; some of the other perks they don't get. All the way down to,
I think $45,000, they get lunch with the Republican Chairman of their
choice.

How many Members of this body want to take home these invitations,
and in a town meeting with a cross section of constituents, hold up
that invitation and say, ``is this the way we want to fund campaigns?''
I don't think many Members want to do that.
Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask the Senator if he is saying that this is the only
source of access and that only those who give have access?
Mr. LEVIN. No, I don't think that is true.
Mr. BENNETT. When I was on the committee with the Senator, we were
debating this issue. I said the best way to get access to me is to be
registered to vote in the State of Utah. Then I asked the Senator from
Michigan, is that the same thing for himself--that he pays more
attention to constituents from Michigan than he does to contributors
who come from outside the State.
Mr. LEVIN. I hope so, but that doesn't answer my point.
My point is whether or not we believe for 100,000 bucks we ought to
sell access to the President of the United States. That is my question.
It is not whether one gets access in other ways. It is whether or not
constituents ought to be able to buy, for $100,000, access to the
President or have a lunch with the Committee Chairman of their choice.
My question is, How many Members opposing the ban on soft money want
to take that invitation to a town meeting and justify it? That is my
question. There is an answer to it. The answer will come in whether or
not any of my colleagues take these invitations to

[[Page S12745]]

town meetings and say: Yes, nothing wrong with saying for $100,000 you
can have lunch with the Republican Committee Chairman of your choice.
Try to sell that to the public back home. I don't think we can. I
cannot in Michigan; I won't speak for any other State.
That is not what we intended when we put limits on campaign
contributions and that is not what the Supreme Court intended in
Buckley when they upheld the contributions because they specifically
said in Buckley that the $25,000 annual limit on all contributions was
intended to avoid evasion of the $1,000 contribution to an individual
campaign to make sure they cannot, in effect, give it to a candidate or
his or her campaign through a political party.
The answer to my question will come in whether or not any of the
opponents to the ban on soft money on these large contributions take
these invitations home. And I mean both parties. We have a lot of other
invitations, too. We will give Members an invitation of their choice
and see whether or not they are comfortable going home to their
constituents in a town meeting and saying: I'll defend this $100,000 to
buy a meeting with the President, or the Vice President, or a Committee
Chairman of choice.
I don't think Members will. We will find out. I want to hear from any
of the opponents of the soft money ban as to whether or not they do
take that kind of an invitation home--selling access for large
contributions--and defend it at a town meeting. I am interested as to
whether or not your constituents say there is nothing wrong with that;
that is free speech.
That is not what the Supreme Court said in Buckley. They upheld
contribution limits as being consistent with the First Amendment. Our
institutions in this democracy depend upon the public having confidence
in our institutions. When access is sold for a large contribution and
someone is told they can have lunch with a Committee Chairman of their
choice for $40,000 or a meeting with the President at the White House
for $100,000, I think the public is so totally turned off by that kind
of flow of money for access that I believe very few will take me up on
my challenge to take this invitation back to a town meeting.
One invitation in 1997 to a National Republican Senatorial Campaign
Committee event promised that contributors would be offered ``plenty of
opportunities to share [their] personal ideas and vision with'' some of
the top Republican leaders and senators. Failure to attend, the
invitation said, means that ``you could lose a unique chance to be
included in current legislative policy debates--debates that will
affect your family and your business for many years to come.''
The letter from the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial
Committee invites the recipient to be a life member of the Republican
Senatorial Inner Circle: ``$10,000 will bring you face-to-face with
dozens of our Republican Senators, including many of the Senate's most
powerful Committee Chairmen.'' It goes on and on. That's access. That's
what we're opening offering for sale for large contributions and that's
what contributors are often buying. There are dozens of examples.
I ask unanimous consent that some of these invitations that are
similar to the ones I have read be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

1997 RNC Annual Gala, May 13, 1997, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC

gala leadership committee

Co-Chairman--$250,000 Fundraising Goal--Sell or purchase Team 100
memberships, Republican Eagles memberships or Dinner Tables.

Dais Seating at the Gala.
Breakfast and Photo Opportunity with Senator Majority
Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on
May 13, 1997.
Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and
the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your
choice.
Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the
Gala.

Vice-Chairman--$100,000 Fundraising Goal--Sell or purchase Team 100
memberships, Republican Eagles memberships or Dinner Tables.

Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of
your choice.
Breakfast and Photo Opportunity with Senator Majority
Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on
May 13, 1997.
Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and
the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your
choice.
Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the
Gala.

Deputy Chairman--$45,000 Fundraising Goal--Sell or purchase three (3)
Dinner Tables or three (3) Republican Eagles memberships.

Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of
your choice.
Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and
the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your
choice.
Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the
Gala.

Dinner Committee--$15,000 Fundraising Goal--Sell or purchase one (1)
Dinner Table.

Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of
your choice.
VIP Reception at the Gala with the Republican members of
the Senate and House Leadership.
(*Benefits pending final confirmation of the Members of
Congress schedules.)
____

Democratic National Committee

dnc trustee events and membership requirements

Events

Two Annual Trustee Events with the President in Washington,
DC.
Two Annual Trustee Events with the Vice President in
Washington, DC.
Annual Economic Trade Missions--Beginning in 1994, DNC
Trustees will be invited to join Party leadership as they
travel abroad to examine current and developing political and
economic in other countries.
Two Annual Retreats/Issue Conferences--One will be held in
Washington and another at an executive conference center.
Both will offer Trustees the opportunity to interact with
leaders from Washington as well as participate in exclusive
issue briefings.
Invitations to Home Town Briefings--Chairman Wilhelm and
other senior Administration officials have plans to visit all
50 states. Whenever possible, impromptu briefings with local
Trustees will be placed on the schedule. You will get the
latest word from Washington on issues affecting the
communities where you live and work.
Monthly Policy Briefings--Briefings are held monthly in
Washington with key administration officials and members of
Congress. Briefings cover such topics as health care reform,
welfare reform, and economic policy.
VIP Status--DNC Trustees will get VIP status at the 1996
DNC Convention with tickets to restricted events, private
parties as well as pre- and post-convention celebrations.
DNC Staff Contact--Trustees will have a DNC staff member
specifically assigned to them, ready to assist and respond to
requests for information.
The ``Morning'' Briefing--DNC Trustees will receive daily
legislative and executive fax alerts, word on upcoming and
current political activities and member survey opportunities.
Multi-Program privileges-participation in BLF and NFC
events.

Annual Membership Requirements

A general Trustee membership requires a contribution of
$50,000 a year or $100,000 raised.

Mr. LEVIN. One solicitation offered, for a contribution of $10,000,
the choice of ``attending one of 60 small dinner parties, limited in
attendance to 20 to 25 people, at the home of a Senator, Cabinet
Officer, or senior White House Staff member.''
One offer for the Republican Senatorial Trust said, ``Trust members
can expect a close working relationship with all Republican Senators,
top Administration officials and other national leaders. Personal
relationships are fostered at informal meetings throughout the year in
Washington, D.C. and abroad.''
Another solicitation went so far as to say that, ``Attendance at all
events is limited.'' Listen to this one, ``Benefits are based on
receipts''; ``Benefits are based on receipts.'' You can't pledge
money--cash must be in hand for that meeting with the chairman of your
choice. That's how blatant these offers to purchase access have become.
It is largely because of soft money. The amounts we see on these
solicitations, selling access, are not the $1,000 and $2,000
contributions. They are large--$25,000 and $50,000 and $100,000 in soft
money contributions. The soft money loophole has increased and
intensified the sale of access.
Do these large money contributions create an appearance of personal
access and improper influence by big contributors? This is what the
Supreme Court said in Buckley v. Valeo. I think they answered that
question. The Supreme

[[Page S12746]]

Court said there is an appearance of corruption that is created from
the size of the contribution alone. They didn't even get to the
question of the sale of access. They just said that unlimited
contributions inherently create an appearance of impropriety. It is
inherent in unlimited contributions. That is the Supreme Court
answering, I believe, for the American people. The Court in Buckley
upheld contribution limits as a reasonable and constitutional approach
to deterring, not actual corruption, but the appearance of corruption.
This is what the Court said:

It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act's primary
purpose--to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption
resulting from large individual financial contributions--in
order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for
the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of private
financing of elections, a candidate lacking immense personal
or family wealth must depend on financial contributions from
others to provide the resources necessary to conduct a
successful campaign. To the extent that large contributions
are given to secure political quid pro quos from current and
potential office holders, the integrity of our position of
representative democracy is undermined.

And then the Supreme Court said this, ``Of almost equal concern''--
the Supreme Court is saying:

Of almost equal concern to actual quid pro quos 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. . . . Congress
could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the
appearance of improper influence is also critical . . . if
confidence in the system of representative government is not
to be eroded to a disastrous extent.

I want to repeat a few of those words:

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. . . .

And that, I believe, is what the American people are most deeply
concerned about. We, according to the Court, can correct it.
The Court went on to say:

. . . And while disclosure requirements serve many salutary
purposes, Congress was surely entitled to conclude that
disclosure was only a partial measure, and that contribution
ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal
with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a
system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even
when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of
their contributions are fully disclosed.

The Buckley Court repeatedly endorses the concept that the issue of
contributions without limits, alone, is enough to create the appearance
of corruption and to justify the imposition of limits. Selling access
in exchange for contributions would only take the Court's concerns and
justifications for limits a step further.
The Buckley Court also said:

Not only is it difficult to isolate suspect contributions
but, more importantly, Congress was justified in concluding
that the interest in safeguarding against the appearance of
impropriety requires that the opportunity for abuse inherent
in the process of raising large monetary contributions be
eliminated.

Add to the equation the actual sale of access for a large
contribution and you have an even greater ``opportunity for abuse'' and
the appearance of corruption.
Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. BENNETT. I will confess, this whole question of the appearance of
corruption bothers me a very great deal. I do not know that the
drafters of the first amendment talked about the appearance of free
speech or the appearance of a vigorous political debate. So I ask the
Senator this question.
Hypothetically, if the Senator from Michigan were to meet with the
head of the United Auto Workers on a Monday, in advance of casting a
vote on the union's position on the following Tuesday, and vote in
favor of the union's position within 24 hours of that meeting, and then
on the following Wednesday, within another 24 hours, the union made a
very large soft money contribution to the Democratic National
Committee--in the opinion of the Senator from Michigan, A, would that
be the appearance of corruption; and, B, would that be something he
would seek to ban in the name of appearance of corruption?
Mr. LEVIN. Does the question assume that I solicited the UAW for that
contribution? That was not clear in the question of the Senator.
Mr. BENNETT. Let us assume the Senator from Michigan did not solicit;
that the solicitation came from the Senator from New Jersey in his
position--changing it, therefore, from the Democratic National
Committee to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the
solicitation came from the Senator from New Jersey in his posture as
chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Mr. LEVIN. The fact I had a meeting with anybody within a day or a
week or an hour and voted as that person would have urged me to vote is
not the appearance of corruption, in my judgment.
Mr. BENNETT. Nor in mine. But the fact is, there is a chain of
events.
Mr. LEVIN. I believe in the view of the American people, and it is a
reasonable view which has been sustained by the Supreme Court: Inherent
in unlimited campaign contributions, inherent, is an appearance of
impropriety which undermines public confidence in our institutions. I
believe the same thing. More important, the American people believe the
same thing. The timing of it is not the issue. The issue is that the
solicitation of unlimited amounts, huge amounts of contributions, and
frequently or very often in exchange for access, is inherently
inappropriate in a democracy and creates public disrespect and a lack
of public support for our democratic institutions.
That is, No. 1, my own belief very deeply. I believe the American
people believe that very deeply. Most important, though, in addition to
what the American people believe, the Supreme Court has directly said
that inherent in unlimited contributions is an appearance of
impropriety. The Supreme Court has specifically said that in Buckley.
When you put on top of that these kind of sales of access for $50,000
and $100,000 to the President or Committee Chairmen around here, you
have, it seems to me, made it triply clear what the Supreme Court did
not even need to see or find. They did not even look at the access
issue. That was not even in Buckley. But it sure adds fuel to the fire,
and that fire is a fire which can burn the institutions of this
Government.

That is my judgment. Maybe a majority of us do not feel that way.
But, again, I challenge my good friend from Utah. I challenge him, take
home one of these invitations and try a town meeting; $100,000 for a
meeting with the President, $50,000 for a meeting with the Committee
Chairman of your choice. Give it a try at a town meeting. See what they
think about it.
I think I know what you will find. Maybe not; I don't represent Utah.
I think you will find they would tell my good friend from Utah that
this is wrong. This is wrong. Unlimited huge contributions, buying
access--which is frequently the case--is wrong. I happen to agree with
them.
(Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.)
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEVIN. I will yield for a question.
Mr. McCAIN. Was he aware on Friday Senator Kerrey of Nebraska came to
the floor and said:

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 don't 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 it may not be. And the people believe
the system is corrupt.

The Senator is aware of the statement of the Senator from Nebraska
yesterday, which I think is a very precise and informed opinion?
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Arizona.
Madam President, what these soft money contributions allow the
parties to do is many things, but more and more, pay for ads, TV ads,
which are claimed to be about issues but in reality are ads to help
candidates.
I want to look at two ads: A Republican ad and a Democratic ad. They
both have the same problem.
First, Bob Dole's ad. In this TV commercial, Mr. Dole said: ``We have
a moral obligation to give our children in America the opportunity and
values of the Nation that we grew up in.''

[[Page S12747]]

Then it talks a lot about Bob Dole and his very strong personal
qualities. Then it ended by Bob Dole saying, ``It all comes down to
values. What do you believe in? What do you sacrifice? And what do you
stand for?''
That ad was paid for with soft money contributed by the Republican
National Committee. It is viewed as permissible under current law
because that ad does not explicitly ask the viewer to vote for or
support Bob Dole. It spends its whole time talking positively about his
character.
If it added four words at the end, which said, ``Vote for Bob Dole,''
it would be treated as a candidate ad, not an issue ad, and would be
subject to hard money limits. Any reasonable person looking at that ad
at that particular time in the Presidential season would say: It's not
an ad about welfare or wasteful spending; it is an ad about why should
we elect that particular nominee.
Democrats avail themselves of the same loophole.
In the 1996 Presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee
ran ads on welfare and crime and the budget which were basically
designed to support President Clinton's reelection.
At our hearings on campaign finance reform, Harold Ickes was asked
about these DNC ads and to the extent to which people looking at the
ads would walk away with the message to vote for President Clinton. And
here is what Harold Ickes said. And my good friend from Utah, I think,
is nodding because I think he remembers this.
Harold Ickes was asked: Do you think people looking at these ads
would walk away from these ads with the message that they should vote
for President Clinton? His answer: ``I would certainly hope so. If not,
we ought to fire the ad agencies.''
Those kinds of ads are paid for with soft money--so-called--
unregulated, unlimited money. They are not supposed to be candidate
ads.
So we should not delude ourselves either about what the American
people believe this system is all about, and how it is run, and how it
sells access for huge contributions. They are not deluded, and we
should not be deluded about their feelings about this system. And we
should not be deluded about how this money is spent. We should not kid
ourselves.
People are arguing that unless we can get the entire original bill
which was introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold, we should simply
not accept half a loaf, which is what the revised version does. And my
answer to that simply is this: I would prefer the original McCain-
Feingold bill because I think it is important that we not kid ourselves
about issue ads, how they are funded, and what their purpose and intent
is. But the sponsors of the bill have indicated--and they are very
honest, smart people, with tremendous integrity--that we do not have a
chance of getting the original McCain-Feingold approach passed, that
our best chance of passing a bill with campaign finance reform in it is
to try to ban soft money, to close that loophole, to stop parties and
candidates from either soliciting, themselves or through their
employees, or through their agents, money which is not regulated by
law. And I accept that.
I think if that is the best we can get, if that is going to be the
most we can accomplish, that would be a significant accomplishment. It
is not my preference, but it would be a significant accomplishment.

I would only say this: To a nation that is hungry for reform, a half
a loaf is better than no loaf. I hope that, at a minimum, we will be
able to achieve that success this year.
The only way we will do it, I believe, is that when people --if they
do--filibuster against this approach, against the ban on soft money,
that those of us who support this reform not withdraw from the field.
The civil rights days proved that the only way to get these very
difficult reforms achieved is by telling the filibusterers: You have a
right to filibuster. That is your right, and we'll protect it. But we
don't have to withdraw because you are filibustering. With voting
rights, it took four cloture votes and about 6 weeks before cloture was
able to be invoked and voting rights passed.
I would hope we would act with the same kind of determination as they
did in those days and the same kind of passion as the opponents have
against this reform.
Finally, I want to close with a tribute to Senators McCain and
Feingold. I know of no two people in this body who have taken an issue
as they have and tried as long and as hard as they have to bring this
to the fore, to bring this to national attention. They are entitled to
the thanks of the Nation for what they are doing.
I want to end my remarks with a personal thank you to our two good
colleagues for the fight that they are waging on this reform. It cannot
happen without them, without their integrity, without their
determination. And they have shown it in the past. I am personally very
much in their debt. Much more important, the Nation will always be in
their debt for the fight they have waged and are waging and will wage
for campaign finance reform.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator be willing to include me in the statement
just made regarding Senators Feingold and McCain?
Mr. LEVIN. Include you in which way? Someone joining me in
congratulating and thanking them, or including you as one of the
reformers? I am happy to do either one.
Mr. REID. Including me in underlining and underscoring your support
for these two men who have done so much to focus attention on this very
badly needed reform.
Mr. LEVIN. I do.
Mr. REID. I just completed a campaign where, in the small State of
Nevada, with less than 2 million people, we don't know how much was
spent, probably about $23 million on the two candidates.
So I certainly, as I had tried to do earlier, direct my attention to
the good work they have done. But you said it in a way that I think was
graphic. And I want to join your support, if you will allow me.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Nevada, and I think everybody
who is supporting this cause thanks him for his support of this effort,
as well.
So, Mr. President, this kind of candidate advertising, which should
clearly be subject to contribution limits, escapes those limits through
the soft money loophole. And it's that soft money loophole that the two
amendments before us would close.
Now some of my colleagues argue that if we only close the soft money
loophole to political parties, the money we cut off to the parties will
be redirected to special interest groups. Well if the Daschle amendment
could pass, I would prefer it and I've supported similar proposals for
years, because it not only stops the soft money loophole to parties, it
stops the use of sham or phony issue ads by third party organizations.
But I also say if all we can do is stop soft money to the parties and
that money then goes to outside groups, so be it. Candidates and public
officials running for reelection won't be raising it, the parties won't
be raising it, and the contributors won't be buying access to us with
it. This bill would preclude a candidate or office holder from
soliciting soft money for private organizations running issue ads.
Under this legislation, I couldn't go and solicit money for an outside
group to use for issue ads in some campaign. This bill would bar that.
Will contributors of these large sums want to buy access to the Sierra
Club or the National Rifle Association? Perhaps. If so, let them do it.
Will they be able to buy access to us through these unlimited
contributions to third parties? No. If that were to occur, then it
would be in direct violation of the law. Under this soft money ban,
public officials and candidates will be out of the soft money
fundraising loop, and that's the important step we'll be taking with
this legislation.
To a nation hungry for reform, a half of loaf is better than no loaf.
Mr. President, we've been here before--trying to pass campaign
finance reform, trying to stop the explosion of soft money. The
question is--will it be different this time? 70% of the American people
want campaign finance reform. 70% of the American people want us to
clean up our act. We're the only ones who can do it.

[[Page S12748]]

The soft money loophole exists because we in Congress allow it.
It is time to stop pointing fingers at others and take responsibility
for our share of the blame. Congress alone writes the laws. Congress
alone can shut down the loopholes and reinvigorate the federal election
laws.
Mr. President, the Reid amendment closes the biggest loophole in our
campaign financing system and it restores that system to what Congress
intended in the 1970's--that there should be reasonable limits to what
a person can contribute to a candidate, a PAC or a party and that
unions and corporations should not be allowed to contribute to either
parties or candidates. It's that simple. We had that system in the
1970's; it operated pretty well for many years; soft money has torn
apart that system, and the Reid amendment puts it back together.
The public is appalled at these huge contributions which buy access
to candidates and office holders and fund television ads which are for
all intents and purposes about candidates. As the Supreme Court said in
Buckley, the appearance of corruption is ``inherent in a system
permitting unlimited financial contributions.'' And permitting the
appearance of corruption undermines the very foundation of our
democracy--the trust of the people in the system. We have the right to
protect our democratic institutions from being undermined by the open
sale of access for large contributions which people believe reasonably
translates into influence. And the greater the purchase price, the
greater the perception that access yields influence.
Mr. President, we can't afford to give Mr. Tamaraz a next time. We've
got to stop this practice of selling access now. And the amendment
before us is the way to do it. It is time to enact campaign finance
reform. That is our legislative responsibility. Otherwise we will be
haunted by the words of Roger Tamraz that in the next election he will
give $600,000.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, this legislation before us today has
presented me a dilemma, and that dilemma is that I have been publicly
in favor of banning soft money. At the same time, I understand, in my
State particularly, our labor unions would not be impacted by this
legislation, and for all intents and purposes, they are the Democratic
Party in terms of things a party would do traditionally.
I also recognize the fact that we need to raise money for our own
campaigns and we need to also support our parties so they can do the
job a party should be doing in our respective States and nationally. I
recall during my campaign for the Senate, I raised my money the hard
way, hard dollars. But I kept worrying, toward the end of the campaign,
whether or not soft money would appear from somewhere and whether or
not I would be able to counteract that soft money coming into our
State. In my particular case, it didn't. I suspect maybe it didn't
because they thought I was going to win.
The fact is, I thought about this last weekend. I had intended to
come here today and present an amendment that I think would improve the
McCain-Feingold piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I understand no
amendments are going to be accepted. I was going to ask that the
Daschle amendment be laid aside, but I understand such requests have
been objected to.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I was going to send to the
desk be printed in the Record and I be given a few minutes to explain
what the amendment would have accomplished.
There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. __. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

(a) Contribution Limit for Candidates and Political
Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,000'' and
inserting ``$3,000''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$20,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000''.
(b) Aggregate Individual Limit.--Section 315(a)(3) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)),
as amended by section 3(b), is amended by striking the first
sentence and inserting the following: ``An individual shall
not make contributions described in subparagraphs (A) and (C)
of paragraph (1) in an aggregate amount in excess of $25,000
during any calendar year.''.
(c) Index of Certain Amounts.--Section 315(c) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection (b) and
subsection (d)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (3) of
subsection (a) and subsections (b) and (d)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar
year 1974.'' and inserting ``means--
``(A) in the case of subsections (b) and (d), calendar year
1974; and
``(B) in the case of subsection (a), calendar year 1999.''.

SEC. __. WORKERS' POLITICAL RIGHTS.

Section 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the following:
``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written,
voluntary authorization of a stockholder, employee, member,
or nonmember, it shall be unlawful--
``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in
this section to collect from or assess such stockholder or
employee any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a
condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or
payment will be used for political activities in which the
national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged;
and
``(B) for any labor organization described in this section
to collect from or assess such member or nonmember any dues,
initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues,
fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall
remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any
time.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political
activities' includes communications or other activities which
involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence
legislation, or participating or intervening in any political
campaign or political party.''.

Mr. VOINOVICH. My amendment would have leveled the playing field by
empowering average Americans over special interests in their ability to
participate in the electoral process. I believe the bill before us
doesn't do that. I think it further tilts the balance toward a handful
of powerful individuals, individuals who have the ability to determine
how to spend the dues of some 16 million hard-working men and women. I
am quite surprised we haven't heard more about that.
The good thing about this bill is that it will end the enormous
corporate donations to political parties, donations that reach into six
figures. I was glad the Senator from Michigan made a point of the fact
that soft money from corporations does not go only to the Republican
Party but goes to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
Editorially, I suggest the invitations to join the Democratic National
Committee or the Republican Committee, in terms of belonging to the
club, regardless of what happens to McCain-Feingold, ought to be
something to which all of us stand up and object.
I recall, being Governor of Ohio, I never had a fundraiser in the
Governor's residence. I tried not to use my office to take money out of
the pockets of people who were encouraged to contribute either to my
campaign, someone else's campaign, or to the Republican Party. I hope
after this is over, all of us will indicate to our parties that the
days of the clubs and the rest of it should be over so that people such
as Senator Levin can't get up and show the ways people are being asked
to contribute. I think that is horrible. It sends a bad message to the
American people. It certainly adds to the cynicism and is one of the
reasons we have fewer people show up on election day.
Unfortunately, a soft money ban without other reforms has the
potential to severely impact the ability of our parties to continue
their worthwhile activities, including grassroots mobilization and
party building. Banning party soft money is an objective I support.
However, I am concerned about the devastating impact it could have on
the ability of our national parties to cover operating expenses and
grassroots activities.
Current contribution limits must be updated. Under current law, an
individual can give up to $25,000 per year total in campaign
contributions, with a sublimit of $20,000 of that amount to the
parties. If we ban soft money contributions to the parties without
adjusting total contribution limits, the parties will have to compete
with their own candidates for a limited supply of money.
My amendment would fix the problem. It would eliminate soft money and

[[Page S12749]]

would create two separate aggregate limits for yearly hard dollar
contributions--I am talking about hard dollar individual
contributions--a $25,000 limit to candidates and a $25,000 limit to
parties. These limits would be indexed to inflation, so once they went
into effect, they would go up each year.
In addition to creating new aggregate limits, my amendment would
adjust individual campaign contribution limits. As my colleagues know,
our current campaign contribution limits are not indexed to inflation;
they have remained the same since the law was enacted 25 years ago.
Under current law, an individual cannot give more than $1,000 to the
general election campaign of a particular Federal candidate in a given
year. If this limit had been indexed to inflation, it would be
approximately $3,000 today.
Adjusting the individual contribution limits is important for three
reasons. That is what my amendment would have done. It would have
increased it from $1,000 to $3,000, and then it would have indexed it
up each year.
First of all, it would reduce the amount of time candidates spend
raising money. The people in this country should know about the hours
and hours candidates running for national office and local office spend
dialing for dollars. I have already started to raise money for my next
campaign for the Senate because I know if I don't spread it out over a
long period of time, I will be unable, during my last 2 years in this
body, to do the job the people of the State of Ohio have asked me to
do. We need to increase that campaign contribution limit.
Second, it would level the playing field for candidates competing
against wealthy opponents who are bankrolling their own campaigns. With
all due respect to many Members of this body, if we keep going the way
we are, people such as George Voinovich will not be able to be in the
Senate because we are seeing more and more campaigns bankrolled by
individuals who can win primaries and, once the primary is over, they
can put their own money into the campaign. Money does have an impact on
the results of an election.
Third, it also would relieve the pressure for groups to seek out
loopholes to circumvent the campaign finance laws. In fact, many
experts believe the reason we have the increase in sham issue ads in
the past few years is the tightening of the amount individuals can give
in hard dollars. My amendment would address these concerns by
increasing the individual campaign contribution limit from $1,000 to
$3,000 per election and then adjust it, as I say, each year.
Lastly, one of the greatest areas of abuse in the current campaign
finance system is the involuntary use of membership dues by union
leaders for political purposes. In addition to making soft money
contributions to parties and engaging in issue advocacy, labor leaders
also spend millions of unauthorized dollars each election cycle in
order to explicitly advocate for labor's preferred candidates among its
rank and file, a rank and file which is over 16 million. That doesn't
include the millions more that are in their families.
These express advocacy activities include phone banks, get-out-the-
vote drives, newsletters, and scorecards. In my State, the Democratic
Party does not do it; it is the labor unions that do it. No one, not
even union members, is exactly sure how much union leaders spend for
these campaign activities because this money is unregulated and thus
soft. It is all soft money.
Under McCain-Feingold, party soft money would be prohibited, just as
it should be. However, McCain-Feingold would allow this key form of
union money to remain entirely unchecked. I just can't understand why
those who are promoting McCain-Feingold haven't been willing to take on
this particular issue that seems to be put over on the side as not
being something that is very important. It is really important to many
of us around this country, particularly individuals such as myself who
have been the victim of that soft money effort.
Union leaders would be allowed to continue spending millions of
dollars of membership dues to support the candidates of their choice
and to influence elections, thereby tilting the playing field in favor
of union-backed candidates.
We have heard this over and over again today. According to AFL-CIO
president John Sweeney, some $46 million in union funds is going to be
used to influence this coming election. In the 1996 cycle alone, $30
million was spent. This $46 million is a 53-percent increase in
spending from just a few years ago. Think of it, a 53-percent increase
in the use of union dues for political purposes.
McCain-Feingold would not regulate any of that incredible amount of
money--$46 million. That is just for the Federal candidates. It doesn't
talk about the money that is going to be used at the State and local
level.
I believe an effective and constitutional way to address this issue
is by requiring union leaders to get written authorization from each of
their members before they use any portion of their dues for political
activities.
I heard earlier about the codification of the Beck decision. While
the Beck codification contained in McCain-Feingold bill is a step in
the right direction, it would only protect a very small group of
people: dues-paying, nonmembers in non-right-to-work States. However,
no one should be compelled to give campaign contributions without
explicit approval.
I do not come from a right-to-work State. I have people in my State
who, in order to get a job, must join the union. Many of those
individuals complain to me that they have no control over how their
union dollars are being spent. I think those individuals, those hard-
working men and women, ought to have the opportunity to say whether or
not they want their union dues to be used for political purposes. I
can't help but believe that, if they did that, it would not be the
great problem some think it would be. But it would cause the unions to
go out and really get their people involved and let them make their own
decision as to whether or not they want their dues to be used for
political purposes.
My amendment would give them the right to know where their hard-
earned dollars are being spent. Unfortunately, I have been denied the
opportunity to offer that amendment.
The proponents of this bill have utilized parliamentary tactics
designed to tie up the Senate without any meaningful discussion of some
of these alternatives. That is their right. However, if we don't have a
full discussion of this bill--with the ability to amend and make the
bill stronger--the proponents of this legislation should not expect
Senators to support its passage.
We can debate this bill, amend this bill, and pass this bill in the
hope we can get some real change in our current campaign finance
system. Unfortunately, it appears that some of my colleagues--and we
see this a lot in this body--are interested in scoring political
points. This is a problem, and I respect those who have tried to do
something about it. But, from my perspective, if we don't allow working
men and women who belong to labor unions, the opportunity to decide how
their union dollars should be spent, this bill is flawed to the extent
that I would vote against it.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. MACK. Madam President, as Congress considers various plans to
overhaul the current campaign finance system, I think everyone can
agree on one fact: the status quo is indefensible. The system needs to
change in order to restore the American people's faith in their
government.
The imbalances which exist in our election laws today were created by
the Federal Election Campaign Act in the name of equality. They
resulted in unfair advantages which are institutionalized in the name
of fairness, protecting some forms of political speech while
criminalizing others. Enacting more laws along the same lines will only
lead us further down the path of destruction. Freedom matters. Freedom
works. Free speech works. Free participation works. The current system
does not. If we want real reform, we will scrap this bill, repeal
current law, and start over.
Campaign finance reformers think the solution is new regulations and
methods that I believe work only to preclude participation in politics.
They believe that new laws, more restrictions, and additional
bureaucracy are the answer. This position is based upon the assumption
that current laws are working and they just need a few modifications to
make them better. I

[[Page S12750]]

strongly disagree. Freedom of expression is an end in itself and can
not be subordinated to any other goals of society. Information is the
backbone to freedom, ignorance is the backbone to oppression.
Reformers tolerate these inequalities because they believe they will
result in lower-cost elections, less influence in the process by
special interests, and will make the electoral system more accessible
to challengers. Even if these goals could be achieved in this way, the
trampling of the First Amendment in the process is unacceptable.
The fact is, current laws do not work. Let's admit that. We wouldn't
be debating this issue if they did. They were passed in haste, as a
knee-jerk reaction to the Watergate era, and while they were enacted
with good intentions, their result has been a disaster. We should
recognize that a mistake was made when the Federal Election Campaign
Act was enacted, and no modifications to this law will improve the
system.
Campaign finance laws restricting free speech should be repealed, and
the absolute freedom to engage in the political process should be
promoted and defended. The American people should know that their
participation is encouraged, respected, and welcome. If that
participation includes fully disclosed contributions to candidates and
parties, so be it. Disclosure is the key factor here. Let's give the
American people some credit. They are smart enough to judge for
themselves where conflicts of interest lie. They do not need the
bureaucracy of the Federal Elections Commission to police their speech
and thwart their involvement. The only job of the FEC should be the
posting and reporting of all contributions in a timely manner so that
the American people can judge for themselves. Current law is an insult
to the intelligence of the American people.
Soft money is perceived as a loophole in current law. Banning soft
money is only one more step toward the elimination of free speech in
elections. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is not a
loophole. It is a fundamental freedom that protects, among other
things, political speech. Again, let Americans decide whether and to
what extent they want to participate.

We should be protecting freedom of speech over everything else. We
should not enact legislation to preclude the public from voicing their
opinions on the work we do here. We may not like what is said about us,
but we can all agree that people have a right to speak their mind,
especially their political mind.
This bill also recognizes that current law does not protect working
Americans' ability to decide which causes they will support. While this
bill codifies the Beck decision which enables non-union workers to
request a refund for the portion of their union fees used for political
causes. If it does not address the concerns of union members who are
forced to participate in political causes without their consent.
No American should be faced with the direct or indirect threat of
losing their job because of their political beliefs. No one should be
forced to participate in advocating for a cause or causes they find
repugnant. The rights of individuals to be free certainly extends to
their political beliefs and the way in which they choose to participate
or not to participate. No forced participation under any guise should
be tolerated or encouraged. Let individuals make choices for
themselves. That is the most fundamental freedom in a democracy.
A vibrant democracy depends on the ability of all voices to be heard,
and how loudly one may wish to speak should be limited only by that
individual, not by government. If an individual can and is willing to
expend over $1,000 in support of a candidate, they should be able to do
so. If they wish to express their support with their time or in any
other fashion, then this, too, should be applauded and encouraged. And
if individuals wish to ignore the political process altogether, then
this, too, is a right to be defended. To tinker with this fundamental
right gives power to some at the expense of others.
Finally, I would submit, that we need to re-examine our attitude
toward money in the electoral process, and I would propose that
spending money to communicate one's message is not the root of all evil
in politics. Candidates for public office have the important task of
getting their message out to the voters. In statewide races across the
country, candidates must spend substantial amounts of money for print
and electronic media, since it is the best current method of reaching
the maximum audience.
Take a moment and think about the power of the media today--
television, newspapers and radio frame the debates of important issues.
A candidate must be able to raise enough money to get his or her
message out to the public.
When I was campaigning for my Senate seat back in 1988, I faced
enormous opposition from the newspapers. Newspapers have vast resources
to openly campaign for a candidate. Had I not had the freedom and
ability to counter their message, I would not be a Senator today.
True reform will not strip candidates, parties, or individuals of
their ability to counter the messages in the media. True reform should
recognize the imbalance current law has created, and would seek to
level the playing field between candidates and the media. Remember, the
First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but it also protects the
freedom of individuals to speak loud and clear.
Madam President, I believe in the First Amendment. Protecting that
right must be our primary goal.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is unfortunate that the procedural
structure that has been erected stands in the way of moving forward on
significant and thoughtful reform to our campaign finance laws. I would
like to have the opportunity to debate and vote on some of those
reforms, particularly the measure offered by Senator Hagel, but we are
precluded from doing so. Today, I want to speak about campaign finance
reform legislation I introduced earlier this year and about an
amendment I am prepared to offer.
This past May I introduced the Constitution and Effective Reform of
Campaigns Act of CERCA, which I first introduced during the 105th
Congress. This legislation is the product of 2 years of hearings during
my chairmanship of the Rules Committee, discussions with numerous
experts, party officials, and candidates, and nearly two decades of
participating in campaigns and campaign finances debates in the Senate.
I view my legislation as an opportunity for bipartisan support. It is
a good faith effort to strike middle ground between those who believe
public financing of campaigns is the solution, and those who believe
the solution is to remove current regulations. If offers a package of
proposals which realistically can be achieved with bipartisan support
and meet the desire of the majority of Americans who believe that our
present system can be reformed. In my judgment, we will not succeed
with any measure of campaign reform in this complicated field without a
bipartisan consensus.
In drafting this legislation, I began with four premises. First, all
provisions had to be consistent with the first amendment: Congress
would be acting in bad faith to adopt provisions which have a
likelihood of being struck down by the Federal courts.
Second, I oppose public financing and mandating ``free'' or reduced-
cost media time which in my mind is neither free nor a good policy
idea. Why should seekers of Federal office get free time, while
candidates for State office or local office--from governors to local
sheriffs--do not receive comparable free benefits? Such an inquity and
imbalance will breed friction between Federal and State office seekers.
Third, I believe we should try to increase the role of citizens and
the political parties.
Fourth, any framwork of campaign reform legislation must respect and
protect the constitutional right of individuals, groups, and
organization to participate in advocacy concerning political issues.
The McCain-Feingold bill has been debated thoroughly in the Senate,
and any objective observer of the Senate would agree that we are
genuinely deadlocked. This body needs to move beyond the debate of
McCain-Fiengold. I hope that all Members will review my bill as an
objective and pragmatic approach to current problems with our campaign
system. I commend other Members for coming forward, as I have,

[[Page S12751]]

with proposals which objectively represent pragmatic approaches to what
can be achieved.
Several of the issues addressed in my legislation have been raised by
other Members in the context of this debate. Amendments have been
proposed on foreign soft money, increasing the hard dollar contribution
limits, and disclosure of last-minute expenditures, among others.
My focus today is how can we expand participation in the political
process--both by voters and by potential candidates. I hope that any
reform carries with it the opportunity for more small contributors to
participate in the political process. And, I hope that reform will
bring more candidates into the arena.
To this end, I want to focus on two reforms contained in my original
legislation. First, we need to ensure that the average voter can, and
will, contribute to the candidate of their choice. The influence of
voters on campaigns has been diminished by the activities of political
action committees and interest groups. Therefore, I propose a $100 tax
credit for contributions made by citizens, with incomes under specified
levels, to Senate and House candidates in their states. This credit
should spark an influx of small dollar contributions to balance the
greater ability of citizens with higher incomes to participate. In
addition, the increased individual contribution limit, as proposed by
others, should balance the activities of political action committees.
Second, we need to remove barriers to challengers. Compared to
incumbents, challengers face greater difficulties raising funds and
communicating with voters, particularly at the outset of a campaign. My
solution is to allow candidates to receive ``seed money'' contributions
of up to $10,000 from individuals and political action committees.
This provision should help get candidacies off the ground. The total
amount of these ``seed money'' contributions could not exceed $100,000
for House candidates or $300,000 for Senate candidates. To meet the
constitutional test, this provision would apply to both challengers and
incumbents alike, but in the case of an incumbent with money carried
over from a prior cycle, those funds would count against the seed money
limit. In addition, Senate incumbents would be barred from using the
franking privilege to send out mass mailings during the election year,
rather than the 60-day ban in current law.
But elective office should not be for sale. Campaigns should be
competitive. Candidates with personal wealth have a distinct advantage
through their constitutional right to spend their own funds. Therefore,
if a candidate spends more than $25,000 of his or her own money, the
individual contribution limits would be raised to $10,000 so that
candidates could raise money to counter that personal spending. Again,
to meet constitutional review, this provision would apply to all
candidates.
Mr. President, if we can do these two things--enhance citizen
involvement, and level the playing field for condidates--we will have
made significant progress. Again, I hope the Senate will have the
opportunity to address these issues. I was prepared to offer my
amendment and I hope I will have the opportunity to do so.
These are the problems which I believe can be solved in a bipartisan
fashion. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact
meaningful campaign reform, by looking at creative solutions to address
the real problems with our present campaign system.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill summary and the
text of my amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Amendment No. --

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. __. ENCOURAGING SMALL CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL
CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES.

(a) General Rule.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25A the following:

``SEC. 25B. IN-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL
CANDIDATES.

``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the aggregate
amount of contributions made during the taxable year by the
individual to any local congressional candidate.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed $100 ($200 in the case
of a joint return).
``(2) Adjusted gross income.--No credit shall be allowed
under subsection (a) for a taxable year if the taxpayer's
modified adjusted gross income (as defined in section
25A(d)(3)) exceeds $60,000 ($120,000 in the case of a joint
return).
``(3) Verification.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
shall be allowed with respect to any contribution only if the
contribution is verified in such manner as the Secretary
shall prescribe by regulation.
``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Candidate.--The term `candidate' has the meaning
given the term in section 301 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).
``(2) Contribution.--The term `contribution' has the
meaning given the term in section 301 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).
``(3) Local congressional candidate.--The term `local
congressional candidate' means a candidate in a primary,
general, runoff, or special election seeking nomination for
election to, or election to, the Senate or the House of
Representatives for the State in which the principal
residence of the taxpayer is located.
``(4) Principal residence.--The term `principal residence'
has the same meaning as when used in section 121.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 642 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to special rules for credits and deductions of
estates or trusts) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Credit for Certain Contributions Not Allowed.--An
estate or trust shall not be allowed the credit against tax
provided by section 25B.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 25A the
following new item:

``Sec. 25B. In-State contributions to congressional candidates.''.

SEC. __. SEED MONEY TO ENCOURAGE NEW CANDIDATES AND
COMPETITIVE CAMPAIGNS.

(a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``No person'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (i), no
person'';
(2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``No multicandidate''
and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (i), no
multicandidate''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Modification of Limits.--
``(1) Seed money.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a candidate for
nomination for election to, or election to, the Senate or
House of Representatives, the limits under paragraphs (1)(A)
and (2)(A) of subsection (a) for any calendar year shall be
an amount equal to 4 times such limit, determined without
regard to this section, until such time as the aggregate
amount of contributions accepted by a candidate during an
election cycle exceeds the applicable limit for a candidate.
``(B) Candidate's applicable limit.--The applicable limit
under subparagraph (A) with respect to a candidate shall be--
``(i) an amount equal to--

``(I) in the case of a candidate for the Senate, $300,000;
and
``(II) in the case of a candidate for the House of
Representatives, $100,000,

reduced (but not below zero) by
``(ii) the aggregate amount determined under subsection
(j)(1) that the candidate and the candidate's authorized
committees have available to transfer from a previous
election cycle to the current election cycle.
``(C) Time to accept contributions under modified limit.--A
candidate and the candidate's authorized committees shall not
accept a contribution under the modified limits of this
subsection until the candidate has received notification of
the aggregate amount under subsection (j)(2).''.
(b) Determination of Contributions Transferred From
Previous Election Cycle.--Section 315 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) (as amended by
subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Determination of Contributions Transferred From
Previous Election Cycles.--
``(1) Determination.--For purposes of subsection (i)--
``(A) in the case of an individual elected to the Senate or
the House of Representatives, after the receipt of the
individual's post-general election report under section
304(a)(2)(A)(ii) for the election cycle in which the
individual was elected, the Commission shall determine the
aggregate amount of contributions that is available to be
transferred from 1 or more previous election cycles to the
current election cycle of the candidate (regardless of
whether the amount has been so transferred); and

[[Page S12752]]

``(B) in the case of any other individual, the aggregate
amount of contributions available shall be zero.
``(2) Notification.--The Commission shall notify each
candidate of the amount determined under paragraph (1) with
respect to the candidate.
``(3) Adjustment.--On receipt of notification under
paragraph (2), the limits under paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B)
of subsection (i) shall be adjusted accordingly with respect
to the candidate.''.

SEC. __. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN RESPONSE TO
EXPENDITURES FROM PERSONAL FUNDS.

(a) Modification of Contribution Limits in Response to
Expenditures From Personal Funds.--Section 315(i) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) (as
added by section __) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(2) Increase in limit to allow response to expenditures
from personal funds.--
``(A) In general.--The applicable limit under paragraph (1)
for a particular election shall be increased by the personal
funds amount.
``(B) Personal funds amount.--The personal funds amount is
an amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the greatest aggregate amount of expenditures from
personal funds (as defined in section 304(a)(6)(B)) in excess
of $25,000 that an opposing candidate in the same election
makes; over
``(ii) the aggregate amount of expenditures from personal
funds made by the candidate in the election.''.
(b) Notification of Expenditures From Personal Funds.--
Section 304(a)(6) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (D);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Notification of expenditure from personal funds.--
``(i) Definition of expenditure from personal funds.--In
this subparagraph, the term `expenditure from personal funds'
means--
``(I) an expenditure made by a candidate using personal
funds; and
``(II) a contribution made by a candidate using personal
funds to the candidate's authorized committee.
``(ii) Initial notification.--Not later than 24 hours after
a candidate seeking nomination for election to, or election
to, the Senate or the House of Representatives makes or
obligates to make an aggregate amount of expenditures from
personal funds in excess of $25,000 in connection with any
election, the candidate shall file a notification stating the
amount of the expenditure with--
``(I) the Commission; and
``(II) each candidate in the same election.
``(iii) Additional notification.--After a candidate files
an initial notification under clause (ii), the candidate
shall file an additional notification each time expenditures
from personal funds are made or obligated to be made in an
aggregate amount of $5,000 with--
``(I) the Commission; and
``(II) each candidate in the same election.
``(iv) Contents.--A notification under clause (ii) or (iii)
shall include--
``(I) the name of the candidate and the office sought by
the candidate;
``(II) the date and amount of each expenditure; and
``(III) the total amount of expenditures from personal
funds that the candidate has made, or obligated to make, with
respect to an election as of the date of the expenditure that
is the subject of the notification.''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(20) Election Cycle.--The term `election cycle' means the
period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent
general election for the specific office or seat that a
candidate is seeking and ending on the date of the next
general election for that office or seat.
``(21) Personal Funds.--The term `personal funds' means an
amount that is derived from--
``(A) any asset that, under applicable State law, at the
time the individual became a candidate, the candidate had
legal right of access to or control over, and with respect to
which the candidate had--
``(i) legal and rightful title; or
``(ii) an equitable interest;
``(B) income received during the current election cycle of
the candidate, including--
``(i) a salary and other earned income from bona fide
employment;
``(ii) dividends and proceeds from the sale of the
candidate's stocks or other investments;
``(iii) bequests to the candidate;
``(iv) income from trusts established before the beginning
of the election cycle;
``(v) income from trusts established by bequest after the
beginning of the election cycle of which the candidate is the
beneficiary;
``(vi) gifts of a personal nature that had been customarily
received by the candidate prior to beginning of the election
cycle; and
``(vii) proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of
chance; and
``(C) a portion of assets that are jointly owned by the
candidate and the candidate's spouse equal to the candidate's
share of the asset under the instrument of conveyance or
ownership but if no specific share is indicated by an
instrument of conveyance or ownership, the value of \1/2\ of
the property.''.

SEC. __. LIMIT ON SENATE USE OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE.

Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``Congress may not'' and inserting ``the House of
Representatives may not''; and
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``60 days (or, in the case
of a Member of the House, fewer than 90 days)'' and inserting
``90 days''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C)(i) A Member of the Senate shall not mail any mass
mailing as franked mail during a year in which there will be
an election for the seat held by the Member during the period
between January 1 of that year and the date of the general
election for that office, unless the Member has made a public
announcement that the Member will not be a candidate for
reelection to that office in that year.
``(ii) A Member of the Senate shall not mail any mass
mailing as franked mail if the mass mailing is postmarked
fewer than 60 days before the date of any primary election or
general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) for
any national, State, or local office in which the Member is a
candidate for election.''.
____

S. 1107--Constitutional and Effective Reform of Campaigns Act of 1999

title i--enhancement of citizen involvement

Section 101: Prohibits those ineligible to vote (non-
citizens, minors, felons) from making contributions (``hard
money'') or donations (``soft money''). Also bans foreign
aliens making independent expenditures and codifies FEC
regulations on foreign control of domestic donations.
Section 102: Updates maximum individual contribution limit
to $2000 per election (primary and general) and indexes both
individual and PAC limits in the future.
Section 103: Provides a tax credit up to $100 for
contributions to in-state candidates for Senate and House for
incomes up to $60,000 ($200 for joint filers up to $120,000).

title ii--leveling the playing field for candidates

Section 201: Seed money provision: Senate candidates may
collect $300,000 and House candidates $100,000 (minus any
funds carried over from a prior cycle) in contributions up to
$10,000 from individuals and PAC's.
Section 202: ``Anti-millionaires'' provision: when one
candidate spends over $25,000 of personal funds, a candidate
may accept contributions up to $10,000 from individuals and
PAC's up to the amount of personal spending minus a
candidate's funds carried over from a prior cycle and own use
of personal funds.
Section 203: Bans use of Senate frank for mass mailings
from January 1 to election day for incumbents seeking
reelection.

title iii--voluntariness of political contributions

Section 301: Union dues provision: Labor organizations must
obtain prior, written authorization for portion of dues or
fees not to be used for representation: Establishes civil
action for aggrieved employee. Requires employers to post
notice of rights. Amends reporting statute to require better
disclosure of expenses unrelated to representation.
Section 302: Corporations must disclose soft money
donations in annual reports.

title iv--elimination of campaign excesses

Section 410: Adds soft money donations to present ban on
fundraising on federal property and to other criminal
statutes.
Section 402: Hard money contributions or soft money
donations over $500 which a political committee intends to
return because of illegality must be transferred to the FEC
and may be given to the Treasury as part of a civil or
criminal action.
Section 403: ``Soft'' and ``hard'' money provisions. Soft
money cap: no national party, congressional committee or
senatorial committee shall accept donations from any source
exceeding $100,000 per year. Hard money increases: limit
raised from $25,000 to $50,000 per individual per year with
no sub-limit to party committees.
Section 404: FEC regulations banning conversion of campaign
funds to personal use.

title v--enhanced disclosure

Section 501: Additional reporting requirements for
candidates: weekly reports for last month of general
election, 24-hour disclosure of large contributions extended
to 90 days before election, and end of ``best efforts''
waiver for failure to obtain occupation of contributors over
$200.
Section 502: FEC shall make reports filed available on the
Internet.
Section 503: 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures
over $1,000 in last 20 days before election, and of those
over $10,000 made anytime.
Section 504: Registered lobbyists shall include their own
contributions and soft money donations and those of their
employers and the employers' coordinated PAC's on lobbyist
disclosure forms.

title vi--federal election commission reform

Section 601: FEC shall develop and provide, at no cost,
software to file reports, and shall issue regulations
mandating electronic filing and allowing for filing by fax.

[[Page S12753]]

Section 602: Limits commissioners to one term of eight
years.
Section 603: Increases penalties for knowing and willful
violations to greater of $15,000 or 300 percent of the
contribution or expenditure.
Section 604: Requires that FEC create a schedule of
penalties for minor reporting violations.
Section 605: Establishes availability of oral arguments at
FEC when requested and two commissioners agree. Also requires
that FEC create index of Commission actions.
Section 606: Changes reporting cycle for committees to
election cycle rather than calendar year.
Section 607: Classifies FEC general counsel and executive
director as presidential appointments requiring Senate
confirmation.

title vii--improvements to national voter registration act

Section 701: Repeals requirement that states allow
registration by mail.
Section 702: Requires that registrants for federal
elections provide social security number and proof of
citizenship.
Section 703: Provides states the option of removing
registrants from eligible list of federal voters who have not
voted in two federal elections and did not respond to
postcard.
Section 704: Allows states to require photo ID at the
polls.
Section 705: Repeals requirement that states allow people
to change their registration at the polls and still vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today in support of meaningful
campaign finance reform. It is high time that this Congress act to
improve our political process and to restore faith in our democracy. In
fact, it is past time.
When I was elected by the people of my State in 1992, one of the key
things they asked me to do was to help fix our campaign finance system.
I have been part of the reform effort since I walked through these
doors.
Well, here it is, 7 years later. And it's the same old story.
Campaigns still cost too much money. And too often, the power of ideas
is pushed aside by the power of money. That is not the way our system
should work. We need to do all we can to show the American people that
their voices count--and to provide that their voices will be heard over
the roar of special interest money.
Overall, I do think we have made some positive changes in the way the
Capitol operates since my election. I do think we have addressed some
of the issues families care about. But our campaign finance system
still undermines our best efforts--draining public interest in our
political process and sapping the energy from American voters in ways
that will affect our democracy for years to come.
The opponents say the public doesn't care about campaign finance
reform. But, in fact, the role of money in our elections and the rise
of special interest influence have a profound--and very negative--
effect on public perception of politics. Many people believe that
Members of Congress are controlled by special interests and wealthy
donors--and are no longer listening to their concerns. It keeps them
from voting and from participating in the decisions that affect their
lives.
We are here to represent the people of our States. As a
representative of working Americans, I have felt from the beginning
that it is my duty to ensure their voices and concerns are heard loudly
and clearly in the political process. If my constituents believe they
aren't being heard and that is partially due to the influence of
special interests, then I must do something about it. This legislation
is an opportunity to act.
I think this legislation could go further, for example, in the way it
treats types of advocacy. Express advocacy is designed to get the
public to vote for or against a specific candidate. For that reason,
express advocacy is regulated. There is another type of advocacy that
is not regulated. It's called ``issue advocacy.'' Issue advocacy
campaigns were intended to allow groups and individuals to communicate
their support or opposition to particular policy issues. Unfortunately,
these activities have become organized campaigns run by partisan groups
to influence the election or defeat of a particular candidate. At a
minimum, the public has a right to know who is funding these so-called
``independent expenditures'' by requiring the producers of these
campaigns to disclose their contributors. A earlier version of this
bill would have made issue advocacy subject to similar restrictions as
express advocacy. That is one of the improvements I would like to see
as we go through the amendment process.
But there are other amendments that would weaken the bill's
provisions and could kill this legislation. One is the so-called
Paycheck Protection Act. It is a poison pill to kill true campaign
finance reform. This provision would defund unions by setting up
barriers to their obtaining union dues to spend on political
activities. However, the Republican Paycheck Protection Act misses the
target. Despite the rhetoric, no worker is ever forced to join a union
or pay for political and legislative activities with which he or she
does not agree. Never. But the vast majority of unions--and their
supporters--believe their voices are critical to a strong healthy
economy and to strong, healthy families. And I agree with them.
I am not optimistic about this process. We have some very determined
foes who oppose any attempt at reform. While we have 100 percent of the
Democratic caucus and a handful of brave Republicans, it appears we do
not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster against reform. This makes me
unhappy, but not willing to give up.
I will continue to participate in the coalition of those Senators
pushing for reform. I will keep my commitment to bring public faith
back into our political system and to return political power to our
citizens. And I will anxiously await the day when 60 of my Senate
colleagues agree with the American people that now is the time for
campaign finance reform.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, last Thursday, I listened aghast to the
exchanges among Senators McCain, Bennett, Feingold, McConnell, and
Gorton concerning the implication that an appropriation was provided to
a project in my home in exchange for campaign money.
While my junior colleague from Utah made the case commendably, I do
feel compelled to respond for myself since I have actively sought and
promoted these appropriations for my State.
The Senator from Arizona seems to have confused representation with
corruption.
Since when does standing up for one's State, its local governments,
or its people constitute corruption?
I was under the impression that this is what we were sent here to do.
The Senator from Arizona is way out of line when he suggests that my
colleague, Senator Bennett, has done even one thing even remotely
improper in advocating for our State and for the help necessary to host
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. He should include me in that accusation
as well.
My definition of ``pork'' is an appropriation that is unjustified
(i.e., unneeded), not meritorious (i.e., the proposal is poorly
conceived or too expensive), or it is solely to benefit the entity
receiving the appropriation. The project that the Senator has labeled
as ``pork'' is none of those things.
First, Salt Lake City was America's choice to host the Olympic games.
These are America's games. There are certain things we are going to
need help with and that can appropriately be done by the federal
government.
The so-called pork barrel project he has cited was for Ogden, UT, for
water, sewer, and storm water improvements. The Senator from Arizona
has intimated on his website that this project received appropriated
funds because members of the Senate--and I presume he means me and
Senator Bennett--have been improperly influenced by soft money.
I wonder if my colleague has actually thought about that. Does he
really believe that Ogden, UT, is so tremendously wealthy that it can
make campaign contributions or that its citizens would even countenance
such a thing to achieve this project grant? Does the Senator from
Arizona hear how ridiculous this sounds?
I have thought, while listening to the Senator's remarks, that we
have been debating that old question about the tree falling in the
forest. If a dollar flows into a campaign chest, but no one takes any
action in relation to it, does that make it corrupt? Is acceptance of
any campaign contribution de facto corrupt? That certainly seems to be
what Senator McCain is saying.
I was stunned by the personal nature of the Senator's remarks last
week, particularly as regards my colleague Senator Bennett, and most
particularly since Senator McCain could not

[[Page S12754]]

seem to cite any specific evidence that this line item for sewer
improvements was included as a payoff for a soft money--or hard money
for that matter--contribution.
No, the best he could do is to say that the appropriation was not
authorized.
I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--it is an authorizing
committee. And, I can't tell you the number of times I have debated
jurisdiction with the Senator from Arizona. I am well aware of how
strongly he feels about the authorization process. I agree with him on
that.
But give me a break. The Judiciary Committee is not going to
authorize every individual grant to a law enforcement agency. I can't
believe the Senator wants to authorize $2 million for water, sewer, and
storm water improvements in Ogden, UT.
And, I suspect that, if he were to be a spectator at the Olympic
downhill in 2002, and he needed to use the restroom, he would
appreciate those sewer improvements.
Moreover, the authorization process is not the good housekeeping
stamp of approval. If campaign contributions can taint the
appropriations process, they can also taint the authorization process.
The logic of the Senator from Arizona is false on this point.
I will second the remarks made by Senator McConnell with respect to
the tenor of this debate. One would have hoped that we could debate our
respective ideas about campaign finance reform without getting into
accusing one another of soft money-for-pork deals.
But, I hope my colleagues will listen carefully when the Senator from
Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin attempt to smooth things over by
saying, ``we're not accusing you; it's the system.''
If these colleagues are not accusing us, then why do we need this
bill? If members have not engaged in abuses--then this bill has no
basis.
When I was a youngster I remember being terribly irritated when the
teacher made the whole class stay after school because a couple of my
classmates misbehaved. I remember too that sometimes the punishment was
that the rules governing library privileges or playground activity
became stricter because certain classmates broke the old ones.
Today, our Government reacts much the same way when there have been
abuses of freedome--we want to legislate a means of prevention. We want
to tighten up the rules.
Because the people are justifiably outraged at abuses, particularly
at breaches of their trust, we feel compelled to respond.
We think if we rail loudly in sympathy with their outrage and
introduce bills to address the cause of it, the people will think we
are above it and have nothing to do with the dirty business. But, me
thinks some doth protest too much. (So there will be no
misunderstanding, I refer here to the Clinton administration which has
yet to sanction the appointment of an independent counsel to
investigate the alleged campaign finance violations involving
contributions to the Democratic National Committee.)
At the end of the day, the people will not be fooled. While there is
no doubt in my mind that those who favor the McCain-Feingold
legislation do so with the purest of motives, and I respect their
views, I believe that what the people really want is not new law, but
honest politicians. And, that, I say to my colleagues, cannot be
legislated.
Moreover, to the extent that there have been abuses of campaign
integrity, let alone existing law, the problem is not the lack of
regulation, but the violation of it. Our efforts might be better spent
in toughening both public and private oversight, enforcement, and
penalties on the offenders.
But, we are instead debating legislation that would impose
significant new regulations on the way we undertake the most
fundamental of all American freedoms--elections for public office.
What on earth are we doing? Why are we even contemplating such
sweeping changes--changes that would inevitably dampen free speech in
our country? Changes that would damage the ``checks and balances'' that
are inherent in our two-party system?
Well, in light of recent abuses of freedom in campaign fundraising
and in light of what we politicians perceive to be mounting
dissatisfaction among the electorate, we are debating a proposal for a
new law.
That'll fix it. We will all put out our press releases. We will
congratulate each other on our so-called ``reform'' legislation. And,
if it's a ``reform'' bill, it must be good, right?
With all due respect to my colleagues Senators McCain and Feingold,
who have been working on this legislation for a long time and who I
know are sincerely dedicated to improving our campaign process, I must
say that, if we pass their bill, we will deliver broad-based reforms
which we perceive to be popular at the moment. But, we will also be
fundamentally changing the relationship between those running for
public office and those who elect them for the long term. We will be
imposing significantly more regulation governing who can give what to
whom as well as how support can be given and how it can be received.
Let me comment briefly on this relationship. We all understand it--or
we should.
When we throw our hats in the ring for public office, we do so
because we believe we have ideas and a point of view that would benefit
our home state constituents and our country. And, I think it is safe to
say that we don't do it for the money--and we have pretty well
``deperked'' this place as well.
But, our success depends on the support of others. Our candidacies
all began in someone's office or living room. There may have been 3, 5,
10, 15 people in the room. The first order of business was to get our
views and ideas before the people with the hope that our platform would
appeal to enough people that they would join our bandwagon.
How do you grow a campaign? First, people have to know who you are.
So, you print some posters and campaign buttons. I might add that when
I first ran in 1976, having never held public office before and running
against a 3-term incumbent senator, I needed a lot of signs.
Then, since you can't really get much substantive information on a
yard sign or button, you need some brochures. You need to put out some
press releases. You need to buy some TV and radio advertising.
Assuming you get some positive response from the people to your
views, you will need to hire some staff to organize volunteer efforts
and precincts. Later on, you will need to have some phone banks and a
get-out-the-vote program.
All of this requires money--that people who believe in your candidacy
donate to your campaign. This is not money that is taxed and
apportioned by some governmental entity. It is money voluntarily given
because, in giving it, people are expressing their preferences for
those who will represent them. It could be one dollar or a thousand
dollars, but the act of contributing to a candidate for public office
is an exercise of political freedom.
Now, the McCain-Feingold bill, for all of its good intentions, fails
this crucial test: it imposes new restrictions on how people can
participate financially in campaigns.
Previous incarnations of the McCain-Feingold bill would have outlawed
all soft money contributions and issue advocacy by special interest
groups.
The argument goes that sophisticated organizations are manipulating
candidates and elections by donating large amounts of money. And, the
argument goes further that this manipulation is poisoning the political
process for all citizens.
So-called coffees at the White House, nights in the Lincoln Bedroom,
receptions at Buddhist temples, fundraising from taxpayer-maintained
territory, specious connections to foreign governments--that is what
has affected people's faith in the electoral process. It isn't the
direct mail letter, the cocktail reception, or the $10 per person
summer weinie roast. People are pretty savvy. They know we have to
raise the money to run, and they know it's not cheap.
But, this year, Senators McCain and Feingold have apparently accepted
that their proposed ban was blatantly unconstitutional. They have opted
for a half-ban--a ban on soft money contributions from political
parties, but not on non-party organizations.
Let's be clear about one thing: political parties are already
regulated by

[[Page S12755]]

law and regulation. These contributions and expenditures are already
controlled. The Republican or Democratic National Committees cannot so
much as buy a legal pad with 100 percent soft money.
This ban on party soft money merely elevates the importance of
special interest soft money, which Senators McCain and Feingold have
declared to be society's biggest evil. The League of Women Voters,
which previously supported the McCain-Feingold bill, has now asked
Senators to oppose it because it not only fails to correct the problem
of soft money influence as they see it, but exacerbates it.
Additionally, this half-ban on soft money from political parties and
its concomitant increase in the importance of special interest groups,
serves to weaken our political parties.
I recognize that many Americans are frustrated with both parties--
and, I admit, often for good reason. But, the fact is that a strong
two-party system is what keeps American government working. Nations
with multiparty systems often have extreme difficulty finding consensus
and are plagued with frequent reversals in ministerial leadership,
national policy, and unstable markets given political uncertainty.
The American two-party system is a healthy competition of ideas and
viewpoints. And, national parties should not be curtailed in their
efforts to build their state and local infrastructures and to support
their slates of candidates.
A ban on the ability of national parties to send money to state and
local parties and to candidates is like telling a major league baseball
team that it cannot support its farm teams or give a bonus to its
promising players.
Last, but certainly not least, the revised McCain-Feingold bill
remains constitutionally specious.
Despite the sponsors recognition that the ban on all soft money
violated free speech rights under the Supreme Court's decision ion
Buckley v. Valeo, the half-ban still skates on very thin ice.
The Court stated:

The First Amendment denies government the power to
determine that spending to promote one's political views is
wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained
by our Constitution, it is not the government but the
people--individually as citizens and collectively as
associations and political committees--who must retain
control over the quantity and range of debate on public
issues in a political campaign.

But, the bottomline for today is that, quite simply, political
parties are entitled to promote their views. The McCain-Feingold bill
would compromise that right.
Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, balanced budgets, and health
care have all been the subject of issue advertising. And, neither
Republicans nor Democrats should be ``gagged'' by the provisions of
this bill. Since a political party exists to promote a particular
viewpoint or philosophy of government, the McCain-Feingold proposal
quite simply infringes on its right to do so.
But, unlike my school teacher's withholding recess, the McCain-
Feingold proposal is not a simple trade-off of privileges for
accountability. It asks Americans to exchange a fundamental freedom,
which is coveted throughout the world, for the vague promise of
curtailing the influence of special interests in elections.
But, here again, the McCain-Feingold proposal misses the mark. Who
are the special interests? I submit that the ``special interests are
us.''
One man's greedy special interest is another man's organization
standing up for truth and the American way. It is impossible for this
Congress--or any Congress--to make this distinction.
The prohibition on party soft money suggested by the McCain-Feingold
bill does not even allow the people to exercise their own judgments
about the propriety of an expenditure or even about the candidates or
the issue. It simply outlaws soft money activity out of hand.

Some have said to me, ``But this is a bipartisan bill. It is a good
compromise.'' My response must be that just because a measure is
bipartisan and called ``reform'' does not make it good.
Moreover, I remind my colleagues that the original plaintiffs in this
suit included James Buckley, the conservative Senator from New York and
Eugene McCarthy, liberal former Senator from Minnesota.
The diverse coalition of groups who have led the opposition to
previous versions of McCain-Feingold include the National Right to Life
Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union.
In my view, Mr. President, this is not campaign finance reform. No
legislation, certainly nothing called ``reform,'' should leave the
people with less freedom.
Let's look at this issue.
Many pundits and many colleagues here in Congress perceive that the
American people think that our government has become too fraught with
special interest influence, bought with special interest campaign
contributions. We have all heard voters voice their frustrations about
government. Given some of the games we play up here that affect
necessary legislation--such as the bankruptcy bill to name just one
example--this attitude is not surprising or unwarranted.
It may be a mistake to interpret these frustrations as widespread
cynicism about the influence of special interests rather than about the
government's inability to enact tax relief, inertia on long-term Social
Security and Medicare reforms, and the tug-of-war on budget and
appropriations.
Nevertheless, it goes without saying that maintaining the integrity
of our election system and citizens' confidence in it has to be among
our highest priorities. The question is: what is the right reform?
The best way to reform our campaign finance system is to open it up
to the light of day and to allow citizens to make the judgments about
how much influence is too much.
For example, some people may believe that a single dollar from a
tobacco PAC, an environmental lobby, or the AFL-CIO is too much. For
others, such contributions may not be as much of a concern.
Under a system of more prompt, user-friendly disclosure, people can
compare the source of contributions with votes cast by the candidate.
They can decide for themselves which donations are rewards for
faithfulness to a principle and representation of constituents and
which contributions might be a quid pro quo for special favors.
I had planned to offer a substitute amendment to S. 1593. I called my
proposal the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act.'' It would require all
candidates and political committees to disclose every contribution they
receive and every expenditure they make over $200 within 14 days on a
publicly accessible website. This means people will not have to wade
through FEC bureaucracy to get this information, and the information
will be continuously updated.
Further, my proposal would encourage--not require--non-party
organizations to disclose expenditures in a constitutionally acceptable
manner the funds that they devote to political activity. Organizations
that chose to file voluntary reports with the FEC would make individual
donors to their PACs eligible for a tax deduction of up to $100.
This provision is designed to encourage voluntary disclosure of
expenditures of organizational soft money. Those organizations that did
so would be shedding light on campaign finance not because they have
to, but because it furthers the cause of an informed democracy.
An article in the Investor's Business Daily quoted John Ferejohn of
Stanford University as writing that ``nothing strikes the student of
public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of
information most people possess about politics.''
The article goes on to suggest that ``many reforms, far from helping,
would cut the flow of political information to an already ill-informed
public.''
Citing a study by Stephen Ansolabehere of MIT and Shanto Iyengar of
UCLA, which demonstrates that political advertising ``enlightens
voters,'' the IBD concludes that ``well-informed voters are the key to
a well-functioning democracy.'' [Investor's Business Daily; 9/20/99]
Morton Kondracke editorializes in the July 30, 1999, Washington
Times, ``Full disclosure would be valuable on its merits--letting
voters know exactly who is paying for what in election campaigns. Right
now, campaign money is going increasingly underground.''

[[Page S12756]]

This is precisely the issue my amendment addresses. My amendment,
rather than prohibit the American people from having certain
information produced by political parties, it would open up information
about campaign finance. Knowledge is power. My proposal is predicated
on giving the people more power.
Additionally, my legislation will raise the limits on individual
participation in elections. Special interest PACs sprung up as a
response to the limitations on individual participation in elections.
The contribution limit for individuals is $1000 and it has not been
adjusted since it was enacted in 1974.

Why are these limits problematic? The answer is that if a candidate
can raise $5000 in one phone call to a PAC, why make 5 phone calls
hoping to raise the same amount from individuals? My legislation
proposes to make individuals at least as important as PACs.
My bill also raises the 25-year-old limits on donations to parties
and PACs. It raises the current limits on what both individuals and
PACs can give to political parties.
As the League of Women Voters has correctly pointed out, the
activities of political parties are already regulated, whereas the
political activities of other organizations are not. If we are
concerned about the influence of ``soft'' money--that is, money in
campaigns that is not regulated and not disclosed--and cannot be
regulated or subject to disclosure under our Constitution--then we
ought to encourage--not punish--greater political participation through
our party structures.
We need to put individuals back as equal players in the campaign
finance arena. Special interests--both PACs and soft money--have become
important in large part because current law limits are not only a
quarter century old, but are also higher for special interests than
individuals.
The McCain-Feingold approach represents a constitutionally specious
barrier to free speech. It would, by law, prohibit political parties
from using soft money to communicate with voters.
My amendment, in contrast, does not prohibit anything. It does not
restrict the flow of information to citizens--it does not restrict
freedom. On the contrary, my amendment recognizes that citizens are the
ultimate arbiters in elections. They should have access to as much
information as possible about the candidates and the positions they
represent.
Thus far, the information that is available to voters about campaign
finance has been difficult to obtain and untimely. My amendment, by
empowering votes with this information, will put the role of special
interests where it rightfully belongs--in the eye of the beholder, not
the federal government.
I regret very much that Senator Daschle has elected to use this
parliamentary tactic--filling the amendment tree and objecting to
consideration of other amendments--to foreclose all other amendments.
He has put the Senate in a take-it-or-leave-it situation.
Some of us had ideas for amendments to the McCain-Feingold bill--or,
such as the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' a proposal for a complete
substitute. The opportunity for amendments, however, has been scuttled.
The proponents evidently believe they have done such a marvelous job
that they refused to consider any other amendment when Senator
McConnell asked consent to do so last Friday.
The proponents of McCain-Feingold will no doubt hit the airwaves and
say that the opponents do not support reform. They will say that we
voted to keep the status quo, that we support the so-called insidious
corruption of soft money.
These would be false statements. Many of us do support reform--we
simply want it to be fair and respectful of constitutional protections.
There is no righteousness whatsoever in voting for a reform bill that
limits freedom.
I would have liked to offer my proposal. I would have liked the
Senate to consider the merits of its approach.
But, inasmuch as I will not be able to do that, and other senators
who may have supported my alternative will not be able to vote for it,
we are left with the Reid amendment, which does not even contain the
amendments offered by the Senator from Kentucky to beef up internal
procedures for accountability.
We are left with an unamended, constitutionally flawed piece of
legislation that has the effect of further bureaucratizing our
electoral processes and gagging our two most prominent political
organizations, thus shielding the people from information as if they
are incapable of making evaluations on their own.
If this is ``reform,'' it is not reform worthy of support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will my friend yield for a moment for me to make a
comment to the Senator from Ohio?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Ohio. I listened carefully to
his remarks. He accurately pointed out that labor unions are the only
organizations in America that can raise political funds and spend them
on whatever they choose to without the consent of the donor, which is
an aberration. Everybody else in the political system has to raise
money from voluntary donations. They have to ask for it. I thank my
friend for pointing out that there really can't be any campaign finance
reform that is meaningful without addressing this extraordinary abuse.
I appreciate very much his comments on this debate.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. While I am in this
body, I am going to continue to try to work with other people to see if
we can't come up with something to ban soft money and deal with some of
the problems I discussed, which would have been in my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, is recognized.

Amendment No. 2306 To Amendment No. 2298

(Purpose: To allow a State to enact voluntary public financing
legislation regarding the election of Federal candidates in such State)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 2306 to amendment No. 2298.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of the language proposed to be stricken, add the
following:

SEC. . STATE PROVIDED VOLUNTARY PUBLIC FINANCING.

Section 403 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 453) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The preceding sentence shall not be interpreted to prohibit
a State from enacting a voluntary public financing system
which applies to a candidate for election to Federal office,
other than the office of President or Vice-President, from
such State who agrees to limit acceptance of contributions,
use of personal funds, and the making of expenditures in
connection with the election in exchange for full or partial
public financing from a State fund with respect to the
election, except that such system shall not allow any person
to take any action in violation of the provisions of this
Act.''.

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield for an
inquiry?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't yield the floor, but I will yield for an
inquiry.
Mr. McCONNELL. My inquiry is this: Is the Senator from Kentucky
correct that this amendment is offered to what we call around here the
other side of the tree?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator from Kentucky also correct that if
cloture were invoked on either of the cloture motions tomorrow, this
amendment would be wiped out?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that the
amendment would not fall if it is germane.
Mr. McCONNELL. Germane, postcloture?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S12757]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first of all, let me say to my
colleagues that I wanted to bring this amendment to the floor because I
thought we should get on with business and have up-or-down votes on
amendments that deal with this, I think, critically important question.
Let me start out with some context. This is an editorial from the New
York Times, which actually was written Tuesday, October 20, 1998. The
title is ``A Grass-Roots Message On Reform.''
This deals with some of the victories that have taken place around
the country; namely, two initiatives; one was in Massachusetts and one
in Arizona. Of course, the Presiding Officer knows this all started
with Maine, and then there was Vermont. I am talking about the clean
money/clean election option. This is an editorial that talks about the
momentum at the State level.
What has happened is, a good many States in our country have partial
public financing. In Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and also Arizona,
citizens of those States have decided that if people running for office
will agree, it is on a voluntary basis, they are going for a clean
money/clean election option. If a State desires a States rights option,
they should be able to apply it to House and Senate races. I point this
out to the Chair because I think it is all positive about her.
I notice in this paragraph, it says that it is no surprise that two
of the seven Senate Republicans who challenged their leadership on this
issue came from Maine, where similar public financing legislation was
passed in 1996. It has been important to see what is happening at the
State level.
I ask unanimous consent this editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Oct. 20, 1998]

A Grass-Roots Message on Reform

In the weeks since campaign finance reform was killed in
Washington, it has been fashionable to say that the issue
never had much popular support. But that cynical view is
belied by the momentum behind two important initiatives this
fall, in Massachusetts and Arizona, where voters are being
asked to create publicly financed campaign systems that would
free politicians of their dependence on money from special
interests. Approval of these measures would provide a model
for how to clean up local political races and send a strong
signal to Washington to enact reform legislation next year.
Both initiatives call for extensive public money to pay for
political campaigns, to be awarded after the candidates have
raised modest sums on their own. Many state and local
governments, including New York City, have provisions for
public financing. The post-Watergate laws governing national
elections also provide for public subsidies. But in these
cases, the money kicks in only when the candidates themselves
have raised large sums. As the last round of scandals shows,
candidates have also circumvented the law by accepting public
money and then using unregulated ``soft money'' contributions
for their campaigns.
Even though it will cost them money, the voters in both
states are responding positively. In Massachusetts, the money
would come in part from taxpayers checking off a box on their
income-tax returns, and in part from legislative
appropriations. In Arizona, the money would be raised by
increasing the fee for lobbyists, a voluntary tax checkoff
and a surcharge on criminal and civil fines.
Another encouraging sign is that these reforms are
occurring in one of the most conservative states in the
country as well as in one of the most liberal. It is perhaps
no accident that the main sponsors of campaign reform in
Washington include Senator John McCain of Arizona and
Representative Martin Meehan of Massachusetts. Nor is it
surprising that two of the seven Senate Republicans who
challenged their leadership on the issue this year came from
Maine, where similar public financing legislation was enacted
in 1996.
Success in Arizona, Massachusetts and other states with
more limited campaign reform measures on their ballots could
build momentum, for change in Washington next year. Many
incumbent lawmakers have long argued that the public will not
tolerate public financing, by which they usually mean that
they do not want to give their challengers an equal chance.
They need only be reminded that voters can speak even more
loudly than campaign donations.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There was a piece also that David Broder wrote, on
July 18, 1999, in the Washington Post, ``Federal Lag, State Reform.''
David Broder, a highly respected journalist, talks about the energy at
the State level. He talks about the work of public campaigns and
victories in Maine and Vermont and Massachusetts and Arizona. He also
talks about some of the activity around the country, the energy of
grassroots people, people in our States, at the State level, who say,
don't tell us we don't care about good government; don't tell us we
don't care about clean elections. They are passing these initiatives.
I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, July 18, 1999]

Federal Lag, State Reform

(By David S. Broder)

While Congress continues to procrastinate on changing the
campaign finance laws--the House will not take up the issue
until September; the Senate, who knows when?--things are
changing in the states.
More and more of them are moving beyond the regulatory
approach embodied in most of the proposals in Washington and
are deciding that public financing of elections is the best
way to reduce the influence of interest groups and wealthy
individuals--while satisfying the maze of legalities laid
down by the courts.
The latest and in some ways most surprising development
comes in Wisconsin, where Gov. Tommy Thompson, the dean of
the 50 governors and a staunch Republican, is making headway
with a proposal for partial public funding of state
campaigns.
An appropriation of $750,000, urged by Thompson as part of
a reform plan devised by a bipartisan commission, has been
approved by the Senate-House finance committee and is
awaiting final action by the legislature. The full plan has
not yet passed and faces strong opposition, but Wisconsin
could become the second state in recent years, following
Vermont, to move to public financing by action of elected
officials.
Since 1996, three others--Maine, Massachusetts and
Arizona--have done the same thing by voter initiatives,
bringing the total of states with full or partial public
financing systems to 24, according to Ellen Miller, the head
of Public Campaign, a Washington, DC-based group supporting
these efforts. Missouri and Oregon may have such initiatives
in 2000, she says.
What is interesting about this phenomenon is that public
financing is considered beyond reach in the Washington debate
on campaign reform. Twenty-five years ago, Congress approved
partial public financing of presidential campaigns by a
checkoff on individual income tax returns--with matching
funds available to candidates accepting spending limits in
the primaries and a full subsidy available for the general
election.
But in recent years, it has been accepted wisdom on Capitol
Hill that voters rebel at the idea of more of their tax
dollars being used to pay for those TV spots everyone
despises. And yet, when measures to subsidize campaigns from
public sources are put to a vote of the people in states as
diverse as Arizona and Massachusetts, they pass--despite the
reluctance of many local political leaders to endorse them.
In Massachusetts, both Republican Gov. Paul Celluci and
leaders of the Democratic legislature looked askance at the
1998 initiative, but it passed by a 2 to 1 margin. Even with
that big win, there was doubt whether the legislature would
appropriate the money to begin funding the first publicly
financed elections, scheduled for 2002.
Celluci put no request in his budget, but, the
legislature--a bit squeamish about defying a public mandate--
did so, with the House voting for $10 million and the Senate
for $13 million. The House could not resist adding a joker--a
requirement that another initiative be passed in 2000
reaffirming that voters really want tax money used for
campaigns--but it's not certain whether that will be in the
final version of the budget.
For now, backers of the measure told me, they are confident
that a series of annual appropriations plus voluntary
checkoffs will produce the $40 million kitty needed to fund
85 percent of the expenses of Massachusetts candidates who
accept spending limits in 2002.
In Arizona, where the initiative barely passed by a 51
percent to 49 percent margin over the opposition of
Republican Gov. Jane Hull and others, opponents have filed
two lawsuits challenging the measure. The state Supreme Court
threw out the first one; the second is pending in a lower
court. Meantime, the financing machinery has begun to
function. Lobbyists are being asked to pay higher
registration fees, and a surcharge is being added to civil
and criminal penalties assessed in Arizona courts. Next year,
people filing their state income taxes will be told that, for
the first time, they can claim a tax credit of up to $500 for
political contributions--and, barring mishaps, public
financing will begin in 2002.
The Wisconsin move is particularly interesting because
Thompson, like most other Republicans, was initially opposed
to taxpayer-financed campaigns. He endorsed the package of
other reforms recommended by the bipartisan commission he had
named. But when that measure was stymied by partisan battling
in the legislature, Thompson endorsed the direct subsidy as a
way of breaking the deadlock. In a phone call from Alaska,
where he was vacationing, he told me that he hopes Wisconsin,
which pioneered welfare reform under his leadership, ``can be
a model for the country'' on campaign reform as well.

[[Page S12758]]

It will take more courage than Washington usually displays
for that wish to be fulfilled.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Finally, Madam President, I wish to read from a letter
that asks Senators to support this amendment which would allow States
to enact voluntary public financing legislation, commonly referred to
as clean money/clean election initiatives regarding the election of
Federal candidates in the States.

Historically, the states have been ``laboratories of
reform.'' (a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis) where innovative public policies have been created
and tested. We believe, therefore, that the U.S. Senate,
which has been a champion of states' innovative efforts in a
number of policy efforts in recent years, should also support
the right of individual states to determine the campaign
finance system for their candidates for federal elections.

This letter goes on to talk about the great victories in Arizona,
Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, and also goes on to cite a recent
poll undertaken by the Mellman Group in Iowa--you know everybody is
focused on Iowa with the Presidential races--pointing out that voters,
72 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans, support a system
of voluntary full public financing and spending limits for campaigns.
Not only did the support cut across party lines, but also there was
support among ideologies within the political party.
I ask unanimous consent this letter, which is signed by about 50
different organizations that are working on reform at the State level,
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Fifty Plus Citizen Groups in Support of Wellstone ``States Rights''
Amendment to S. 1593, the ``Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1999''

October 14, 1999.
Dear Senator. As the Senate prepares to debate S. 1593, the
``Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1999,'' we the
undersigned urge you to support Senator Paul Wellstone's
amendment to allow states to enact voluntary public financing
legislation regarding the election of Federal candidates in
such states.
Historically, the states have been ``laboratories of
reform'' (a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis) where innovative public policies have been created
and tested. We believe, therefore, that the U.S. Senate,
which has been a champion of states' innovative efforts in a
number of other policy areas in recent years, should also
support the right of individual states to determine the
campaign finance system for their candidates for federal
elections.
The states are already moving in this direction with regard
to their own state elections. Twelve states currently offer
partial public financing to candidates for state offices. In
addition, four states have gone even further and have
recently passed full public financing systems for their state
elections--Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. Three
of the four states will have such a system in place for the
2000 election cycle.
Finally, the American people, according to survey after
survey, say that the current campaign finance system is out
of control and they want it overhauled. A recent poll
undertaken by The Mellman Group in Iowa revealed that voters
(72 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Republicans) support
a system of voluntary full public financing and spending
limits for campaigns. Not only did support for such a
voluntary system cut across party lines, but it also
maintained strong support from all ideologies within the
parties.
Again, we urge you to support Senator Wellstone's amendment
to S. 1593 and allow the states to have the right to decide
for themselves whether a voluntary public financing program
makes sense for the election campaigns of their own Members
of Congress.
Sincerely,
Arizona Clean Elections Institute
Citizen Action of New York
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Colorado Progressive Coalition
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
Democracy South
Dollars and Democracy Project/Ohio
Episcopal Church
Equality State Policy Center/Wyoming
Florida Consumer Action Network
Florida League of Conservation Voters
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Georgia Rural-Urban Summit
Illinois Citizen Action
Indiana Alliance for Democracy
Iowa Citizen Action Network
League of United Latin American Citizens
Lutheran Office of Governmental Affairs--Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America
Maine Citizen Leadership Fund
Mass Voters for Clean Elections
Michigan Citizen Action
Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action
Missouri Alliance for Campaign Reform
Missouri Voters for Fair Elections
National Voting Rights Institute
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
New Hampshire Citizens Alliance
New Jersey Citizen Action
North Carolina Alliance for Democracy
North Dakota Progressive Coalition
Northeast Action
Ocean State Action
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
Oregon Political Accountability Network
Pennsylvania Consumer Action Network
Public Campaign
South Carolina Progressive Network
Southeast Forest Project
Texans for Public Justice
Texas Public Citizen
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Vision for Idaho
United We Stand--Arizona
U.S. PIRG
Utah Progressive Network
Vermont PIRG
West Virginia Peoples' Election Reform Coalition
West Virginia Citizen Action
Western States Center
Wisconsin Citizen Action
Working Group on Electoral Democracy

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, before I get started in arguing my
brief to this amendment, I appreciated the comments of my colleague
from Ohio. I appreciate the sincerity in which he made his case, but
there are a couple of points on which I am in disagreement. I don't
know if this amendment will come up. I certainly hope it doesn't. We
have been focusing on soft money. I join Senator Levin in thanking
Senators McCain and Feingold for continuing to be a strong voice for
reform. I understand the pragmatism of their initiative. I think if we
could ban soft money it would be a significant step for our country--a
good step forward, not a great leap sideways. I thank them.
But I also want to point out for Senators, Democrats and Republican,
that there is also the hard money issue. People who are listening--soft
money/hard money--I think are wondering what all of this is about.
When I hear other Senators say we ought to raise the limit from
$1,000 to $3,000, actuality it would be $2,000 to $6,000 counting
primary and general elections. I want to point out a couple of figures.
This year, a spectacularly small portion--in the Presidential race--
of U.S. citizens have contributed more than $200. So far this year,
only 4 out of 10,000 Americans have made a contribution higher than
$200 to the Presidential race. That is .037 percent. As of June 30,
1999, only .022 percent of all Americans have given $1,000 or more to a
Presidential candidate. In the 1998 election, .06 percent of all
Americans gave $1,000. That was roughly 1 in 5,000 citizens.
If you say money is speech, then I guess we know who the people are
who are going to do all of the talking. I cannot believe that
Senators--Republicans, Democrats--whoever they are, believe this will
give ordinary people more confidence and more faith in the political
process.
Again, what we have right now, when you are talking about
contributions of over $1,000 this year, is .022 percent. Even over
$200, it is only .037 percent. People do not have this kind of money.
People can't afford to make these kinds of contributions.
Now what we are going to do is raise this from $1,000 to $3,000--
actually $2,000 to $6,000, counting primary and general elections--and
we are going to call this a reform.
I want to say to everybody that in my not so humble opinion, about 90
percent of the people in the country will not view this as reform. They
will view this as a huge step backward, and they will view this as an
effort to enable the wealthiest and high-income citizens to have even
more influence and more say over the political process than they have
right now.
This amendment is a States rights amendment to this underlying bill.
I hope it will have broad bipartisan support. This amendment allows
States to set up voluntary systems of full or partial public financing
for Federal congressional candidates that involve voluntary spending
limits on both personal and outside contributions as long as those
systems otherwise are not in conflict with the Federal Election
Campaign Act. Again, it is entirely up to the candidates. It is only if
they agree to it. Clearly, we set a floor, which is the Federal
Election Campaign Act.

[[Page S12759]]

Again, the letter I read to you was on the mark. States have been the
laboratories for reform. This States rights amendment would allow these
laboratories to do this work but in a safe way because we make it clear
that the Federal law remains the floor. No State can violate existing
Federal law. No State can be in violation of existing Federal law. But
if a State wants to do better--if Kentucky or Minnesota or Nebraska or
Arizona--Arizona has already done better, and Minnesota tried --they
want to apply some system of partial or full public financing to
Federal offices, and they say: we are sick and tired of waiting for you
all to pass this kind of legislation; we have the sneaking suspicion
that those interest groups that have the power have too much say in the
Senate and you are not going to pass it; let us have a go at it, then
we ought to let States do so.

The Federal law is the floor. But it is a very low floor. We had this
debate the other day. I don't want to go over again in great detail the
definition of corruption. Let me simply say one more time that I, for
one, I say to my colleague whom I have a lot of affection for, the
Senator from Utah, that I am not going to make any arguments about a
one-to-one correlation between fundraising and ``corruption.'' I am not
going to make any of those arguments, but I will say that to me
corruption is more serious than wrongdoing of individual officeholders.
It is systemic. That is what we have. It is simply a case of those
people who make these big contributions, the big soft money
contributions and the big hard money contributions--they are the
investors. They are the heavy hitters. They are the players. They are
the ones who are well connected. They are the ones who have too much
influence. And most citizens believe there is a connection between big
special interest money and outcomes in American politics.
I am very sad to say that most citizens who believe that are right.
People know that who has the money determines who wins and who has the
money determines all too often what even gets put on the table in the
first place. That is why people are turning away from the political
process. That is why people are disillusioned. That is why people are
disengaged. That is why people feel, I will say it again, if you pay,
you play; if you do not pay, you don't play. That is what is going on.
Recent polls: 92 percent of all Americans believe special interest
contributions buy votes of Members of the Congress--92 percent. Again,
I say to colleagues, I am not agreeing with that kind of thing, but it
is one of the reasons we should want to change this system. It really
doesn't matter in the last analysis. If you get more money from oil
companies, or labor unions, or environmentalists, or citizen groups, or
financial institutions, the fact is people can always have that
concern. Why don't we try to break that?
Eighty-eight percent of people believe those who make large
contributions get special favors from politicians. Sixty-seven percent
believe their own representatives in Congress would listen to views of
outsiders who made major political contributions before they would
listen to their own constituents' views. And then, finally, nearly half
of all registered voters believe lobbyists and special interests
control the Government.
I know the sponsors of the new McCain-Feingold bill have stripped the
bill down in the hope that we are going to have the votes to achieve
cloture and that we can move this long-stalled debate forward. I am in
agreement. However, given the inability of Congress to agree on a lot
of the incremental changes, which is important, let alone comprehensive
reform--this is a stripped down bill. The authors will admit that. But
they are saying, let's try to move something forward. Let's take a step
forward that will lead to improvement. I agree. But what I am saying
about this amendment is that it is also an ideal time to let States
take the lead. We should not allow States to undermine Federal election
law. They won't do that. But the law should also not be an artificial
ceiling that prevents States from setting up systems of public
financing such as Maine has done, such as Vermont has done, such as
Arizona has done, and such as Massachusetts has done that would allow
them to address this obscene money chase, that allows them to address
voter apathy; that allows them to address the kind of corruption that I
have talked about--both actual or corruption that is perceived.

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I am interested and pleased to hear the
Senator say he does not agree with those polled who say money buys
votes and that the individual Members of the Senate are not corrupt.
My question to the Senator, since he is a teacher by profession is,
if that perception in the public is not true, why shouldn't this
teacher spend his time trying to educate the public as to what is true
rather than to fall in with the sentiment expressed in the poll which
is inaccurate?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I actually have not finished laying
out the amendment.
To my colleague from Utah, I was saying the huge percentage of people
who believe this to be the case troubles me. I certainly do not believe
that in a majority of cases of Senators whom I know, to the extent I
know them--and I think I do--that that is the case, the ``money'' vote
way. I don't think that is the link.
That is my sense, not in an individual way.
I have also argued, and the Senator has heard me say this many
different times, I do think we have a more serious kind of corruption,
and it is the imbalance of power. It is systemic.
Therefore, from my point of view, my colleague from Utah could be
referring to one of two things: Either the statement I gave on the
floor the other day in which I said we have to change this system in
order to give citizens faith in this political process--and they have
every reason to believe that; unfortunately, it is dominated by the
few--or the Senator could be referring to this amendment. I hope not
because all this amendment says is, whether one agrees or not with the
perception, if people in Utah or people in Minnesota decide they want
to put into effect comprehensive reform and cover our Federal
elections, House and Senate races, as they are doing in the State
elections, they should have the right.
Mr. BENNETT. If I may, I was responding to the statement made by the
Senator from Minnesota on the floor today when he talked about the
poll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am yielding for a question.
Go ahead. I want to be clear I have the floor.
Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely, and I appreciate the courtesy of the
Senator, and I shall not interrupt again.
I have had the experience, the polls in Utah show a very large
percentage of people holding the same opinion as the Senator from
Minnesota has subscribed. Because I am convinced that McCain-Feingold
is, (a) unconstitutional, and (b) unworkable, I have----
Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor and
may yield for a question.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased, for my colleague from Utah, to yield for
a question.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
I have had the experience of explaining my position and once
explaining, being endorsed.
My question to the Senator is, again, if he disagrees with the
position stated in the poll, even though it is held by 92 percent of
the respondents to that poll, inasmuch as he is a skilled, trained, and
professional teacher, would he not spend his time well using his skills
as a teacher educating these people in his State, as I have tried to do
with the people in my State, rather than simply going along with them
and saying if that is your position, I will follow it legislatively
even though I disagree with it? Would that not be a better use of the
Senator's obvious teaching skills?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the first part of the question I
appreciate.
The second part of the question I might have a slightly different
interpretation. To the first part of the question I want the Senator
from Utah to know--for that matter, the Senator from Kentucky--that I
believe in public service, and I am honored to be here.
I reject the across-the-board denigration of public service and
people in public service when and if anyone does

[[Page S12760]]

that. I haven't seen that done on the floor of the Senate. However, I
hear people talking that way and I go out of my way to say to people
that there are many Senators whom I have met, including those who have
a very different viewpoint, who I think have a highly developed sense
of public service, who believe in what they are saying, and believe in
what they are doing.
If the Senator were to ask me whether or not I tried as a Senator or
teacher to speak to this notion that there is all this corruption and
wheeling and dealing and everything is cynical and everything is
corrupted, absolutely I do because I don't think that is true.
On the second point, I think my time is well spent supporting the
McCain-Feingold effort, and for that matter, supporting even more
comprehensive reform. I do believe the money chase and the mix of money
and politics--especially big money politics--has undercut what I hold
most dear, which is this very noble and grand, wonderful, over-200-year
experiment in self-rule that we have had in this country.
I think this is a debate about representative democracy. I believe we
have to change the way we finance campaigns if we are to have a
healthy, functioning, representative democracy.
I thank my colleague for his question.
Madam President, if the American people, according to survey after
survey, are going to say this system of financing is out of control and
they want an overhaul, then we owe it to them to get out of the way and
let the States go ahead and move forward and do what we as a Congress
have been unable to do. Just because the Senate can't move on
comprehensive reform doesn't mean we should tie the hands of States. My
colleagues can agree or disagree with what States will do, but give
them the option.
Let me give the legal context. My own State of Minnesota attempted to
set up a system of public financing, a system for Federal candidates, 9
years ago in 1990 when the State legislature passed the law offering
partial public financing to candidates, the congress of Minnesota.
Unfortunately, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
struck down Minnesota's law in 1993 in Weber v. Heaney. The court ruled
because the Federal Election Campaign Act did not specifically allow
States to create this kind of voluntary public financing program, then
FECA prohibited it.
The amendment I am introducing corrects that by adding one simple
sentence to FECA which specifically allows States to set up voluntary
public financing programs for the election of their own members to the
House or the Senate as long as no program violates any provision of the
current Federal Election Campaign Act.

The court said, given what we are dealing with, given existing law,
we cannot go forward. If we change the law, it could very well be a
different court decision. In other words, if a State wants to create a
public financing fund and give its congressional candidates the option;
it is a voluntary option of financing their campaigns wholly or
partially with public money rather than the private contributions, then
that State would be able to do so, again, provided there are no
violations in the FECA provisions.
I want to emphasize this amendment makes these programs strictly
voluntary, as the system of public financing for the Presidential
campaign is voluntary. Some States are already moving in this direction
with regard to State and local elections. There is a lot of energy for
this. Twelve States already offer partial public financing to
candidates for State offices. In fact, one of the most advanced is in
the State of Kentucky. In addition, four States have gone even further
and recently passed full or nearly full public financing systems for
their State elections--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Senator
McCain's State, the State of Arizona.
Local and State elected officials, along with citizen activists in
nearly 40 States around the country, have launched the Elected
Leadership Project 2000. And this is an all-out effort for
comprehensive reform.
I say to colleagues, if the people in our States want to strengthen
American democracy, if they have the gumption and they have the citizen
politics to go forward with real reform that would get so much of the
big money out of politics--that would really create a level playing
field, that would reinforce people's faith in the elections, that would
mean people could say these elections belong to us, this political
process belongs to us--and that is why there has been so much support
for the clean money/clean elections initiative--then my amendment says
to Senators: Let them do it. You might not agree. But if your State
wants to do what Maine has done and Maine says we want to apply this to
Congress as well, then Maine should be able to do it; Minnesota should
be able to do it; Kentucky should be able to do it, Utah should be able
to do it.
This legislation goes to the root cause of a system which is founded
on private special interest money, and it cures the disease.
I hear colleagues talking about the need to tighten up campaign
finance laws. The problem is not what is illegal; the problem is what
is legal. The real problem is that most of what is wrong with this
current sick system is perfectly legal. It is perfectly legal, those
huge amounts of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money
contributions that Senator Feingold and Senator McCain are trying to
prohibit and which prohibition too many Senators are trying to block--
huge amounts of personal, individual contributions that really,
basically, very-high-income and wealthy people are able to contribute
but the vast majority of people are not--all of which determine who
gets to run, who gets elected; all of which determine the people who
have the most access.
We have moved so far away from the principle that each person should
count as one, and no more than one, it is absolutely frightening. We do
not have elections any longer; we have auctions.
Why don't we get the big interested money out? We had this debate
about corruption. Again, maybe it is only the appearance of corruption.
But my friend Phil Stern, who is no longer alive, once wrote a book,
``The Best Congress Money Can Buy.'' He made the following argument in
the book. I just thought of it. Bill Moyers, in a speech he gave called
``The Soul Of Democracy,'' made the same argument.
Imagine what it would be like--maybe some people had a chance to
watch the ball games last night--imagine what it would be like if
umpires or referees received huge contributions from the players of the
different teams before the baseball game or before the football game.
Would you have any confidence that they would be rendering impartial
decisions? You might be worried that they would not be. In a way, we
have something similar to that here. We make all these different
decisions about health care and health insurance reform, about
telecommunications legislation, banking legislation, where we are going
to make budget cuts, labor legislation--across-the-board. At the same
time we receive all these contributions, we are the referees; we are
the umpires; we are going to make the decisions. It looks terrible. It
looks awful. It looks awful to people in the country.
What I am saying is that if, in fact, we want to give people an
opportunity to have more confidence in their political process, then I
think we ought to go forward and we ought to agree to this amendment.
I have two final points. I have been waiting for a long time. I will
be done, but I want to make two final points.
First of all, I have heard it said that people do not care.
I do not think that is true at all. I think people have reached the
conclusion that when it comes to their concerns, they are of little
matter in the Congress. I think people have reached the conclusion that
the influence of private wealth and power is strongly felt; that it
shapes the acts and policies of government; that money crawls the halls
of the Capitol and the halls of the White House.
No one in politics today can deny the shaping influence of money on
public acts. Few people who contribute vast sums of money to political
campaigns do it just out of profound ideological beliefs. They do it in
part because they do have some hope for gain. It is an understandable
ambition for those individual figures, but one to which public figures
should not yield their larger commitment to all Americans. That is what
this debate is about, whether or

[[Page S12761]]

not we as public figures maintain a larger commitment to all the people
in our country, not just the people who have the financial wherewithal
to make these contributions. That is what this debate is about.
In my view, until we take the big money out of politics, our historic
drive for more opportunities for citizens, for more justice, for a
better life for all the people, for improving the standard of living
for all the people in our country, for really investing in children's
lives, for making our country a better America, that drive will
continue to be diverted and frustrated and ultimately denied.
This issue is the core issue, and this amendment I have introduced
simply says to my colleagues we ought to, if we are not going to go
forward with comprehensive reform but at the State level our States
want to have clean money/clean elections, and they want to apply it on
a voluntary basis to races to the House of Representatives and the
Senate, then they ought to be able to do so.
I do not see why we would not have strong bipartisan support for this
amendment because, frankly, I think, along with the efforts of Senator
Feingold and Senator McCain--Senator McCain and Senator Feingold--the
energy for the reform is going to come at the grassroots level; it is
going to come at the State level. That is what this public campaign has
been about all across this country. That is what the victory in Arizona
was about. That is what the victories in Massachusetts, Vermont, and
Maine were all about. That is what people in my State tried to do 9
years ago. Let's just pass a law that would enable States to move
forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Arizona, Mr. McCain, is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 2299 and
ask consent the vote occur at 5:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky reserves the right
to object.
Is the Senator objecting?
Mr. REID. I could not hear. The Senator moved to table the Reid
amendment; at what time would the vote occur?
Mr. McCAIN. It was agreeable to the leadership. I was told they
wanted a vote at 5:45, but I would be willing to set the time for that
vote at any time. I am told by staff, 5:45 is the time for the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. May I inquire which amendment we are talking about.
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to explain to the Senator from Kentucky.
It is basically the soft money amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Reid amendment, No. 2299.
Mr. McCONNELL. And the request is----
Mr. McCAIN. Table.
Mr. McCONNELL. Table the Reid amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a unanimous request pending to have
the vote occur at 5:45. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. To have the tabling vote on the Reid amendment occur
at 5:45?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the request.
Mr. McCONNELL. That is the request of the Senator from Arizona?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the request. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in the interest of time, I would be glad
to move to table the Reid amendment, which does not require unanimous
consent, and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. REID. If the Senator from----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable.
Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the tabling motion occur at
5:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want my colleagues to know this is a
defining vote of this debate. This is a defining vote because it all
has to do with soft money. This is the fundamental proposition that the
Senator from Wisconsin and I are propounding.
There has been parliamentary maneuvering. There has been substitutes.
There has been a filling up of the tree. There have been a lot of
things that have been going on which have sort of not surprised me but
disappointed me.
Friday, on the other side, for reasons that are still not clear to
me, the Senator from Nevada, and others, chose not to allow the
amending process to go forward. On this side, we have had some delays,
which I would argue were not particularly helpful to the process.
So this tabling motion of the Reid amendment is basically a defining
vote on whether or not we want to ban soft money. I intend to vote not
to table the Reid amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would vote
not to table the Reid amendment. Then we will have the Senate on record
as to whether we are for or against soft money in American political
campaigns.
On Friday, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska--it is funny; we were talking
about this today at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial luncheon today that
Senator Hagel and I attended, that there is kind of an interesting
relationship that exists between those of us who had the privilege of
serving in that conflict.
One of the traits I find true with Senator Hagel, Senator Cleland,
Senator Robb, and Senators Kerrey and Kerry, is that there is a certain
degree of honesty and straightforwardness which I find extremely
attractive.
Senator Kerrey, on Friday, who is also the former chairman of the
Senatorial Campaign Committee, said:

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.

He went on to say, in an exchange with the Senator from Wisconsin:

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.

He goes on to talk about:

. . . 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.

Then Senator Kerrey of Nebraska went on to say:

. . . The Senator is very kind to say I have always been a
supporter. Actually, I have not always been a supporter . . .
Speaking of campaign finance reform.

He says:

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.

He went on to say:

[[Page S12762]]

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.

Madam President, it is impossible for me to elaborate on that kind of
comment from my esteemed colleague and American hero, Bob Kerrey of
Nebraska.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield for a question.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me clarify what the Senator from Arizona is
attempting in moving to table the Reid amendment.
I would ask the Senator from Arizona, when we take this vote on
tabling, will you regard this vote on the Reid amendment as a true test
of the question we have been asking our colleagues, and that question
is, Are you for or against soft money?
Would the Senator from Arizona regard that vote as a procedural vote
or a vote up or down on the question of whether you are for or against
soft money?
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to respond to my friend.
I am hearing that the distinguished majority leader may try to remove
the bill from the consideration on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. We
know that it is cluttered with various amendments, some of them very
important. The Senator from Minnesota spoke very eloquently in favor of
his amendment, which I am sure has some merit.
But the crux and heart of this matter is soft money. We all know
that. I worry if we do not get this vote, that we could possibly reach
a situation where the Senate is gridlocked; and eventually, over time,
obviously, we would not even have recorded votes on this important and
crucial issue.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Can the Senator recall any other occasion in which the
Senate has voted up or down on the question of whether to ban party
soft money?
Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding the Senate has never voted up or
down on that specific issue, at least since 1907, when, thanks be to
one of the greatest Republicans and greatest Presidents in history,
Theodore Roosevelt, who alleged there was corruption at that time--and
I will include many of his remarks in the Record--because of the
influence of major corporations and robber barons and special interests
on the American political process, I believe the Senate did vote to ban
soft money. And I believe that statute is still on the books.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Again, I ask a further question. I appreciate that
answer because I think the problem we have had is we have not had a
chance to get to the question of whether you are for or against
unlimited contributions. For year after year, it appears that--and I
ask the Senator from Arizona to confirm--we keep trying to get to this
vote, but we never seem to be able to get right at it; the bill is
pulled or a tabling motion is made on the overall bill or something, a
cloture motion is filed. It is amazing, after 5 years, we have never
gotten to this. But apparently we are about to.
Let me ask one other question, if I could, because the Senator from
Oregon consulted me on this. Senator Wyden, who does not limit himself
to supporting our efforts, has been, in my mind, one of the strongest
advocates of campaign finance reform in this body. He has been creative
and has a number of interesting ideas of his own that I like very much.
He asked me--and I certainly think you will answer the same way I did--
whether or not, after this motion is disposed of one way or another,
Senators will still have the chance to amend the bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Of course. Of course. I hope that would move the process
forward, once we are on record. And perhaps that might increase our
chances of reaching 60 votes, I would say to my friend.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator for bringing us to the point where
finally we can have an up-or-down vote on soft money.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to.
Mr. REID. I offered an amendment on Friday to establish a procedure
whereby there would be a vote to determine whether or not we would
invoke cloture on the so-called soft money ban. Is the Senator aware of
that? The Senator from Arizona has indicated and I may be paraphrasing
the words; that there were games being played and Senators were not
being allowed to offer amendments.
I say to my friend from Arizona, the Senator from Minnesota offered
an amendment today. Amendments could have been offered Friday. Will the
Senator acknowledge that having the two amendments, one being ``McCain-
Feingold lite'' and the original version of the McCain-Feingold bill,
that we should be able in this body to vote on both those matters?
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, first of all, I never argued that
games were being played. I would not make that allegation. I believe
the Senator from Kentucky and I had a colloquy on Friday where it was
clear that the situation was such that even if an amendment were
considered on Friday and adopted, it would have fallen with a vote on
the underlying legislation that was pending, which I think correctly,
in the view of the Senator from Kentucky, made further amendments and
debate meaningless. I see the Senator from Kentucky is on the floor. I
think that was his comment. If he disagrees, I will be glad to yield
for a question from him in that respect. On Friday, I was disappointed,
and I think the Senator from Kentucky was, that we didn't move forward
with genuine amendments that would have stood or fallen on their own
merit.
I am glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky for a question on
that.
Mr. REID. If I could just ask one more question, maybe the Senator
could respond to both of them. I say to my friend from Arizona, I have
stated publicly and privately, both outside these Chambers and inside
these Chambers, about the work that is being done by the Senator from
Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin, and indeed it has been a
tremendous effort bringing this very important issue before this body.
You have been undying in your efforts to bring this forward. You would
acknowledge, would you not, that there are others in this body, other
than the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona, who
believe strongly that there should be some campaign finance reform?
Would you acknowledge that?
Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.
Mr. REID. And would you also acknowledge that your method in
obtaining campaign finance reform may not be the best way to go?
Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.
Mr. REID. I guess the point I want to make is that I am not sure I
can put my many efforts on behalf of campaign finance reform next to
that of the Senator from Arizona. He has done so much to move this
issue forward. But I would say to my friend from Arizona--and I would
like the Senator to either acknowledge whether or not this Senator
believes strongly that there should be campaign finance reform. Even
though my qualifications for asserting the need for campaign finance
reform would not meet those of the Senator from Arizona, I think I am
in the top 10 of members of this body who have been a strong advocate
for reform. For example, I have given speeches on the Senate floor,
since I came here with the Senator from Arizona in 1986, about the need
for campaign finance reform. Would the Senator acknowledge that?
Mr. McCAIN. I not only acknowledge it, but it is worthy of mention;
the Senator from Nevada and I have been close and dear friends for
nearly 20 years. One thing I have tried to do during the course of this
debate is keep it from in any way personalizing or showing any
disrespect to any individual, no matter where they stand on this issue.

I thank the Senator from Nevada.
Did the Senator from Kentucky want to make a comment?
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from Arizona, he is correct. My
understanding Friday was and remains that the right side of the tree,
which is what we normally amend around here, was filled by the two
amendments and the two cloture votes. That effectively made additional
amendments somewhat an exercise in futility. What I recommended to our
side--and it has

[[Page S12763]]

been happening today--is that they discuss their amendments--I know
Senator Hagel is here to discuss his--and indicate that they would like
to have had a vote, a meaningful vote, which would have been on the
right side of the tree.
So the Senator from Arizona does correctly state my opinion of
Friday, which remains my opinion today.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
I agree with the Senator from Nevada; there are many ways to approach
the issue of campaign finance reform. I agree with him; there are many
laudable aspects of campaign finance reform that deserve serious
consideration.
One that doesn't seem to surface as much as it should is free
television time for candidates. The broadcasters receive $70 billion
worth of free digital spectrum. It seems to me there should be some
obligation along with one of the great rip-offs in the history of the
United States of America.
But we really are down to soft money, I say to the Senator from
Nevada. We are really down to that. We can build on that. There is no
reform that could have any meaning unless it meant, at its fundamental
heart, the banning of soft money. We have been through a number of
debates about what independent campaigns do.
By the way, before I leave the issue, I heard the Senator from Ohio
say that banning of soft money does not in any way affect labor unions.
Yesterday or the day before, there was a notice in the paper that the
labor unions plan on spending $45 million in soft money in the upcoming
campaign. I am afraid the Senator from Ohio is misinformed because this
banning of soft money does enormous damage to the ability of labor
unions to engage in the kind of practices we are trying to eliminate,
just as much as it does the other side.
I want to make perfectly clear, the reason that I and the Senator
from Wisconsin are seeking to table or asking for a vote on a tabling
motion is so we can have the Senate on record on the issue of soft
money. If the Senate, in its wisdom, decides that we should table the
Reid amendment and that we should, therefore, not ban soft money, then
obviously this entire exercise is largely futile. I think there are
about three Members on the other side who may not be voting who would
vote for us, and I would take that into account in this vote because,
really, this vote is about the intentions and the will of the Senate.
The soft money reports from Common Cause: Soft money, CWA-COPE,
$2,593,000; American Federation of State and County Municipal
Employees, $2,334,000--these are obviously all Democrats--Service
Employees Union, $1.5 million. I hope the Senator from Ohio will take a
look at the enormous amount of money that is coming in from labor
unions that he somehow believes would not be affected by a ban on soft
money.

Also, recently information came out that the Democratic Party is
raising now as much soft money as the Republican Party, a very
interesting turn of events.
We have, at most, 48 hours left on this legislation. We have not made
a lot of progress. It is time we did. I believe having the Senate on
record on soft money is a very defining vote. I talked extensively with
Senator Feingold about this before we decided to make this move. I hope
my colleagues will vote not to table the Reid amendment, which bans
soft money. I hope my colleagues will vote not to table the McCain
tabling motion of the Reid amendment.
I believe Senator Bennett is next under the unanimous consent
agreement. I believe both Senators Hagel and Wyden have been waiting. I
don't know what the disposition of that is.
Senator Reid?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Bennett is
to be recognized at the conclusion of Senator McCain's speech.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCAIN. I think Senator Hagel was here first. Is that OK?
Mr. REID. If the Senator from Utah will yield.
Mr. McCAIN. I haven't yielded the floor.
Mr. REID. Madam President, what we should do, in keeping with what we
have done earlier in the day--Senator Bennett is opposed to the
legislation; he is going to speak next. Senator Wyden, who is in favor
of the legislation, should speak next after the Senator from Utah, and
then we should go to Senator Hagel.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask that I may follow after Senator Hagel.
Mr. REID. For the information of Members, Senator Bennett--how long
is he going to speak?
Mr. BENNETT. I was planning to----
Mr. REID. He has been here for 2 days.
Mr. BENNETT. I was planning to discuss the amendment that I was
unable to offer. I want to spend 15 minutes or so on that. Then I want
to make a general statement about the bill. I will try not to get
overly enthusiastic about my arguments, but I might get carried away
for another 20 minutes or so about that, so between 30 or 40 minutes. I
will do my best to restrain myself.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I still have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. REID. I am sorry. If I may----
Mr. McCAIN. I think I have consumed 7 or 8 minutes. I hope the
Senator from Utah will recognize that both the Senator from Nebraska
and the Senator from Oregon have been here for a long time. I hope he
would give them the opportunity to speak before the 5:45 vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Arizona making a unanimous
consent request that after the Senator from Utah has finished his
remarks, the Senator from Oregon would be recognized, followed by the
Senator from Nebraska, followed by the Senator from Wisconsin?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making such a request?
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to make that request.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Oregon
wishes to speak for 15 minutes. This is so other Members will have an
idea about what is going on. The Senator from Nebraska wishes how much
time?
Mr. HAGEL. Twenty minutes.
Mr. REID. I do not object.
Mr. McCAIN. I amend the unanimous consent agreement. The Senator from
Utah would like how many minutes?
Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to do 20 minutes on the bill itself and
delay my 20 minutes on the amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Utah for his courtesy. I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be recognized for 20
minutes, the Senator from Oregon for 15 minutes, the Senator from
Nebraska for 20 minutes, and then the Senator from Wisconsin for 20
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I only ask if there is
enough time to get us to 5:45.
Mr. McCAIN. Roughly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity. I have
been following this debate and, indeed, have been involved in it with
great interest ever since it began.
While I appreciate and, indeed, salute the sincerity with which the
Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin pursue their
efforts to achieve what they sincerely believe will be good for our
country, I must begin by stating that I am absolutely convinced that
what they are pursuing would be bad for our country, would be bad for
our political system, would be bad for campaigns in general, and would
raise, rather than lower, the sense of frustration and disgust with the
political system overall.
That has been the history of campaign finance reform. It has gone on
in this town for decades. Every time, the reformers end up making
things worse. I say that with all respect for the sincerity with which
they pursue their goal. But, in my opinion, the goal they are pursuing
is not available to them through the route they are following.
I wish to begin by quoting a column that appeared last week in the
Washington Post written by Robert Samuelson. Robert Samuelson is not
known as one of the more partisan of the political commentators. He is
basically considered an objective commentator,

[[Page S12764]]

spending more of his time on economics than other issues. But what he
has to say about this issue captures what I believe about it so well
that I am going to quote him at some length.

He says:

Few subjects inspire more intellectual conformity than
``campaign finance reform.'' All ``right-thinking'' people
``know'' that election spending is ``out of control,'' that
the present system of campaign finance is corrupt and that
only reactionaries block ``reform.''

I think that captures exactly what we have been hearing on the
floor--that all ``right-thinking'' people ``know'' that election
spending is out of control and the present system is corrupt and only
reactionaries block ``reform''.
Then he goes on:

Who cares if these common beliefs are either wrong or
wildly exaggerated--or that most ``reforms'' would do more
damage to democracy than any harm they might cure? The case
against ``reform'' is almost impossible to make, because
people's minds are closed.

That beginning of Mr. Samuelson's column, as I say, perfectly
captures how I feel about this issue. Here is the history--again, in
previous debates, I have gone through the history at some length. Mr.
Samuelson summarized well:

The history of ``campaign finance reform'' is that every
limit inspires new evasions. One possibility is that interest
groups will finance more independent campaigns . . . to elect
or defeat targeted candidates. ``Reformers'' view such
``issue ads'' . . . as shams. And so, the next step would be
to curb such advertising, even if curbs flout the First
Amendment.

Mr. Samuelson then goes on with this very insightful quote from one
of the reform groups that summarizes how this debate has crystallized:

``Any effort to reform issue advocacy spending in
connection with federal elections must strike a regulatory
balance between protecting political speech and protecting
the integrity of our electoral process,'' says one reform
group.

Well, as Mr. Samuelson says:

The First Amendment says that ``Congress shall make no law
. . . abridging the freedom of speech.'' There's no mention
[in the First Amendment] of ``regulatory balance.'' And if
elections and ``issue ads'' aren't about political speech,
what are they about? ``Right thinking'' people minimize the
conflict between ``campaign finance reform'' and free speech,
because it is inconvenient.

Then Mr. Samuelson summarizes, and I think, again, this is the
ultimate summary of the debate:

As long as we have the First Amendment, the effort to
regulate elections--under the guise of ``campaign finance
reform''--is futile, self-defeating, and undesirable. The
hysteria about money's corrupting power worsens the very
problem that reformers claim to deplore: public cynicism. But
right-thinking people are oblivious to evidence or logic.
They are at ease with their own respectable conformity.

I could not have done it better, so I didn't try. That is why I
quoted it at that length. Let's go to the debate for a minute. By the
way, I ask that I be informed when I have 5 minutes left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be informed.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr.
Torricelli, took the floor a day or two ago to give us a glimpse of the
real world that we are facing if certain portions of this bill go
forward. He was arguing that we should not pass the substitute,
commonly known as Shays-Meehan, because he said it will limit the
speech of political parties and leave us to the mercies of special
interest groups. I wrote down some of the things he said.
He said, ``The debate will be fought by surrogates over our heads in
a far larger context.'' I agree with that absolutely. If political
parties are limited in the amount of soft money advocacy in which they
can be involved but special interest groups are not, special interest
groups will simply ignore the political party by the ads themselves.
Mr. Torricelli laid out for us in great detail some of the stratagems
that would be followed, thus validating the comments Robert Samuelson
made about political money finding another way around, finding a new
way to come into the arena. That is the real world we will face, and
the junior Senator from New Jersey was exactly right in outlining how
it will work. Yet we seem to go plowing ahead on the assumption that
somehow the real world will be different if we just show how honest and
anxious we are to appear not to be corrupt.
Let me give you some real-world examples. We have heard that from
other Members of the Senate. People have talked about their own
elections. I want to talk about several real-world examples from
elections in which I have participated.
Let's go back to the 1998 election when I got reelected. My opponent
complained about this very issue. He complained often and he complained
as loudly as he could that somehow there is something broken about the
system because, he said: I can't raise enough money to compete with
Senator Bennett. What is the matter with a system where ordinary people
can't compete?
We pointed out to him in one of the debates that on the ticket with
him was a sixth-grade schoolteacher running for Congress who raised
more money than her incumbent opponent. What is the difference? The
candidate for the Senate can't raise enough money, he says, to compete
with me, whereas another Democrat in the same State, a sixth-grade
schoolteacher, can raise enough money to compete against a sitting
Congressman.
My opponent, by the way, according to his financial disclosure, is a
millionaire. The sixth-grade schoolteacher clearly is not. The sixth-
grade schoolteacher clearly depends upon her paycheck very heavily. The
difference was not because of my personality or his personality. The
difference was that the people who are involved in providing money for
political races make a very cold calculation as to what your chances
are.
When I first ran for the Senate, and I came to this town, and I did
the circuit of all of these terrible places we have been hearing about
on this floor asking them for money, they did not ask me what I
believed. They didn't ask me, what will our access be if we give you
money? They didn't say to me, gee, we want to know your positions
before we decide. They wanted to know if I had a chance of winning
because, they said: We don't back losing horses. And they were
convinced I was a losing horse, and they didn't give me any. I went out
of this town empty-handed.
I was outspent 3 to 1, with my opponent in a primary in the State of
Utah spending $6.2 million. That sets a record on a per vote cast that
I don't think has ever been broken. I was able to put my message across
with a third of that amount, and I beat him, at which point people
started to say: All right, now we will talk to you, because now that
you have won the Republican nomination, it looks as if you may have an
opportunity.
The problem my opponent had had nothing to do with his positions, had
nothing to do with his own bank account, had nothing to do with his own
personality. It was simply that he was perceived as a loser and the
people who were giving money decided they didn't want to back a loser.

But here comes a sixth-grade schoolteacher with no money in the bank
and no political experience of any kind, and they thought she might be
a winner, so she got all the money she needed. She didn't win. One of
the reasons she didn't win is very appropriate to this debate. She
signed the term limit pledge; her opponent did not.
So Americans for Term Limits--or whatever they are called--came into
that congressional district with a whole series of issue ads attacking
her opponent, attacking him for his failure to sign the term limit ad.
This is a special interest group with soft money. We have no idea where
it came from. We have no idea in what amounts it was raised. We have no
idea who signed on because they are not under the FEC. But they
exercised their constitutional right. They came into the Second
Congressional District in the State of Utah, and they flooded the
airwaves with some of the nastiest, most vicious political ads I have
ever seen attacking the incumbent Congressman.
What happened? Early polls showed that the sixth-grade schoolteacher
was going to beat the incumbent Congressman. She had more money than he
did. She had momentum. Then these ads started to run, and the reaction
on the part of the voters in the second district--I heard it everywhere
I went campaigning--was: We hate those ads. How can Lily Eskelson be so
vicious as to run those ads?
She then went on the air, and she said: I am not running them. I
don't

[[Page S12765]]

have anything to do with them. This is a special interest group. All I
did was sign the term limit pledge, and Congressman Cook didn't.
Congressman Cook went on the air and said: I am the victim of a smear
campaign. And in the minds of many voters, it was Lily Eskelson who was
doing the smearing. She had absolutely no control over the ads. If she
had, she would have pulled them. But she didn't. It was the special
interest group that was exercising its constitutional right, and there
was nothing she could do about it.
Congressman Cook appropriately protested: How can you attack me for
violating term limits when I am running for my first reelection? He had
only been in Congress one term. They were attacking him for being part
of the system and not signing the term limit pledge that would have
given him three terms. He said: Don't come after me until I have served
at least the three terms you think are appropriate.
I think the special interest ads in the second district had a
significant impact on the outcome of that election.
I point this out. Here is a sixth-grade schoolteacher with no money
who is able to outspend and outfundraise her opponent because those who
put up the money thought she has a chance to win. That is the
criterion, nothing else. She lost the race because a special interest
group came in and flooded the district with their ads, thinking they
were helping her but were in fact hurting her.
If we say that political parties cannot defend themselves against
these special interest ads, we will do exactly the thing about which
the Senator from New Jersey talked. We will create a situation where
the candidates become unimportant, and the special interest, in the
words of the Senator from New Jersey, ``fight over our heads in a far
larger context.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
This is the real world. The real world is a world in which attempts
to get around the first amendment and attempts to find ways to regulate
political speech backfire against the reformers, and they do not work.
One last description out of the real world. We have heard a lot on
this floor this afternoon about access. All right, maybe we are not
corrupt. We had that debate earlier last week whether or not we are all
corrupt. So now we are being told, well, no, we are not corrupt. At
least we have made that clear--not to Maureen Dowd, but to a lot of
other people we are at least not corrupt. But we are somehow tainted by
virtue of the fact that we can't control this access, and access
becomes the issue rather than corruption.
As I said once before, the easiest way to get access to me is to be a
voter registered in the State of Utah. I will take your call, and I
will have you come into my office. But my opponent in this last
election raised this issue of access in this context. As it so happens,
he has been lobbying me for the entire time I have been in the Senate
about a program of which he is in favor. He successfully lobbied me. I
agree with him on their program. It is microcredit. I have done
everything I can as a member of the Appropriations Committee to
increase the appropriations for microcredit. And, frankly, I have been
successful. All I did during the campaign was ask him this one
question: Every time you came to see me to try to lobby on behalf of
microcredit, did anyone in my office ever ask you if you had made a
political contribution to Senator Bennett?
He immediately said: No, no one ever asked me that question.
I said: Then why do you stand here and claim that access is for sale
when you, now my opponent in this race, have had full access to my
office for the entire 6 years I've been here?
It boils down to those who are corrupt will be corrupt regardless of
the system; those who are not corrupt will not be corrupt regardless of
the system.
For those who say we are now far worse than we ever were, I offer two
last comments. No. 1, when I moved into the Dirksen Building, I noticed
there was a safe in every Senator's office. My father was here when the
Dirksen Building was built. Let me state why there is a safe in every
office--for the Senators to put the cash they receive in their offices
from people who come to see them. That doesn't mean they are corrupt.
My father was not corrupt. But I watched him receive an envelope full
of cash in his office in the Dirksen Building, and I watched him open
the safe and put it in there. It happened, by the way, to have come
from one of the senior Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle who
said, ``I don't want any other Republican to be the ranking member of
my committee; I want you to win, Wallace, and I raised this money for
you.''
It was $5,000, which in those days was in excess of 5 percent of the
total cost of a campaign. Dad put it in his safe in the Dirksen
Building. When my office was renovated recently in the Dirksen
Building, what did I do? I took the safe out because I have never used
it, and I don't think any other Senators ever use it. We don't get
offered cash in our offices anymore.
Second, David McCullough wrote the biography of whom many considered
the most incorruptible President we have ever had, Harry Truman. In his
biography of Harry Truman, David McCullough reports that the highest
paid individual on Harry Truman's staff was Bess Truman, who lived in
Missouri and never came to Washington or entered the Senator's office.
Why was she his highest paid staff member? Because Senators routinely
did that in order to be able to live on their salaries.
According to Mr. McCullough, Harry Truman was terrified the people of
Missouri would find out he was paying Bess the highest permissible
salary so he and Bess could handle the financial challenges of serving
in the Senate. Was Harry Truman corrupt? No. Even in a corrupt system,
and I am sure there are Senators who were, he was not a corrupt man.
There may have been an appearance but the appearance did not mean the
reality.
They changed the system. We are now paid a living wage. We don't do
that anymore. We don't put our relatives on the payroll and have them
not show up. But let Members not sit here and say the system is far
worse now than it ever used to be. Politics in America is as clean as
it has ever been and far cleaner than it used to be. Let's not do what
Robert Samuelson warns against: In the name of campaign finance reform
make things worse again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Oregon, Mr. Wyden, is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank our colleague from Nebraska for his
thoughtfulness. He has been waiting a long time, as well.
I am a supporter of the McCain-Feingold bill, this iteration, as with
all others. It is an important step in the right direction. However, I
believe the biggest problem is that campaigning in America has become a
never-ending money chase. There is an election the first Tuesday in
November. People sleep in on Wednesday and all the fundraising starts
all over again on Thursday. It is truly a permanent campaign.
If I had my way, if I could write my version of what the Senate ought
to do on campaign finance, we would look at some sort of approach along
the lines of what is used in several countries in Europe. They confine
their elections to several months over a period of a couple of years.
Money can be raised. It has to be disclosed. It is spent. They have
their election, and, heaven forbid, after a few months of campaigning,
they go back to tackling the issues that all Members get an election
certificate for--to improve health care, education, to try to stuff the
nuclear genie back into the bottle, to create an opportunity for people
who work hard and play by the rules.
We are, obviously, not going to get that kind of reform, although I
have been amazed in the last few days when I have colleagues on both
sides of the aisle say they like that and wish there was a bipartisan
Senate task force to look at something similar. That really would be
reform. We could spend most of our time doing a job for which we were
elected.
For now, we are limited to steps that can be taken immediately that
are effective. I have come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a
step that Senator Jeff Bingaman and I have developed. It is an
important step in the view of Senator Bingaman and myself. It limits
negative campaigning.

My view from personal experience is negative ads are similar to a
virus.

[[Page S12766]]

They infect everyone with whom they come in contact. In the special
election to replace Bob Packwood in the Senate, unfortunately I didn't
say no to some of those media consultants who told me to win, I had to
just rip in to our colleague, my friend, Senator Gordon Smith, with
negative ads. I should have known immediately that all those negative
ads run contrary to everything I got involved with when I began the
Gray Panthers in Oregon to try to practice good government, but I
didn't step in when I should have on the negative ads, and I regret it
to this day.
With a month to go before that special election, I did tell my
consultants I could not stand any longer the stench of the negative
ads, and I told them to take them off the air. Moreover, I apologized
to the people of Oregon. I said I made an error in judgment and it
would not happen again. I ran my 1998 campaign, I am proud to be able
to say, without mentioning my opponent at all.
I believe candidates ought to stand by their ads. They ought to be
directly responsible for their ads. What Senator Bingaman and I will
propose later this week is an approach we call ``stand by your ad.''
Specifically, the Bingaman-Wyden proposal says a candidate who mentions
his or her opponent in a campaign ad must do so in person in order to
get the lowest unit rate for advertising. Under current Federal
communications law, broadcasters are required to sell commercial air
time to candidates for Federal office at the lowest available price,
known as the lowest unit broadcast rate. That means for 45 days prior
to a primary or primary runoff, for 60 days prior to a general
election. In effect, everybody else in town--the car dealership, the
restaurant, the tire manufacturer--has to subsidize politics. Their ad
costs are greater because broadcasters have to give these cheaper rates
during the election cycle.
I think it is time to hold candidates personally responsible for
their ads. I am amazed to find that all across the political spectrum I
am joined in support of this idea. For example, in the House of
Representatives, my Oregon colleague, Greg Walden, is a broadcaster by
profession. He doesn't think this is bureaucratic or hard to comply
with. He introduced in the House, as I did in the Senate, the ``stand
by your ad'' approach that says candidates who mention their opponent
have to do it in person to get the lowest unit rate. No first amendment
violation here.
I recently received from the Library of Congress a legal opinion
stating it would be constitutional to put in place the Bingaman-Wyden
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that legal opinion be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Research Service,

Library of Congress,

Washington, DC, October 18, 1999.
Memorandum To : Honorable Ron Wyden. Attention: Jeff Gagne,
Legislative Assistant.
From: L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney, American Law
Division.
Subject: Constitutionality of Conditioning Receipt of Lowest
Unit Rate for Federal Candidate Broadcast Communications
on Compliance With Attribution Requirements.
This memorandum is furnished in response to your request
for an analysis of the constitutionality of a proposed
amendment to S. 1593 (106th Cong.), ``McCain/Feingold II,''
which would amend 47 U.S.C. Sec. 315(b) to restrict the
availability of the lowest unit rate for campaign
advertising, in which a federal candidate directly references
an opponent, to only those radio and television broadcasts
where the candidate personally makes the reference. That is,
in the case of a television broadcast directly referencing an
opponent, the candidate would be required to make a personal
appearance and, in the case of a radio broadcast directly
referencing an opponent, the candidate would be required to
make a personal audio statement identifying the candidate, in
order to qualify for the lowest unit rate. Such personal
appearance and personal audio statements are often referred
to as broadcast attribution requirements.
In the landmark decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme
Court made it clear that the right to associate is a ``basic
constitutional freedom'' \1\ and that any action that may
have the effect of curtailing that freedom to associate would
be subject to the strictest judicial scrutiny.\2\ The Court
further asserted that while the right of political
association is not absolute,\3\ it can only be limited by
substantial governmental interests such as the prevention of
corruption or the appearance thereof.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 424 U.S. 1, 25 (1976) (quoting Kusper v. Pontikes, 414
U.S. 51, 57 (1973) ).
\2\ Id. at 25 (quoting NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61
(1958) ).
\3\ Id. (citing CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 567
(1973) ).
\4\ Id. at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employing this analysis, the Court in Buckley upheld the
disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA), noting that the ``ability of the citizenry to make
informed choices among candidates for office is essential.''
\5\ Also of relevance, the Buckley Court upheld the FECA
presidential public financing provisions, which condition a
candidate's receipt of public funding on the candidate
voluntarily agreeing to limit spending.\6\ The Court found
that the provisions did not infringe on free speech, but
rather constituted a proper means of promoting the general
welfare by actually encouraging public discussion and
participation in the electoral process.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. at 14-15.
\6\ Id. at 57, fin. 65 (noting that ``[j]ust as a candidate
may voluntarily limit the size of the contributions he
chooses to accept, he may decide to forgo private fundraising
and accept public funding.'')
\7\ Id. at 97-104 (finding also that conditioning receipt of
public funding on complying with spending limits was a less
onerous restriction than those in the ballot access cases
with respect to minor and new parties.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the Supreme Court's holdings in Buckley v.
Valeo, it appears that the proposed amendment, to condition
federal candidate receipt of the lowest unit rate for
broadcast communications on candidates' voluntarily agreeing
to comply with certain attribution requirements, would be
upheld as constitutional. Similar to the FECA disclosure
requirements and presidential public financial provisions,
the proposal could be found to provide important candidate
information to the voting citizenry. Moreover similar to the
presidential public financing provisions, due to its
voluntary nature,\8\ the proposed amendment could be found
not to infringe on free speech, but rather to promote the
general welfare by increasing public discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ That is, a candidate could legally not choose to comply
with the broadcast attribution requirements and still
purchase broadcast time at a price higher than the lowest
unit rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, it appears that, requiring a radio or
television broadcaster to condition providing federal
candidates with the lowest unit rate for broadcast
communications on candidates' voluntarily agreeing to comply
with certain attribution requirements would also pass
constitutional muster under Supreme Court precedent upholding
reasonable access and equal time requirements.\9\ For
example, in C.B.S. v. Federal Communications Commission, The
Supreme Court considered a federal statute allowing the FCC
to revoke a broadcast license if the broadcaster willfully or
repeatedly failed to grant a federal office candidate
reasonable access to airtime or denied a federal office
candidate the ability to purchase reasonable amounts of
airtime. Although the Court did not rule that there is a
general right of candidate access to the broadcast media, the
majority held that the reasonable access statute
constitutionally provided, on an individual basis, legally
qualified federal office candidates with special access
rights.\10\ Moreover, as the Supreme Court found in Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., ``it does not violate the First
Amendment to treat licensees given the privilege of using
scarce radio frequencies as proxies for the entire community,
obligated to give suitable time and attention to matters of
great public concern.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 312(a)(7).
\10\ 453 U.S. 367 (1981). See also, Farmers Educational and
Cooperative Union v. WDAY, 360 U.S. 525 (1959) (upholding
F.C.C. equal time requirements.)
\11\ 395 U.S. 367, 394 (1969).

It is arguable that the subject proposal is a less onerous
burden on broadcast licensees than the equal time and
reasonable access provisions. As the Supreme Court has upheld
the constitutionality of the equal time and reasonable access
requirements, it is likely that the proposed requirement,
that broadcast licensees condition providing federal office
candidates with the lowest unit rate for broadcast
communications on candidate compliance with certain
attribution restrictions, would likewise be upheld.
L. Paige Whitaker,
Legislative Attorney.
Mr. WYDEN. We have a proposal the law division of the Library of
Congress believes is constitutional which has been introduced by
broadcaster Gregg Walden, a conservative Republican serving in the
other body. It is a chance to take a practical step to deal with these
negative ads. I believe it is possible to have a real debate about
public issues without taking an approach that coarsens the public
dialog and alienates so many people from the political process.
I am very proud that Senator Smith and I put out a bipartisan agenda
for the people of our State. We said, on important things for our
State, that politics is going to stop at the State's borders. We said
we do not want a part of the negative politics practiced in that
special election to replace Bob Packwood. Frankly, Senator Gordon Smith

[[Page S12767]]

summed it up pretty well when we talked about those negative ads after
he was elected to the Senate and people were talking about our working
together. He asked me how I felt when he ran his ads; how my kids
looked at those ads?
I said: Well, Gordon, they were pretty upset by those ads.
He said: What did you tell your daughter?
I said: Gordon, I said when you ran those ads, me looking like I
hadn't shaved for a couple of weeks, like a convict who had just gotten
out of prison, I told my daughter Lilly, ``Gordon Smith doesn't mean
those things. He's just kidding, Lilly. He doesn't mean those negative
ads.''
Gordon, to his credit, said on television to the people of Oregon: I
want to tell Lilly Wyden she's right. I didn't really mean those things
I was saying about her dad.
Madam President, colleagues, we all know that this system is out of
kilter. We all know that. Clearly we are going to have to take some
bold steps in a bipartisan way to put it back on track. But I ask my
colleagues to look seriously at the proposal that Senator Bingaman and
I will bring to the floor later this week. It is a practical step that
we could take against the virus of negative ads, negative ads that
produce this spiraling effect where each side runs one that is more
negative than the previous one, and the public is alienated.
Our proposal, based on the analysis done by the law division of the
Congressional Research Service, is constitutional. Frankly, it is a lot
less intrusive than a variety of requirements imposed on broadcasters
right now. Broadcast licensees have to comply with equal time and
reasonable access provisions. The Supreme Court has upheld them. The
proposal we made that broadcast licensees providing the lowest unit
rate available to candidates actually make the candidates offer their
statements in person is one I am absolutely convinced the Supreme Court
will uphold. They upheld the equal time and reasonable access
provision. They will uphold this one as well.
It is time to change the current communications law and require, when
candidates reference their opponent in a radio or television ad, that
they have to appear in order to qualify for the lowest unit rate. If
they do not want the lowest unit rate, they can go about the business
of having various anonymous groups and sources continue to attack their
opponent. But I do not think there ought to be a constitutional right
to a broadcasters subsidy--that is what we have today--and,
fortunately, the Library of Congress agrees with me. I think candidates
ought to stand by their ads. Candidates for public office in the future
ought to have greater direct responsibility for their ads.
The amendment Senator Bingaman and I have prepared would do just
that. It is a complement to the proposal offered by Republican
Congressman Gregg Walden in the other body. I hope my colleagues will
look favorably on it. As one who comes to the floor today to talk about
this negative ad question with personal experience, I will tell you I
believe this issue, this question of the corrosive, ugly pettiness that
has dominated so much of television advertising, ought to be at the top
of the list of the reforms we pursue in this body. It ought to be at
the top of our priority list, to look at ways to root out of American
politics the negative nature of so much of this debate.
We can have profound differences of opinion. We can have sharp and
profound differences of opinion without letting politics fall into the
gutter of the negative, petty, ugly kind of politicking, as we have
seen so many good people--good people--get caught up in across this
country.
My colleague, Senator Bingaman, will have more to say about our joint
proposal when he comes to the floor. I ask, again, when we get to this
issue later in the debate, our colleagues look favorably on a proposal
that I think will make a real difference in American politics and will
begin to drain the swamp that has contaminated so much of our public
dialog.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, is now recognized.
Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise in support of campaign finance
reform. I first commend my colleagues, Senators McCain and Feingold,
for their tireless efforts in keeping campaign finance reform alive and
forcing the Senate to deal with its responsibilities.
The debate about campaign finance reform is one we need to have. All
of us who have the high privilege to hold office have a responsibility
to bring open and accountable government to the American people. This
begins with an open and accountable campaign financing system. The
American people must have confidence in such a system. Confidence in
our political system is the essence of representative government. Our
challenge has been to reform the excesses of the system while
preserving the first amendment rights of all Americans to express
themselves and engage in the political process.
In recent years, this challenge has caused Congress to shrink from
serious attempts at campaign finance reform. We are better than that.
America deserves more than a vacuous sleepwalk through this debate.
The Supreme Court has said Government can regulate how campaign
finances are regulated as long as, No. 1, regulations are kept to a
reasonable minimum, and, No. 2, they are designed to prevent corruption
or the appearance of corruption. The appearance of corruption is a
significant part of this debate.
My colleagues are not a bunch of campaign finance bandits or thugs,
but in a democracy where citizens freely choose their leaders,
perception does matter because perception is directly connected to
confidence. Voters lose faith in the integrity of the political system
when they lose confidence in the system. As they become demoralized and
detached, citizens lower their expectations and standards for public
officeholders. That produces a problem that goes beyond any remedy we
can offer here on the floor of the Senate.
No amount of legislation can prevent scoundrels from exploiting
campaign finance laws or any laws. We need to rise above partisan,
ideological, personal rivalries and find common ground on campaign
finance reform, elevate the debate, and enact relevant reforms.
For me, disclosure is the core of campaign finance reform. The
overriding purpose of the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s
was to increase transparency and accountability in the political
system. Disclosure rules for all who participate in the political
process need to be a part of whatever reform package we produce. The
public needs to see who is writing the checks, and for how much. The
voter needs to be aware of the flow of campaign dollars. We should not
fear an educated and informed body politic. All elected officials have
an obligation to be part of that educational process.
In recent years, interest groups have come crashing into races in the
home stretch, pouring huge amounts of money into radio and TV ads. All
of us know stories of outside groups launching a late blitz of ads,
moving poll numbers in the final weeks or days of a campaign, and then
disappearing without the public knowing who they were and how much they
spent for or against the candidate.
It is time to end this type of political stealth raid on campaigns.
If individuals and organizations are going to participate in the
electoral process--and they should; we encourage all individuals and
organizations to participate--then the extent of their participation
should be revealed to the public. As long as the voter can see where
the money is coming from, and where it is going, our system will retain
its integrity. I trust the American people to elevate this debate and
evaluate the flow of money in campaigns.
In addition to the disclosure, we need to look at soft money
contributions to national party committees. I appreciate the legitimate
free speech and constitutional concerns in this area. Our purpose here
is not to anticipate or resolve every hypothetical constitutional
challenge. Our job here is to make policy. If complications or honest
differences of interpretation and opinion result, that is why we have a
judicial system.
What I do know is this. The unaccountable status quo on soft money

[[Page S12768]]

needs to be changed. Most constitutional experts say an outright ban on
soft money probably is unconstitutional. Every court decision rendered
so far on this issue has come down against an outright ban on soft
money. But this unaccountable, unlimited flood of soft money cascading
over America's politics should be checked. We have constitutional
limits on individual contributions--so-called hard money. Why then
should it be so outrageous to examine limits on soft money? What are we
afraid of?
We need to find a middle ground between the extremes of banning soft
money and leaving it unlimited, a middle ground where compromise is
possible. We should also raise limits on donations of hard money by
individuals and political action committees. This can be done by
indexing individual contributions to inflation.
Raising the limits would have beneficial effects. Individual
contributors would have an impact comparable to what Congress intended
when reforms were first enacted in the 1970s. There would be more focus
on individual participation in campaign financing. More campaign money
would be under the direct control of candidates, making them more
accountable for the spending and the conduct of their campaigns.
Remember, this is hard money, accountable money.
These are the general principles behind the amendment I wanted to
talk about today. But before getting to the specifics of this
amendment, I have to say a word about the current process. We need
campaign finance reform, but we are not going to get it through the
predicament in which we find ourselves today--limited opportunities for
debate, no opportunities for additional amendments, and no votes on
those amendments.
My colleagues, Senators Abraham, DeWine, Gorton, and Thomas, and I
had planned to offer amendments to McCain-Feingold today. Now we are
left only with the opportunity to talk about the amendments we would
have offered if we had been given a chance to do so.
The amendments my colleagues and I intended to offer contained
several significant changes in current campaign finance law. I will
focus on the ones my colleagues and I believe are most important. Our
amendment, first, would limit to $60,000 a year the total amount of
soft money the national party committees combined could receive from an
individual, PAC, corporation, or union.
A donor could give all $60,000 to one committee or spread the $60,000
over several committees. But the aggregate soft money donation could
not exceed $60,000 per year. The limit would be indexed for inflation
in future years. All union and corporate donations still would be
treated as soft money to be used only for party-building activities.
Union and corporate donations would not be treated as hard money for
use in express advocacy or transfers to Federal candidates.
This is not a ban on financial support of parties. It is a return to
the original intent of the campaign finance reforms of the 1970s, which
worked until they were exploited and abused by, I might add, both
parties. Nor is this a ban on political speech. There would remain many
options. Donors who wanted to give more money for political speech
could contribute to third party organizations.
I appreciate the legitimate free speech and constitutional concerns
many of my colleagues and I have about these kinds of caps. This
amendment offers a compromise that addresses the constitutional
concerns while moving forward with reform legislation.
If the cap were challenged in court within 30 days after taking
effect, the cap would be suspended until the conclusion of the court
challenge. It is time now to adjust and index hard money contributions
to inflation. For an individual, contribution limits would increase,
for example, from $1,000 to $3,000 per candidate per election--and so
it would go, for PACs and all committees. In future years, all limits
would be indexed for inflation.
I have heard the argument that raising the hard money limits would
give the wealthy too much influence and access. If we cap soft money
and do not adjust the hard money limits, we will chase more money into
the black hole of third party ads, where the public cannot view the
flow of money. I want to bring more of that money into the sunlight,
into the daylight, where the American people have access to who is
giving money and how much. They can decide for themselves if a
candidate has been ``bought'' by anyone.

Financial disclosure is the core of any campaign finance reform. This
amendment would take the rules on broadcast ads that apply now to
candidates and extend them to all political broadcast ads.
Under current Federal regulations, when a candidate places a
political ad with a broadcaster, the broadcaster is required to keep a
file on the ad that is open to any member of the public who wants to
see it. In that file is a record of the following: The time the spots
are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased, and the
rates at which the ads were purchased. This information must be
recorded immediately and made available for public inspection.
Under current Federal regulations, when an interest group places a
political ad with a broadcaster, it does not have to meet the same
requirements. The public cannot find out: Who bought the ad, when the
ad will run, how much time was purchased, and how much was paid for the
ad. It is closed from public view.
This amendment would require that interest group ads relating to any
Federal candidate or issue also must go into the broadcaster's public
file. For those types of ads, the broadcaster would be required to
record the same information it does for ads by candidates and parties,
including the amount spent on the ad.
As with candidates and party ads, the information on these political
ads would be recorded immediately and made available for public
inspection. There would be no added burden on the broadcaster. The
broadcaster would simply use the same form already used for candidate
and party ads.
Full disclosure should apply to a political ad by an interest group
just as it does for a political committee or candidate because the
objectives, after all, of all the ads are the same.
Let me make clear one thing this amendment does not do. It does not
require unions, corporations, or any organization to identify
individual donors or provide membership lists. This amendment preserves
a reasonable balance between the public's right to know which groups
are attempting to influence an election and the privacy rights of
individual donors to an interest group.
In conclusion, we have before us a unique opportunity to accomplish
something relevant, reasonable, and meaningful. We have an opportunity
to restore some of the confidence the American people have lost in
their political system.
All of us in this noble profession of politics have a responsibility
to set high standards in American politics. Improving our system that
selects American leaders--who formulate and implement Government policy
that frames the governance of our Nation--is a worthy challenge. We can
elevate the process and make it better--more open and more
accountable--which leads to a more informed public through a more
relevant public debate, leading to a more accountable Government. Let
us not squander this opportunity or debase our responsibility.
Before I yield the floor, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senator from Michigan be allowed to follow me.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Nebraska allow me to make a
couple quick comments?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand I am to speak for 20 minutes following the
speech of the Senator from Nebraska. Or does he have additional time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 7 minutes
remaining. Was the Senator from Kentucky going to ask a question of the
Senator from Nebraska or was he asking him to yield the floor?
Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from Nebraska agree with me that
since he has 7 minutes left, it would not interfere unduly with the
Senator from Wisconsin, who has spoken a

[[Page S12769]]

number of times over the last few days, to allow his cosponsor, Senator
Abraham, to have the remainder of his time? Would the Senator from
Nebraska agree with the Senator from Kentucky that would be a good way
to proceed?
Mr. HAGEL. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky and yield my
remaining 7 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. FEINGOLD. With that understanding, I have no objection. I want to
be sure that we are not adding additional time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized for the remaining 7 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Michigan give me a moment to
make an observation?
Mr. ABRAHAM. I will withhold.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I assume this is off the time of the Senator from
Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I want to commend the Senator from Nebraska. Some day
we are going to pass real campaign finance reform. I think the proposal
that my friend from Nebraska has outlined is very close to what
someday, I hope, the Congress will pass. I commend him for an
outstanding amendment.
Mr. ABRAHAM. May I inquire, in terms of the queue, what additional
unanimous consent agreements have been entered into with respect to
time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Following the approximately 5 minutes 15
seconds remaining for the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Feingold will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. ABRAHAM. May I ask, before the 5:45 vote that is slated, are
there any other unanimous consent agreements that have set aside time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are none.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he would be willing
to enter into a unanimous consent agreement which would allow me to
speak for up to 10 minutes and then have his 20 minutes following
because we would still be within the timeframe for the vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I am only interested in
having about a minute right before the vote. Does the Senator from
Wisconsin have any problem with that?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I have no objection to either request.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Then I ask unanimous consent that I have up to 10
minutes, followed by 20 minutes for the Senator from Wisconsin,
followed by 1 minute for the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank my colleagues for their consideration.
I rise today in support of what I believe is a real, substantive
solution to the vexing question of campaign finance reform. To my mind
that question is this: how do we revive voter confidence in the
electoral process without violating the fundamental guidelines laid
down in our Constitution? The answer, I believe, lies in public
exposure and voter knowledge. The more voters know about the sources of
a particular candidate's campaign funding, the better able they will be
to determine whether that funding has or will interfere with the
candidate's ability to represent them.
The solution I support is in the nature of a substitute amendment. I
have cosponsored this amendment along with Senators Hagel, DeWine,
Gorton, and Thomas.
It was my hope that my colleagues and I would be able to introduce
this substitute on the floor and call for a vote. However, procedural
barriers have been created which have undermined meaningful debate on
this issue. In the end, these procedural barriers have prevented my
colleagues and I from submitting our substitute for a vote. However,
because I believe campaign finance reform is a critical issue which
will be with us for some time to come, I feel compelled to say a few
words about the contents of the substitute.
I believe that provisions in the substitute correct key, perceived
problems in our campaign financing system. The first section of the
substitute would increase disclosure. It would ensure that the public,
and the candidates' constituents in particular, are made immediately
and continuously aware the sources of candidates' financing. It also
would ensure public notification of any candidate financing by an
outside organization or interest seeking to influence the election.
How would the substitute accomplish these ends? By requiring
additional monthly and quarterly disclosure reports for federal
candidates and for national political parties. The substitute would
also require national party committees to disclose their receipts and
disbursements from non-federal accounts--as they are currently required
to do so for their federal accounts. A variety of other disclosure
components is also included in the legislation.
The second section of the substitute imposes reasonable restrictions
on soft money. I am very concerned about the constitutional
implications of a complete ban on soft money. Thus, our substitute
would place a $60,000 cap on soft money, pending an expedited review by
the Supreme Court. I believe this approach deals responsibly with the
issue of soft money, without ignoring potentially serious conflicts
with the first amendment.
Also included within the substitute is a provision that would raise
individual and PAC contribution limits to adjust for inflation. The
present limits have been in place since 1974, when the first law
regarding campaign finance was passed by the Congress. It is clearly
justifiable that these limits be raised to reflect the present economic
realities while maintaining the disclosure provisions so that the
public can continue to be informed about the sources of financing.
In addition, I would have liked to have been given the opportunity to
submit an additional amendment to campaign finance legislation. I would
have introduce an amendment limiting non-constituent contributions to
50 percent of the total raised by the candidate. This amendment would
accomplish a multitude of goals. It would instill a guideline for the
candidates, instill confidence in the voters, and would help dispel the
all too common notion that candidates are improperly influenced by
campaign contributions. In my view it is not difficult for a politician
to arrange financing in a way that avoids the appearance as well as the
reality of corruption.
In the context of my amendment, all federal candidates would have to
follow the same rules, dictating that they receive no more than 50
percent of overall contributions from PACs and out of state donors.
Political committees that do not have their national headquarters
within the candidate's state would be considered ``out of state''
contributions for these purposes. Any individual who is not a legal
resident of the candidate's state and contributes $200 or more to a
candidate would also be considered an ``out of state'' donor.
Why do I suggest such an approach? Because I don't think we are
addressing the serious perception problems that exist with respect to
campaign reform when we stand on the floor and focus all of the
amendments on who gives money to the national parties.
The fact is the party is not the individual who is on the floor of
the Senate casting votes. It is the 100 Members of the Senate. I
believe what is relevant is who supports us. Can we claim to represent
constituents if more than 50 percent of the money we receive from our
campaigns come from people we don't represent? I argue the answer to
that is no.
I think much more than contributions to the national parties
undermines our constituents' confidence that when we are on the floor
we are acting in the best interests of our constituents and our States.
In my judgment, this type of amendment--one that, unfortunately, will
not be voted on--is an important and integral part of any legitimate
campaign reform proposal. I am certain Federal candidates would find
that they can run successful campaigns with this 50-percent imposed
limit. More importantly, these limits would increase politicians'
accountability to their own constituents and decrease the appearance of
out-of-State special interest influence.
I ask unanimous consent the text of my proposed amendment be printed
in the Record.

There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S12770]]

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section 2,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 324. LIMIT ON OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

``(a) In General.--A candidate for nomination to, or
election to, the Senate or House of Representatives or the
candidate's authorized committees shall not accept an
aggregate amount of funds during an election cycle from
individuals that are not legal residents of and political
committees (other than a national political committee of a
political party or a Senatorial or Congressional Campaign
Committee of a national political party) that do not have
their national headquarters within the candidate's State in
excess of an amount equal to 50 percent of the total amount
of contributions accepted by the candidate and the
candidate's authorized committees during the election cycle.
``(b) Exception.--For purposes of the limit under
subsection (a), a contribution in an aggregate amount of less
than $200 in an election cycle from an individual who is not
a legal resident of the candidate's State shall not be taken
into account.
``(c) Time to Meet Requirement.--A candidate shall meet the
requirement of subsection (a) on the date for filing the
post-general election report under section 304(a)(2)(A)(ii).
``(d) National Headquarters.--In the case of a political
committee which is a separate segregated fund under section
316(b)(2)(C), the term `national headquarters' means the
national headquarters of the entity which establishes and
maintains such fund.''.
(b) Definition of Election Cycle.--Section 301 of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(20) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means the
period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent
general election for the specific office or seat that a
candidate is seeking and ending on the date of the next
general election for that office or seat.''.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I believe the substitute, which I cosponsored with
Senators Hagel and Thomas and Gorton and DeWine, along with my proposed
amendment, is the better way to reform campaign financing. I think it
strikes a reasonable balance between addressing the issues of
corruption with the constitutional concerns. I only wish these
amendments had been allowed to reach the floor. I can assure my
colleagues that I will continue to support real constructive campaign
finance reform.
As I say, it is unfortunate that the structure of our procedures
won't allow us to offer these variations. I think it is obvious to all
Americans that right now we have an impasse.
The reason we have an impasse is because we have essentially only one
alternative that is being treated as the only option available with
respect to campaign finance reform. Clearly, the way to break a
legislative logjam is to consider other alternatives. That is what the
Senator from Nebraska and I are trying to do. Perhaps it won't happen
in the context of this year's debate, but I hope in future debates we
will go beyond the simple all-or-nothing approach that we have had in
recent debates and give the rest of us a chance to have our amendments
considered and voted on. I think that is the only way we are going to
get to a conclusion that does, in fact, change the process, and for the
better.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a comment?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. If there is time remaining, I am happy to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I commend the Senator from Michigan, one of the
Members of this body who truly understands this issue. I think the
amendment he and the Senator from Nebraska have offered is a very
important step in the direction that I ultimately think we will take--
if we ever get serious about doing this on a bipartisan basis, rather
than in a way that advantages one side and disadvantages another.
So I wanted to commend the Senator from Michigan for his outstanding
work.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I haven't used all of
my time, so I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, in a few minutes, the Senate, for the
first time--let me reiterate that--for the first time, the Senate will
go on record on the central issue in this debate: Should the Senate ban
soft money?
It is a simple question that has a simple answer. And soon, finally,
we will see where each Senator stands.
The fact that our current campaign finance system has created an
appearance of corruption justifies Congress acting to ban soft money.
In fact, if we don't act, we create the appearance that we don't care
about corruption. Creating a legislative record of the appearance of
corruption is critical because the Supreme Court has held that not just
actual corruption but an appearance of corruption is adequate reason
for the restrictions on the speech represented by campaign contribution
limits.
Madam President, this is the central misunderstanding or flaw in the
opposition's position. They have premised everything in this debate on
the idea that you have to show individual Senators who are guilty of
corruption. Well, of course, that isn't the standard at all. That isn't
the law. Let me quote from the Supreme Court's opinion in Buckley v.
Valeo because this is a crucial concept that opponents of reform often
seek to ignore. The Court said:

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.

Madam President, I really don't think there is any doubt that our
current system presents the appearance of corruption. And it isn't just
soft money. We see it every day in the newspapers, and we hear it on
television talk shows. It is portrayed as common knowledge,
conventional wisdom, on radio talk shows that the votes of politicians
are bought and paid for by special interests. When the Senator from
Kentucky stands up and says that ``people contribute to our campaigns
because they agree with what we are doing,'' I am sure he is sincere,
but the public thinks there is something more than general feelings of
support or like-mindedness at work when somebody hands over hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
Let me give some examples of news stories in just the last three
weeks that drive this point home. All of them make it perfectly clear
to me, and I think to almost any American, that political donations are
generally a way of attempting to buy influence and access. All of them
add to the record that there is an appearance of corruption out there
that justifies the Congress taking action to ban soft money.
Madam President, if this applies to hard money contributions, it
surely must apply far more easily and obviously to soft money
contributions.
Exhibit A is a story from the National Journal of October 2, 1999. I
ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the National Journal, Oct. 2, 1999]

Banking on Paxon's GOP Credentials

(By Peter H. Stone)

It sure didn't take long for former Rep. Bill Paxon, R-
N.Y., to shake up Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the home
of Democratic superstars Robert S. Strauss and Vernon E.
Jordan. At Paxon's behest, the blockbuster law and lobbying
firm has joined the Republican National Committee's elite
Team 100, whose members give $175,000 to the party every four
years.
Since he joined Akin, Gump in January, after sifting
through a score of job offers, Paxon, the former chairman of
the National Republican Congressional Committee, has worked
diligently to boost the firm's standing in GOP circles.
Moreover, Paxon's arrival at Akin, Gump reflects the
determination of K Street firms loaded with Democratic ties
to adjust to the GOP's control of Congress.
It was no secret that Akin, Gump needed a GOP star. After
the 1996 presidential elections, the firm courted Bob Dole,
the GOP nominee and a former Senate Majority Leader. But
instead he joined another heavily Democratic firm, Verner,
Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand. Two years later,
Akin, Gump recruited Paxon aggressively and nabbed him as a
``senior advisor'' for an annual salary of about $750,000.
Paxon gets an office next to Strauss, to boot.
Paxon, who was instrumental in the GOP's 1994 takeover of
the Congress, enhances Akin, Gump's credibility among
Republicans. After all, he has raised big bucks for House GOP
leaders, the party committees, and the leading presidential
contender George W. Bush, the Texas Governor. He has already
attracted roughly a dozen new clients to the firm, including
Americans for Affordable Electricity--a coalition of energy

[[Page S12771]]

producers, led by Enron Corp., and large users, such as the
chemical industry--which backs quick utility deregulation.
Paxon also earns his keep by advising several long-standing
Akin, Gump clients on lobbying strategy.
Paxon conceded that Akin, Gump had a lot of fence-mending
to do with the GOP. ``The firm had a reputation as a
Democratic firm, unfairly so,'' he said. Despite the presence
of such GOP stalwarts as Donald C. Alexander, Smith W. Davis,
and Barney J. Skladany, the firm's superstars are former
Democratic National Committee Chairman Strauss and President
Clinton's golfing buddy Jordan. Joel Jankowsky, who heads the
firm's lobbying team, is also a Democrat. ``We have needed to
ratchet up our Republican profile to another level,'' Paxon
added.
Paxon, 45 and a nonlawyer, is certainly trying. Since
coming on board, Paxon has helped host 20 fund-raisers for
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, House Majority
Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, Senator Majority Whip Don Nickles of
Oklahoma, and others in the GOP. What's more, Paxon and his
colleagues raised more than $250,000 for an NRCC dinner
earlier this year and another $150,000 for a GOP Senate-House
dinner. In late August, Paxon helped Hastert during the
Speaker's successful fund-raising trip to Las Vegas.
Not surprisingly, NRCC Chairman Tom Davis of Virginia is a
huge Paxon fan. ``Bill is still a very integral part of the
culture over here,'' said Davis, who talks to Paxon a couple
of times a week. ``He's been helpful in building bridges to
groups. I consider him a right arm up here.''
Paxon is also one of a small number of K Streeters who meet
regularly with Hastert to discuss party strategy and to swap
information. He does the same with Chief Deputy Majority Whip
Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who holds weekly meetings with lobbyists.
During a recent session, Paxon maintained that the GOP should
not worry too much about its record on Capitol Hill this
year, because the party's generic poll numbers remain high as
a result of the public's ``fatigue'' with the Clinton
Administration and other factors.
Nationally, Paxon has proved to be a key fund-raiser and
strategist for Gov. Bush. Paxon has raised more than $100,000
for Bush, with a major slice of the money coming from New
York state. On Oct. 4, Paxon will co-host events in Buffalo
and Rochester that are expected to pull in close to $500,000
for the Bush campaign. Campaign sources say that Paxon is
likely to be named a member of Bush's national finance
committee when the panel is expanded later this year.
Paxon has helped to secure congressional endorsements for
Bush, whom he has visited three times in Austin. Paxon was
instrumental in lining up Blunt as the point man for the Bush
campaign in the House. In addition, he has advised the
campaign on tapping various House members for fund-raising
and other help.
Paxon's fund-raising skills, plus the experience he gained
during five terms in Congress, have seemingly proved magnets
for new business. Although he is barred by ethics rules from
lobbying on Capitol Hill until next year, Paxon said he
offers clients a cornucopia of other services. ``I help
clients understand what kind of lobbying, grass-roots, and
PAC (political action committee) programs they need to be
effective in Washington.''
As for clients, Paxon is doing well. Americans for
Affordable Electricity, for example, is paying the firm
approximately $500,000 a year for Paxon's services, according
to coalition sources. Paxon is the group's national chairman.
What does Paxon do to merit such fees? For the AAE, Paxon has
offered advice about how to approach members and what
arguments sell well on Capitol Hill. He has also helped
organize fund-raisers that the coalition has held for key
members of the House Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee,
including its chairman, Joe Barton, R-Texas. Paxon is a
former member of the panel.
In late September, Paxon and Marc D. Yacker, a member of
the coalition's steering committee and a lobbyist for the
Electricity Consumers Resource Council, attended a luncheon
with aides to roughly a dozen Governors to discuss utility
deregulation. Paxon has helped at the coalition's press
conferences and been a guest on several radio talk shows.
Paxon's name is also featured in the coalition's advertising
campaign.
Several coalition leaders give Paxon high marks. ``The very
fact that his name is on all the ads and that he's associated
with the issue and the cause is a major boost to the
coalition's legislative efforts,'' Yacker said.
But another coalition source complained that Paxon has
failed to raise enough money to enable the coalition to
compete with the utility industry's lobbying and advertising
efforts.
Paxon, a Buffalo native, has corralled new clients in areas
ranging from financial services to construction. Not
surprisingly, some of that business comes from the Empire
State. For instance, Paxon brought in the New York State
Health Facilities Association, which is seeking additional
Medicare reimbursement money. Moreover, Paxon is permitted to
lobby lawmakers outside Washington, and he has already done
some work in Albany, N.Y., for PG&E Generating Co., a unit of
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Paxon also devotes a fair chunk of his time to helping the
firm's longtime clients, such as AT&T Corp. In late
September, Paxon participated in a morning press briefing
hosted by the Competitive Broadband Coalition--of which AT&T
is a key member--to introduce a multimillion-dollar
television ad drive that will run in about 23 states and
inside the Beltway. The coalition's ad message is aimed at
countering lobbying by some Baby Bells, which want to
revise the 1996 Telecommunications Act to allow them to
provide high-speed data services in the long-distance
market. Paxon will also advise the coalition on
legislative strategy.
The lobbying battle has a personal dimension for Paxon. His
wife, former Rep. Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., represents
iAdvance, a coalition that includes several Baby Bells.
``Every now and then, we square off,'' quips Paxon. ``It's
not exactly (James) Carville and (Mary) Matalin.''
According to Paxon, his move from Capitol Hill has proved
to be relatively smooth. ``In the leadership, we spent a lot
of time strategizing on legislative issues, working on the
public angles, and trying to keep an eye on the big
picture,'' he added. ``It's the same downtown.''
Of course, Paxon's transformation from congressional leader
to thriving lobbyist, a success greased by plenty of campaign
cash, has provoked some indignation from longtime critics of
the money game. ``Bill Paxon may have changed jobs, but he
doesn't appear to have changed his role as a big-time player
in the Washington influence-money game,'' said Fred
Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, a group that
advocates campaign finance reform.
But at Akin, Gump, legendary lobbyist bob Strauss is
bursting with pride about the success of the firm's
Republican hire. ``He fit in from day one,'' crows Strauss.
``He's a franchise player. He'll continue to make
contributions, not just to the business of the firm, but the
character and the culture of the firm.''
Akin, Gump is banking on that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this article reports that former
Representative Bill Paxon, who retired last year, has signed with the
law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld. Akin Gump is one of
the powerhouse lobbying firms in Washington. Its partners include big
name Democrats Robert Strauss and Vernon Jordan. Paxon is not a lawyer,
so his title is ``senior advisor.'' What that means is that he will be
a lobbyist and ``rainmaker'' for the firm.
Apparently, Akin Gump, a firm known for its Democratic Party ties,
hired Mr. Paxon to ``mend fences'' with the Republican Party. And how
does Mr. Paxon do that? According to this article, the main thing he
does is raise money for Republican Members of Congress and the
Republican Party. The National Journal reports that Paxon has helped
host 20 fundraisers for the Speaker of the House, the House majority
whip, the assistant majority leader in the Senate, and other Republican
office holders. He has also raised more than $250,000 for an NRCC
dinner, and another $150,000 for a Republican House-Senate dinner this
year. He has raised over $100,000 for Presidential candidate George W.
Bush.
Let me quote from the article:

Not surprisingly, NRCC chairman, Tom Davis of Virginia, is
a huge Paxon fan. ``Bill is still a very integral part of the
culture over here,'' said Davis, who talks to Paxon a couple
of times a week. ``He's been helpful in building bridges to
groups. I consider him a right arm up here.''

The article reports that Mr. Paxon participates in a weekly meeting
that lobbyists hold with Majority Whip DeLay and meets regularly with
Speaker Hastert.
The article continues:

Paxon's fundraising skills, plus the experience he gained
during five terms in Congress, have seemingly proved magnets
for new business. Although he is barred by ethics rules from
lobbying on Capitol Hill until next year, Paxon said he
offers clients a cornucopia of other services.

Madam President, let's leave aside the revolving door problems in Mr.
Paxon participating in weekly meetings that Mr. DeLay holds with
lobbyists. Can there be any question that that is an appearance
problem? Here we have a former Member of Congress whose stock in trade
is raising big money for congressional leaders and candidates. Do we
really blame the public for thinking he is getting special treatment
for his clients?
Mr. Davis calls him an integral part of the culture over here. Just
what kind of culture is this? Certainly not the kind of culture I would
be proud to tell my children and grandchildren about. Certainly not a
culture that we should nourish and preserve for the future of our
democracy.
He is a right arm for the congressional leadership? The public might
be excused for asking: Just who is the right arm for whom in this
relationship?
Exhibit B. On October 5, the day before the House considered the
Patients'

[[Page S12772]]

Bill of Rights, according to press reports, officials for Cigna, Blue
Cross-Blue Shield, and Aetna held a $1,000 per plate breakfast
fundraiser for the Speaker of the House. Press reports the next day
said that 15 or 17 health insurance industry lobbyists attended the
event. Atlanta Constitution columnist Tom Baxter wrote the following:

The condition of the political ground could be judged by
the keen attention of all the television networks to a
breakfast fund-raiser this week at which insurance lobbyists
arrived with checks for Hastert and others. Not that such
scenes aren't common these days, but the timing made this a
photo-op for campaign finance reform.

Indeed. I remember seeing reports on the national TV news about this
event. And I thought to myself: ``what can the average American
watching on TV think about this scene?'' ``How can anyone not think
this is wrong?'' Actual corruption? We will never know. The appearance
of corruption? Without a doubt. The headline of this AP news story
tells it all: ``Insurers Give Speaker Thousands on Eve of Vote.''
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this article from the
Bergen County Record on this fundraiser be printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Bergen County (NJ) Record, Oct. 6, 1999]

Insurers Give Speaker Thousands on Eve of Vote

(By David Espo)

One day before a closely watched vote on health care, House
Speaker Dennis Hastert attended a fund-raising breakfast
Tuesday with industry representatives who gave $1,000 apiece
to his political war chest.
``I'd like to ask them about sitting down with America's
families instead,'' President Clinton chided from the White
House as he sought to build support for legislation granting
patients the right to sue their health insurance companies.
Hastert, who opposes the bill, defended his previously
scheduled meeting and sought to turn the tables on the White
House. ``Mr. President, I hope you will say no to helping
trial lawyers, and say yes to helping the 44 million
Americans who want health-care coverage,'' the Illinois
Republican said in a written statement.
The exchange underscored the deep philosophical and
political gulf between the two parties on health care at a
time when government statistics show the number of uninsured
continues to increase.
The White House, most Democrats, and some Republicans are
supporting legislation to strengthen patients hands in
dealing with their managed care companies. Among prerogatives
would be the ability to sue for damages when prescribed
care was denied.
Republicans counter that such provisions will merely raise
the cost of insurance and prompt some employers who now offer
insurance to their workers to drop it.
Facing a likely setback on that measure, the GOP leadership
is proposing a companion bill that provides numerous tax
breaks to make health insurance more affordable.
Their ``access'' bill also includes a provision opposed by
many Democrats to expand a current small program allowing
medical savings accounts. Another would give small businesses
the option to buy health insurance under federal rather than
state regulation. That would exempt them from state mandates
that bigger self-insured companies avoid.
``It's not the severe poor who don't have health care,''
Hastert told reporters. ``There are government programs that
reach out. It's working people today, who are working for
small business or who run their own shop or they go from job
to job, who need the ability to get health care.''
Hastert pledged a ``fair and open debate of the health-care
issue'' today when the legislation reaches the House floor.
The debate will come against a backdrop of a fresh
government report that estimates 44.3 million Americans, one
in six, had no health insurance coverage in 1998.
The Census Bureau survey found the number without coverage
grew by nearly a million, but overall population growth kept
the rate about steady, 16.3 percent in 1998, compared with
16.1 percent in 1997. In 1996, 15.6 percent lacked coverage.
Public opinion polls show the issue is high on the public's
list of priorities, and GOP leaders have struggled for months
in a narrowly divided House to keep control of it.
Hastert held the fund-raising breakfast for his political
action committee a few blocks from the Capitol.
Aides said it was scheduled several weeks ago. There was no
word on whether there was consideration of rescheduling the
event given the close proximity to the House's debate.
``I've listened to everybody in the health-care business
for a long time,'' the Speaker told reporters in the Capitol.
``The die is cast already on what the health legislation is
going to be. So there's no influence there whatsoever.''
An invitation to the event was issued in the name of
officials of Cigna, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and Aetna.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, an article that appeared in the
Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill on September 29. Here's another great
headline: ``Why 30 top Democratic lobbyists attended GOP chairman's
bash.''
This article reports however, that 30 top Democratic lobbyists
attended a fundraising dinner for a Republican committee chairman at
the home of Democratic super-lobbyist Tommy Boggs.
I bring this article to the attention of the Senate not to cast
aspersions on any Senator. My interest in this article is in the views
of lobbyists on fundraising, and the appearance it creates for the
public that reads about it.
Let me quote from the article: ``Indeed, it would be tantamount to
political suicide for Democratic lobbyists--or Republican lobbyists for
that matter--who specialize in the [the issues] that are the focus of
[the chairman's] committee and the lifeblood of their corporate
clients, if they desert him in his hour of need.''
Here are a few quotes in this article from lobbyists who were
questioned on the irony of Democratic lobbyists making contributions to
a powerful Republican chairman of a Senate committee. One said: ``In
situations like this, I tend to be a strong fan of incumbency.''
Another said, ``Most lobbyists know which side their bread is buttered
on.'' And this is what a staffer on the House side had to say: ``Any
time you have a chairman of [a committee] running for reelection, and
you're lobbying . . . issues before the committee, you risk having your
issue blown out of the water if you don't contribute to his campaign.
The game in this town is to support the incumbent.
Mr. President, I don't suggest that these lobbyists bearing gifts
have swayed or will sway a chairman on substantive issues, but they
sure are trying. And I have avoided using the Senator's name because I
don't think he has been swayed. But we all have to admit that these
kind of comments create a perception, an appearance, that campaign
contributions are given because of the effect they will have on policy.
Madam President, let me anticipate a question by the Senator from
Kentucky. Most of the fundraising in these articles is hard money
fundraising, isn't it? It is all legal under our system. Thousand-
dollar checks to candidates are permitted under the Federal election
laws, aren't they? The answer, of course, is yes. But what strikes me
is the obvious appearance of corruption that is present when a lobbyist
specializes in throwing fundraisers for candidates or when members of
Congress solicit even these relatively small donations from people with
an interest in legislation, especially on the eve of a crucial vote.
Madam President, can there be any doubt that an outrageous appearance
of corruption arises when the same Members of Congress are involved in
raising hundreds of thousands of dollars of soft money in a single
phone call for the political parties? As Justice Souter said just a few
weeks ago at the oral argument in the Missouri case--``Most people
assume, and I do certainly, that someone making an extraordinarily
large contribution gets something extraordinary in return.''
That brings me to another exhibit in our legislative record of the
appearance of corruption--a story that appeared yesterday in the
Washington Post about the effort that the Democratic party--my party--
is making to raise soft money in order to retake the Congress.
According to the article, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee
increased its soft money fundraising from $5.1 million in 1994 to $16.6
million in the '98 cycle. It is now going after the really big givers
with an innovation called Team 2000. The Post story describes Team 2000
as ``[A] new club for $100,000 and over donors who would be feted by
the party at exclusive events, including a weekend of clambakes and
sightseeing.''
The article describes the wooing of Steven Wynn, owner of Mirage
Resorts in Las Vegas, who gave a $250,000 contribution to the DCCC in
May of this year. The article indicates that Wynn is angry about the
impeachment of the President and with the Republican failure to stop
the antigaming crusade of a Member of the House.
Incidentally, this information is not included in this particular
article, but

[[Page S12773]]

I have learned that the Mirage Resorts gave an identical $250,000
amount to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in July
of this year.
So I guess Mr. Wynn got over his anger and realized that he had
better play both sides of the fence, as many big soft money donors do.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this Washington Post story
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 17, 1999]

Democrats' Fast Track Is `Soft Money'

(By Susan B. Glasser)

The House Democrats' courtship of Steve Wynn--owner of
Mirage Resorts, grandiose prophet of the new Las Vegas, and
major Republican donor--began four years ago with a cold call
from David Jones, Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt's top
fund-raiser.
Wynn took the call, and soon Jones was flying out to
breakfast at his golf course mansion along with Rep. Charles
B. Rangel. The gravelly voiced New Yorker became the
Democratic point man, reciprocating Wynn's hospitality with a
tour of his Harlem district.
By last February, when Jones and Rangel met with Wynn in
his Las Vegas office, they didn't even have to make their
pitch. Wynn had told friends he was angry at ``mean-
spirited'' House Republicans for impeaching President
Clinton. Besides, he complained, they had neglected him, and
hadn't stopped Rep. Frank R. Wolf's (R-Va.) anti-gaming
crusade. He was ready, Wynn said, to help the Democrats
regain control of the House.
How much, Wynn asked, do you need me to help raise out of
Nevada for the 2000 election? Jones knew that during the
entire 1998 election, the House Democrats' campaign arm had
only collected about $110,000 from Vegas, so his answer was
an audacious one: $1 million to $1.5 million. Done, Wynn
replied.
The first installment--a $250,000 corporate check from
Mirage Resorts--was Wynn's downpayment on a bet that
Democrats will take back the House next year. It also
suggests one reason why they might succeed. With the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as their vehicle,
they are raising record amounts of money for next year's
races, trading on their new electoral competitiveness to
raise funds earlier and in larger amounts than ever before.
``Soft money''--the term of art for the unlimited
contributions that corporations, unions and wealthy
individuals can give for so-called ``party building''--has
fueled an explosive growth in fund-raising for both parties
since the 1996 elections, when campaign operatives figured
out a way to legally spend it on TV ads that focused on
individual candidates.
But this year it is the House Democrats who have been most
aggressive in increasing the amount of soft money they raise,
even as they lead the campaign in Congress to eliminate it.
Driven by Gephardt and Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.),
the chairman hand-picked by Gephardt, the DCCC is out to
reverse its traditional status ``at the bottom of the
fund-raising food chain,'' as former Rep. Vic Fazio (D-
Calif.) put it.
In just the first six months of this year, the DCCC raised
$17 million total--$9 million of that in soft money. That
marks a stunning 373 percent increase in soft money compared
with the first six months of 1997--the highest rate of growth
for any party committee. The fund-raising escalation
foreshadows an election season next year when both parties
will pour a million dollars or more into more than 30 House
races whose outcome will determine control of Congress.
Some of the money is from businesses like Wynn's Mirage
Resorts; some is from well-heeled individuals giving $100,000
each, such as Slimfast founder S. Daniel Abraham, National
Enquirer heiress Lois Pope and Florida Marlins owner John W.
Henry. As of June 30, Democrats had attracted 21 six-figure
soft-money givers compared with 14 for Republicans, according
to data compiled by the Campaign Study Group. Those checks
came from groups or individuals who had never before made
such a financial commitment so early.
Since individual members can't raise soft money for their
own campaigns, the DCCC and the National Republican
Congressional Committee do it for them. This embrace of soft
money--legally meant to go only for ``nonfederal'' purposes--
is particularly ironic since the two campaign committees
exist for the sole purpose of electing federal candidates.
In recent years, the soft money powerhouse on Capitol Hill
has been the NRCC. Since the beginning of 1997, a new Common
Cause study found, the House Republican committee has raised
more of it than any other congressional committee: a total of
$37.8 million. So far this year, the NRCC has outraised the
DCCC overall $27 million to $17 million. And in House
Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the subject of a story
Monday, the Republicans have the single most effective fund-
raiser in Congress.
But slightly less than a year before the congressional
elections, the House Democrats have significantly cut into
the GOP's fund-raising advantage.
The DCCC is running essentially even with the NRCC in soft
money raised this year, and Democrats are ahead for the first
time ever in cash on hand: $10.7 million to the NRCC's $10.1
million.
``Republicans have experienced growth,'' said David
Plouffe, the Gephardt strategist who is now executive
director of the DCCC. ``We've experienced much greater
growth.'' By design, the Democratic growth strategy has
focused on soft money, seeking contributions from a new
club--``Team 2000''--for $100,000 givers, and on what several
sources said was an organized effort to get labor unions to
``frontload'' their contributions by giving as much as
possible early in the election cycle.
Republicans have hardly ignored big givers. After the
Democrats upped the ante, NRCC Chairman Tom Davis (Va.)
imitated them with his own $100,000 program--the
``Business Leadership Trust,'' a name reflective of the
GOP's financial base. The GOP is also starting a new
national finance committee to recognize corporate CEOs and
top lobbyists. And when it comes to big checks, the NRCC
lays claim to the biggest single donation of the year:
$300,000 from Chiquita banana king Carl Lindner.
``Soft money follows power,'' said Davis, recognizing that
the Republicans' takeover of Congress in 1994 has
immeasurably boosted their fund-raising capacity. But he
argued that Democrats have benefited most, leveraging the
power of the presidency for their financial gain.

eroding the gop edge

For decades, Democrats have gone into campaigns knowing
they would be outspent. Taking over the DCCC in 1981, when
Republicans had a fund-raising lead of 13 to one, Rep. Tony
Coelho (D-Cal.) cut into that edge by convincing businesses
they should invest in what was then the congressional
majority. Coelho, now Vice President Gore's campaign
chairman, also professionalized the DCCC, insisting for
example that a campaign hire pollsters before it could
receive a dime from the committee.
But the game then was hard money--strictly limited
contributions of no more than $20,000 a year to party
committees. At the time, before a succession of court rulings
and Federal Election Commission cases, soft money was an add-
on, used to finance building projects and television studios
but never contemplated as a thinly veiled way around the
contribution limits to specific races. And so the dollar
amounts were low, amazingly so compared with the current
checks.
``In retrospect, we were pikers,'' said one former Coelho
adviser. ``We thought we were pushing the envelope when we
were asking people for $5,000.''
And yet Coelho was a transformative figure, his close ties
to S&L power brokers and aggressive style memorialized in a
book, ``Honest Graft,'' by journalist Brooks Jackson that
showed members how the DCCC and the NRCC could become fund-
raising powerhouses and use that money to wield more
influence over campaigns. New York Republican Bill Paxon, who
took over an NRCC deeply mired in debt in 1993, said flatly,
``Coelho was my model'' as he reinvented the committee in
time for House Republicans to win the majority for the first
time in 40 years.
In 1994, the last election before soft money's rise, the
NRCC raised $7.4 million in soft money, compared to $5.1
million by the DCCC.
When Texas Rep. Martin Frost became chairman of the DCCC in
1995, he knew the Democrats were going to have to raise money
differently. In the minority after four decades of power,
they no longer had the legislative club that Coelho had
taught them to wield with the K Street lobbyists who
controlled business giving.
``Once we went into the minority, we had to reach beyond
the PAC community in Washington,'' said Frost, who led the
DCCC in the 1996 and 1998 elections and is now the
Democratic Caucus chairman. ``We really had to work the
rest of the country aggressively.''
Clinton and his advisers supplied the blueprint, using the
Democratic National Committee to fund an unprecedented $35
million ad campaign to boost his reelection and paying for
the ads with mix of hard and soft money. On Capitol Hill,
members quickly grasped the implications: soft money could
now be used to launch candidate-specific TV ads that were
legal as long as they avoided the magic words ``vote for'' or
``vote against.''
Frost was planning to raise more soft money--but only to
fund more traditional activities, like election-day turnout
and overhead expenses. To start, he had to confront a party
committee without much of a national donor base. ``We weren't
really thinking about soft money,'' said Matt Angle, Frost's
top aide. ``We were thinking about new money.
When they arrived at the DCCC, Angle said, they found that
only 100 or so individuals had ever given more than $1,000 to
the DCCC. Democratic House members, still stunned by their
party's defeat, were reluctant to hit up their own big donors
for the committee. And most donors had never heard of the
DCCC, assuming it was an affiliate of the DNC.
``We had one guy who was a $100,000 giver,'' Frost said,
New Jersey businessman Grover

[[Page S12774]]

Connell, a rice broker who figured in the Koreagate scandal
of the late 1970s and as long ago as the Coelho days was
already giving $50,000 a year to the DCCC.'' ``He was the
only one we ever had,'' Frost said. ``I said, `Well, if
Grover will give that much, we should start asking other
people for larger figures.' ''
Meanwhile, the predicted switch in business giving was
coming to pass--Republicans, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-
Ga.) and DeLay, made an aggressive push to shut down
Democratic money on K Street. By the 1998 election, about 65
percent of business funds were going to the House GOP.
Overall, the DCCC raised $16.6 million in soft money to the
NRCC's $27.8 million for last year's election--225 percent
more for the Democrats and 274 percent more for the
Republicans since 1994.
Gephardt was already a top fund-raiser, a master of ``the
big ask,'' and yet, said Frost, ``we didn't have 100 percent
of his attention.''
But last fall's election, when Democrats shocked even
themselves by whittling the House GOP's majority to just six
seats, galvanized Gephardt, a believer in the power of
political soft money since his 1988 presidential campaign
sputtered to a finish on Super Tuesday, several million
dollars in debt.

gephardt aims for speaker

Two days after last year's election, Gephardt convened his
top advisers and started planning for the 2000 campaign. His
goal, it was clear, was to become speaker--not to run for
president. While he didn't announce that decision until
February, Gephardt quickly began planning his DCCC
strategy, deciding to transfer virtually all his political
operation to the committee.
As chairman, Kennedy would be Gephardt's ``director of
sales and marketing,'' in the words of banking lobbyist Tom
Quinn, a longtime Kennedy family backer. Unabashed about
trading on his family name, Kennedy was seen by Gephardt's
team as a financial asset. ``Patrick being chairman means an
additional $10 million to $20 million for the DCCC,'' argued
a leading party fund-raiser.
Jones, Gephardt's top money man, was put on contract at the
DCCC. So was Richard J. Sullivan, the young lawyer who had
served as the DNC's finance director in the 1996 election and
was the lead-off witness in hearings held by Sen. Fred D.
Thompson (R-Tenn.) about the influx of foreign money to the
DNC in 1996.
The idea was to personalize the committee, selling donors
on the future speaker. Kennedy said he often tells would-be
contributors: `` `This is the Dick Gephardt for Speaker
committee.' They get that. It personalizes it.''
Gephardt himself calls big donors, not just to ask but also
to thank. ``He's the kind of guy who understands that in
order to get dessert, you have to eat your vegetables,'' said
Erik Smith, a Gephardt aide who is now the DCCC's
communications director.
Determined to take advantage of the political momentum
generated by the November election gains--and to play off the
outrage felt by Democratic donors about the GOP House's
impeachmnent of Clinton--the DCCC decided to focus its
efforts on soft money and to push earlier than ever for major
checks.
But Kennedy himself proposed the most audacious innovation,
according to his aides. Until then, the biggest dollar
program at the DCCC had been the Speaker's Club, price of
entry: $15,000 in hard money. Kennedy created ``Team 2000,''
a new club for $100,000 and over donors who would be feted by
the party at exclusive events, including a weekend of
clambakes and sightseeing at the Kennedy family compound in
Hyannisport last month.
Big donations began to roll in: $250,000 from the
Communications Workers of America, whose political director
considers herself Kennedy's ``fairy godmother'' in the labor
movement; $210,000 from AFSCME; $102,000 from AT&T; $100,000
from Texas trial lawyer Walter Umphrey's firm, Price Club
founder Sol Price and others.
The Democrats are eagerly keeping score: according to the
sheet handed out at each week's Democratic Caucus meeting,
Gephardt has already collected $6.8 million for the DCCC and
House candidates this year, followed by Kennedy at $6.2
million, aspiring Ways and Means Chairman Rangel at $1.9
million and Frost at $670,000.
Contributors who have dramatically increased their help to
the House Democrats this year cite everything from personal
loyalty to Gephardt to disaffection with the Republicans to a
sense that the Democrats may lose the White House and
therefore need to go all-out to retake control of at least
one branch of government.
Richard Medley, a Wall Street analyst and former
congressional aide, mentioned all three. ``I've been a friend
of Gephardt's for probably ten years,'' said Medley, who
hosted a July dinner in New York with former treasury
secretary Robert E. Rubin that raised $300,000. But he also
referred to pessimism about Vice President Gore's chances to
win next November: With GOP front-runner ``George W. Bush
doing so well, it's important to take out an insurance policy
hoping to have at least one branch controlled by Democrats.''
Personal service from Gephardt and Kennedy also helps land
donors. That certainly was the case with the $100,000 check
from David Alameel, a wealthy Dallas dental clinic owner.
Alameel was already on the radar of Frost and his team, but
they had no idea he would become a six-figure contributor.
Frost duly set up the meeting with Kennedy and, in the end,
he said, ``Patrick was the one who convinced him.'' The
$100,000 check came in on June 21.
Indeed, Kennedy has produced a number of eye-popping checks
from unexpected sources, like the $100,000 from Lois Pope,
the Palm Beach heiress to the National Enquirer fortune. The
wooing of Pope included Kennedy flying to Florida to present
her with an award for her charity work.
``One of the great joys of my job is meeting people who
inspire me,'' Kennedy gushed as he presented her with a
``distinguished service award'' from Citibank Private Bank of
Florida. ``I feel the energy that they feel for this country.
Those of you who know Lois know that energy comes through.''
That was on April 7. On May 28, the DCCC received Pope's
$100,000 check.
An even larger amount came as the result of his friendship
with John J. McConnell Jr., a trial lawyers for Ness Motley
Loadholt Richardson & Poole, a South Carolina-based firm that
has earned millions of dollars from representing states in
the tobacco settlement. Operating out of the firm's Rhode
Island office, McConnell worked hard to introduce Kennedy to
colleagues, flying him on the corporate jet so he could spend
time with senior partner Ronald L. Motley and hosting a
dinner on Capitol Hill for Kennedy, Gephardt and other trial
lawyers with deep pockets.
On June 30, the courtship paid off--with a check for
$250,000. ``No question about it,'' McConnell said, ``that
was a personal contribution to Patrick.''

Spending in New Ways

That check--and all the others--will go into a new pot of
soft money that the DCCC will be able to spend next year in
ways not envisioned by the 1974 election law, which restricts
the parties to direct and coordinated gifts to their House
candidates of only about $100,000 each. The idea behind the
law was ``to take fund-raising out of the hands of the party
committees and give control of it to candidates themselves,''
as GOP pollster Brian Tringali put it.
Instead, with soft money issue ads and sophisticated voter
identification programs, the parties are planning to spend
upwards of $500,000 or $1 million each in next year's key
districts. That gives the parties more say over how campaigns
are run, what they are saying and who they are saying it to.
``Practically speaking,'' said a top Democratic fund-
raiser, ``you can take a race that is a $1 million House race
and turn it into a $3.5 million race with soft money. In a
day and age when parties themselves are not as strong,
individual party committees are stronger than ever.''
For Kennedy and his staff, the new emphasis on soft money
is simple political pragmatism. ``You can really draw a
direct correlation between the amount of money in a campaign
committee and the impact it has in terms of getting members
elected,'' he argued.
To win, Kennedy said, ``we need to raise an even greater
amount of money. In practical terms, that means we need to
raise it in bigger chunks.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, how can we close our eyes to the
appearance of corruption that this enormous fundraising effort
provides? How can we close our eyes to the appearance of corruption
that the double givers list that I have shown on this floor a number of
times represents? Mirage Resorts is now on the list. Companies give
hundreds of thousands of dollars to both political parties--hundreds of
thousands of dollars to both political parties. What game are they
playing here?
The Senator from Kentucky said on the floor last week, ``Well, they
have a right to be duplicitous.'' Actually, Madam President, they are
not being duplicitous. We all know they are giving to both sides. They
are just playing by the rules as we have set them up. They are not
doing anything that is dishonest. They are simply trying to cover their
bases. Surely, the Senator from Kentucky doesn't think when AT&T gives
a big contribution to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign
Committee that it won't give money to the Senator from New Jersey's
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as well.
We all know why they do it, too--because in the candid words of a
lobbyist, ``They know which side their bread is buttered on.'' Both
sides--the bread is buttered on both sides. They play both sides of the
fence so they can get their calls returned and their positions heard.
That, my friends, is on its face an appearance of corruption. And if we
are so caught up in this fundraising game that we can't see it, the
disenchantment the public feels in its elected officials is well
warranted.
Last week, the Senator from Kentucky suggested that press reports
about the connection between campaign donations and legislative actions
arise from the desire of newspapers to

[[Page S12775]]

sell more copies or talking heads to get air time. But the newspapers
didn't create the appearance problem. We did.
I am reminded of what the great Senator, Robert La Follette, from my
home State of Wisconsin, said in response to those who argued that the
press of his day--the early 1900s--was somehow spreading hysteria about
the power of the railroads over Congress. La Follette said:
It does not lie in the power of any or all of the magazines
of the country or of the press, great as it is, to destroy,
without justification, the confidence of the people in the
American Congress. . . . It rests solely with the United
States Senate to fix and maintain its own reputation for
fidelity to public trust. It will be judged by the record. It
can not repose in security upon its exalted position and the
glorious heritage of its traditions. It is worse than folly
to feel, or to profess to feel, indifferent with respect to
public judgment. If public confidence is wanting in Congress,
it is not of hasty growth, it is not the product of
``jaundiced journalism.'' It is the result of years of
disappointment and defeat.

Years of disappointment and defeat--that is what the American people
have had as the soft money system has grown and Congress has done
nothing about it. The system of soft money looks corrupt. Indeed, it is
corrupt. And it makes us, as its beneficiaries, look corrupt.
There is no other way to put it. There is an appearance of
corruption. There is an appearance of cravenness. There is an
appearance of a smug confidence that the American people will not laugh
out loud in disgust at the assertion that there is no corruption near.
There is an appearance of something terribly, terribly wrong that we
refuse to fix.
If that offends people in this Chamber, so be it. We had better get
rid of this system so they won't be offended anymore because I am not
going to stop talking about it until we do.
Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 19 seconds.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senator from North Carolina asked
if I will yield.
Mr. EDWARDS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.
Mr. EDWARDS. I know the Senator has spent a great deal of time moving
across his home State of Wisconsin. How many counties are in Wisconsin?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Seventy-two counties.
Mr. EDWARDS. Seventy-two counties, and the Senator has been in every
one.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I go to listening sessions in every one every year.
Mr. EDWARDS. I wonder what the Senator would think what someone in
rural Wisconsin, a farmer in rural Wisconsin, would believe in terms of
their influence, vis-a-vis someone who gave $100,000 in soft money to,
in our case as fellow Democrats to the Democratic Party, or to the
DNCC, whether that rural farmer in Wisconsin would believe that they
have the same voice in the Senate that a $100,000 soft money
contributor has.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his
question.
The example of the farmer is a wonderful example, because of what has
happened in Wisconsin in the last 18 years. We have lost something like
18,000 dairy farmers, so farmers in my State are in no position to be
giving even $10 or $25 contributions.
When they hear, as the Senator is suggesting, that a person can give
even $1,000, the possibility of doing that is pretty much off the
charts. When they hear that somebody can actually for the first time in
this century give $100,000, it is absolutely disappointing. And it must
make them even more despondent. They have enough problems already.
But to think they can't have their vote count for what it used to
count--we always had in Wisconsin the notion that the farm vote kind of
shifted the balance, it is the swing vote traditionally in Wisconsin.
But in this kind of system where soft money ads can make a farce out of
an election, they feel--I know from firsthand conversations--quite left
out of the process and quite dispirited.
Mr. EDWARDS. How does the Senator think that farmer would feel in his
gut about whether this representative democracy is working the way it
ought to work in a situation where he or she has at best one vote, and
that position vis-a-vis another individual who has given $100,000, when
he is working on his farm on a day-to-day basis? Does the Senator think
that farmer believes he has the same equal voice that he is supposed to
have in his representative democracy as somebody who wrote a $100,000
check.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I don't think there is any possibility that he feels
his voice is as strong as it used to be. A typical farmer in Wisconsin
with a certain amount of cows and a certain amount of acreage and a
family, those are things that he had. He knew he had those things, and
he had his vote counting the same as everybody else's. That is where
the whole progressive movement in Wisconsin and the efforts of Robert
La Follette came from--a lot of these farmers who were able to put
their votes together to elect people who would really represent them.

Mr. EDWARDS. If I could ask a followup question, there has been a lot
of debate on the floor and a lot of private conversations about whether
there is any usefulness associated with simply banning soft money.
Let me ask the question again, using the example of this dairy farmer
from Wisconsin. Does the Senator think it is important for the Senate
to send a message to that farmer in rural Wisconsin that we are trying
to do something real and meaningful to clean up campaign finance in
this country?
Mr. FEINGOLD. We absolutely have to. I don't know how we convinced
ourselves in the end of the 20th century of something that was the
opposite conclusion at the end of the 19th century, early 20th century;
and that is that unlimited contributions corrupt the process and make
the individual farmer or individual homemaker or any other person
almost a nonfactor in the political process.
We have to send this message and we have to do even better. We have
to actually pass a ban on soft money as a first signal to that farmer
that we will do the rest of the job and actually return the notion of
one person-one vote to that farmer.
Mr. EDWARDS. Will the Senator agree that even if we are not able in
this Congress in this session to pass across-the-board comprehensive
reform that it is critically important that we send a message to
Americans all over this country that this Senate and this Congress is
willing to take a strong and courageous step to do something real and
meaningful in terms of cleaning up campaign finance and that one of
those steps would be the banning of soft money?
Mr. FEINGOLD. There is nothing more important than passing a ban on
soft money in this Congress. In a few minutes we will have the first
vote, I say to the Senator from North Carolina, the first vote ever on
the question of whether we are going to allow party soft money or not.
This is not one of these votes that you have every once in a while, a
bed check vote on a Monday night. This is the real thing.
I thank the Senator from North Carolina for distilling it down to the
perspective of one farmer in Rice Lake, WI, who might be watching and
saying: Are these guys going to clean this place up or not?
Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask the Senator one last question. I agree. One
last question: In the Senator's mind, is this a party issue? Is this a
Democratic or Republican issue?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Clearly not. In fact, the only thing that can defeat us
on this is partisanship. That is why I worked for 5 years, not only
with Senator McCain but I have gotten to know a number of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle--people such as Senator Thompson of
Tennessee and Senator Collins of Maine. These are Republicans who I
have grown to know and enjoy working with who together have worked to
try to do something to ban soft money. So this is an example of how
this institution can work well in terms of our cooperation and
bipartisanship.
Let's make sure that partisanship doesn't defeat our efforts.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and Senator McCain
for their courageous leadership on this critical issue.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I certainly thank the Senator from North Carolina who
in the few months he has been here has become a strong voice in the
campaign finance reform debate.

[[Page S12776]]

I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the Senator
from Kentucky correct that the Wellstone amendment and any other
amendments that might be offered this evening would fall because they
were not filed by 1 p.m., if we ultimately get cloture?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture occurs tomorrow. Amendments not
filed by 1 p.m. today would be out of order if they are first-degree
amendments
If cloture is invoked tomorrow, amendments not filed by 1 o'clock
today would not be in order.
Mr. McCONNELL. Since Friday, the open and fair process which was
sought and agreed to has been derailed by parliamentary maneuvering.
Let me say to all of my colleagues, particularly those on my side of
the aisle who share the view of the majority leadership and myself on
this issue, this motion to table is a meaningless vote and should
reflect that fact. Consequently, I urge all of my colleagues to vote
against tabling on behalf of the majority leader, Senator Bennett, and
myself.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. With the remaining minute, I say to my friend from
Wisconsin who is still on the floor, I appreciate very much the
Senator's attempt to make this a bipartisan issue. The fact is,
Democrats have voted time, after time, after time to invoke cloture on
campaign finance reform, and we have been thwarted by the majority; is
that not true?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I say to the Senator from Nevada, we have not been
thwarted by the majority, only thwarted by that portion of the majority
which is actually a minority seeking to filibuster this issue and defy
the will of the majority of the people, which, of course, involves more
Democrats than Republicans.
Mr. REID. By a considerable number, is that not true?
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is true.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the Reid amendment numbered 2299 to the Daschle amendment
numbered 2298. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative assistant called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth),
and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kohl), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily
absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is absent because of family illness.
The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 92, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 329 Leg.]

YEAS--1

Hollings

NAYS--92

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--7

Biden
Bingaman
Dodd
Kohl
Lautenberg
Roth
Smith (OR)
The motion was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Objection is heard.
Mr. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ben
Lawsky, a Judiciary Committee detailee in Senator Schumer's office, be
granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 106th Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________