[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12839-S12840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1751. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
modify reporting requirements and increase contribution limits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  citizens' right to know act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week, the minority put the Senate in a 
take-it-or-leave, it position with respect to campaign finance reform. 
Using a parliamentary tactic that foreclosed other amendments from 
being offered, and then objecting to requests to take up other 
proposals, the proponents of S. 1593, the McCain-Feingold campaign 
finance reform bill, got what they wanted--a vote on an unamended, and 
therefore unimproved, version of their bill.
  Mr. President, there are many of us who agree that we should make 
changes in our campaign finance laws; but, we disagree that we should 
compromise the First Amendment to do it.
  Today, I am introducing the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' a bill 
that represents my thinking on campaign finance reform.
  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.
  Yet, 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?
  There are a number of flaws in the McCain-Feingold bill. The 
principal one is that the McCain-Feingold attempts, unconstitutionally, 
I believe, to gag political parties. What Senators McCain and Feingold 
forgot is that political parties are organizational instruments for 
promoting a political philosophy and ideas. To ban the ability of 
parties to get their messages out to the people is an infringement on 
free speech.

  The proposal I am introducing today has two main goals: (1) to open 
up our campaign finances to the light of day, thus allowing citizens to 
make their own judgments about how much influence is too much; and (2) 
to expand opportunities for individuals to participate financially in 
elections, thus decreasing the reliance on special interest money in 
campaigns.
  The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Citizens' Right to Know 
Act,'' 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.
  People should be able to 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 of representation 
of constituents and which contributions might be a quid pro quo for 
special favors.
  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.

[[Page S12840]]

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 ``But 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.''
  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 predicted 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.
  Some people have argued that raising the limits on donations to 
political candidates and parties exacerbates the problem. Their concern 
is that there is too much money in politics, not that there is too 
little.
  I will respond by saying that, first, all individual donations would 
have to be disclosed. The philosophy of the ``Citizens' Right to Know 
Act'' is that people have a right to make their own determinations 
about whether a contribution is tainted or not.
  Second, the higher contribution limits for hard money donations make 
individual citizens more important relative to special interests in 
campaign finance. If one goal of campaign finance reform is to reduce 
the influence of special interests, then raising the limits on 
individual contributions is a way to do it.
  Third, most of the increases in the bill are merely an adjustment for 
25 years of inflation. While the contribution limits have remained 
unchanged, the costs of running a campaign have increased. The higher 
levels reflect reality.
  Most importantly, while money is an essential ingredient in a 
campaign, and is necessary to get one's message to the voters, the real 
influence in campaigns is the public. Even if wealthy John Smith gives 
thousands of dollars to a party or candidate, the fact is that he only 
gets one vote on election day. Candidates and parties have to persuade 
people to their way of thinking. All the money in the world cannot 
compensate for a dearth of principles or unpopular ideas.
  The McCain-Feingold approach represents a constitutionally specious 
barrier on free speech. It would, by law, prohibit political parties 
from using soft money to communicate with voters. Prohibitions are 
restrictions on freedom.
  My bill, in contrast, does not prohibit anything. It does not 
restrict the flow of information to citizens. On the contrary, my 
proposal 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 bill, by 
empowering voters with this information, will put the role of special 
interests where it rightfully belongs--in the eye of the beholder, not 
the federal government.

                          ____________________