[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 149 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13403-S13404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Gorton, 
        Mr. Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 1816. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
provide meaningful campaign finance reform through requiring better 
reporting, decreasing the role of soft money, and increasing individual 
contribution limits, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules 
and Administration.


        The Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000

 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I join several of my 
colleagues in introducing the ``Open and Accountable Campaign Financing 
Act of 2000.'' This bill increases disclosure requirements on campaign 
contributions and political broadcast advertisements. It also caps 
``soft money'' contributions to political party committees at $60,000 
and adjusts individual contribution limits for inflation. I am pleased 
that the following Senators have joined me today in offering this bill: 
Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Slade Gorton (R-WA), Bob 
Kerrey (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Craig Thomas (R-WY).
  Changing the way federal campaigns are financed is inevitable, the 
American people will demand it. At some point, the Senate will have a 
full and open debate on how best to reform our campaign finance system. 
I was disappointed that floor procedures prevented us from doing so 
last week, because several of us had intended to offer amendments to 
the McCain-Feingold legislation.
  My colleagues and I introduce this bill today as a bipartisan 
alternative in what has been a very polarized debate. If we are ever to 
move forward on this issue, we will need to look at a variety of ways 
to reform the campaign finance system. This bill is a combination of 
ideas offered by myself and a number of my colleagues. Several specific 
provisions in this bill have widespread support by both Republicans and 
Democrats, and, I believe, can form a base from which consensus can 
build.
  Confidence in our political system is the essence of representative 
government. This begins with an open and accountable campaign financing 
system. We need to rise above partisan, ideological and personal 
rivalries, and find common ground on campaign finance reform.
  There are several elements that must be part of any reform of our 
campaign finance system. One of the most important is increased 
disclosure for all who participate in the political process. We should 
not fear an educated and informed body politic. If individuals and 
organizations are going to participate in the election process, their 
participation must be revealed to the public.
  To provide for fuller disclosure, this bill increases the financial 
reporting requirements for candidates and political parties. This 
legislation also takes the rules on broadcast ads that apply to 
candidates and extends them to all political broadcast ads. Under 
current federal regulations, when a candidate buys a political ad, the 
broadcaster is required to place information on the ad in a file that 
is open to the public. This includes a record of the times the spots 
are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased and at what 
rates, and the names of the officers of the organization placing the 
ad. Under current federal regulations, when an interest group places a 
political ad with a broadcaster, it does not have to meet all of these 
requirements. This bill requires that interest-group ads related to any 
federal candidate or issue go into the broadcaster's public file. There 
would be no added burden on the broadcaster. The broadcaster would 
simply use the same form already used for candidate and party ads. Let 
me make clear one thing the bill does not do. It does not require 
organizations to identify individual donors or provide membership 
lists. It 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.
  In addition to disclosure, we need to look at soft money 
contributions to national party committees. Most constitutional experts 
say that an outright ban on soft money would be unconstitutional. But 
this unaccountable, unlimited flood of soft money cascading over 
America's politics must be stopped. We need to find a middle ground 
between the extremes of banning soft money and leaving it unrestricted. 
This bill limits soft money contributions to national party committees 
to $60,000. 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 well until they were exploited and abused.
  We also need to increase the ability of individuals to participate in 
the most accountable method of campaign financing. This bill adjusts 
and indexes contributions to inflation and indexes them for further 
years. For an individual, contribution limits would increase from 
$1,000 to $3,000 per candidate, per election. I've heard the argument 
that raising these limits would give the wealthy too much influence and 
access. If we cap or eliminate 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

[[Page S13404]]

view the flow of money. I want to bring more of that money into the 
sunlight where the American people have access to who is giving money 
and how much.
  We have a great opportunity to restore some of the confidence the 
American people have lost in their political system. Improving our 
system that selects America's leaders--who formulate and implement the 
policies that govern our Nation--is a worthy challenge.
 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I would like to express my 
support for ``The Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 
1999,'' which would provide this country with much needed campaign 
finance reform. Our Constitution lays out the requirements for someone 
running for office. In order to run for the Senate, the Constitution 
tells us that there are three requirements: you must be at least 30 
years old; you must have been a U.S. citizen for nine years; and you 
must be a resident of the state you wish to represent.
  What the Constitution doesn't tell you about is a fourth requirement: 
you must have an awful lot of money, or at least know how to raise it. 
The Constitution doesn't tell you this because when the framers drafted 
the Constitution, they could not have imagined the ridiculously large 
amounts of time and money one must spend today if he or she wants to be 
elected to office.
  We need to change the law to give power back to working families, 
restore their faith in the process, and make democracy work. That's why 
I have been an avid supporter of the McCain-Feingold bill and the 
Shays-Meehan bill that recently passed the House, and that's why I am 
now a cosponsor of Senator Hagel's bill.
  Earlier this month, the Senate debated the McCain-Feingold bill. This 
year's version was a stripped down version of the McCain-Feingold bills 
we've debated, and I have supported, in years past. Although I prefer 
the more comprehensive House passed Shays-Meehan bill, I understood 
Senators McCain and Feingold's decision to purposefully strip down 
their bill. They knew the realities of the vote count in the Senate. We 
didn't have the votes to pass anything more comprehensive, so they 
introduced a ``barebones'' bill which essentially did one simple thing: 
ban soft money.
  Unfortunately, the bill was pulled from the floor after a vote 
showing McCain-Feingold still didn't have the votes to pass. The good 
news is we picked up one vote; the bad news is we still haven't passed 
a campaign finance reform bill. We made progress. That is why it is 
important to not let this issue die on the back burner. That is why I 
am joining in Senator Hagel's effort to keep this issue alive.
  Currently, soft money is uncapped and unregulated--corporations, 
unions and wealthy individuals can contribute unlimited amounts of soft 
money. Senator Hagel's bill would cap soft money at $60,000. Although I 
prefer a complete ban, it is clear the Senate is a few votes short of 
passing this ban. Senator Hagel's new approach just might be the 
compromise that can muster enough votes to pass the Senate. Let me be 
clear--while I prefer much more comprehensive reform of our campaign 
financing system--I do believe Senator Hagel's proposal is a step in 
the right direction. This bill, with its cap on soft money and 
tightening of disclosure requirements, would be a good beginning.
  The American people are frustrated with the millions of dollars they 
see poured into campaigns. They are frustrated with out tendency to 
talk instead of act. I am hopeful this bill can help make that happen. 
In fact I want to applaud my friend, Senator Hagel for his efforts, and 
urge our colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______