[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 29, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H541-H547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take a few moments along 
with a couple of my colleagues to talk about a very important issue 
that comes and goes in this institution of ours and we are hoping to be 
able to resurrect it again yes, even during this presidential election 
year, one that we hope will never go away until Congress gets it right, 
and that is the issue of campaign finance reform and the necessity to 
enact common sense reform to get the big money and the influence of 
money out of our political process.
  There have been two very important events so far this year, Mr. 
Speaker, in regards to the campaign finance reform debate that we are 
having throughout the Nation. One is a very important Supreme Court 
decision that was just handed down on January 24 of this year whereby 
the court basically upheld the constitutional authority of State 
legislatures and this body to be able to place campaign contribution 
limitations in the political process.
  This is an important holding that the Supreme Court again resolved 
after the seminal case of Buckley v. Valeo during the 1970s in which 
the court upheld the ability of legislators to impose contribution 
limitations because oftentimes in this body during the course of 
campaign finance reform debates, one of the chief arguments against 
doing anything in an attempt to get the big money out, is that we have 
a free speech concern and a first amendment that we would be infringing 
upon if we start taking the big money out of the political process.
  And lo and behold, now the Supreme Court this year basically said no 
to that argument. I think it gives new life and a breath of fresh air 
to the whole campaign finance reform debate. Hopefully it will provide 
more impetus to the cause across the country and more political courage 
quite frankly here in Washington to do the right thing.
  The other event in regards to finance reform occurred today, actually 
on the steps of this Capitol where Granny D finished her long trek 
across the country in support of campaign finance reform. It is a 
marvelous story for my colleagues who have not heard about it yet. It 
is receiving a lot of attention nationally today since she concluded 
her long walk.
  I brought with me today a picture that I was able to download off her 
Web site. It shows a picture of Granny D, a 90-year-old grandmother of 
eight, I believe, and a great grandmother of 12, someone who has 
arthritis and emphysema but felt strongly enough about the cause of 
campaign finance reform that she decided to make it a national issue by 
dedicating herself to walking across the country, starting out in 
Pasadena during the Rose Bowl of January 1 of 1999 last year and then 
traversing over 3,100 miles, traveling through 12 different States, 
receiving a lot of local media attention along her way, encouraging 
individuals to contact their representatives at the State and national 
level to impress upon them the urgency of campaign finance reform.
  And now today she finally walked into Washington, D.C. and walked 
right up to the steps of this Capitol and delivered a marvelous, 
marvelous speech. I think a real inspiration for the cause of citizen 
advocacy and participation in our democratic process, especially given 
her own story. I will go into a little bit more detail but recognizing 
one of my colleagues' time constraints who would like to join in this 
discussion tonight, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen), who I came to Congress with. And we helped form a freshman 
bipartisan

[[Page H542]]

task force on campaign finance reform that he took a real leadership 
role in. And he has been a strong advocate for enacting finance reform 
with Shays-Meehan that did pass this body last year already and then 
languished in the United States Senate. I am glad he is here to join us 
this evening.

  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for putting together 
this special order. This has been an issue that you and I and others 
have been working on since we first came to Congress. We started, as 
you mentioned, with that freshman bipartisan task force, six 
Republicans and six Democrats; and over a period of several months, we 
negotiated out a bill that would ban soft money and make other changes 
in this system. But it would get the biggest of the big money out of 
politics, those soft money contributions to the national parties from 
wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions.
  As my colleagues will recall, in 1998, the freshmen on both sides of 
the aisle helped to drive that issue hard enough so the Republican 
leadership had to bring it up. And when it finally came up, we had a 
debate over several weeks and finally at last, the freshman bill did 
not pass but the Shays-Meehan bill did pass in 1998 and then, of 
course, we passed it again last year. But in 1998, if you add together 
those Members who voted for the freshman soft money ban with those 
Members who voted for the Shays-Meehan bill, some 352 Members, or 81 
percent of the House, voted to ban soft money.
  Unfortunately, that bill did not make it through the Senate in the 
105th Congress; and so last year, in September, we did it again. In the 
House, we passed the Shays-Meehan bill in strong bipartisan fashion by 
a margin of 252-177. But to date, the other body, Members in the other 
body have blocked campaign finance reform from being passed.
  Now, today, Granny D, Doris Haddock, who walked from California to 
the steps of the Capitol in Washington, arrived in her 14-month 
campaign to publicize this issue and urge this Congress to act. I went 
down to Pennsylvania Avenue and walked with her and hundreds of others 
up the last stretch to get to the Capitol.
  You have to admire her. When she made this commitment, made this 
decision, she was 88 years old. She trained for this activity to make 
sure that she was going to be able to walk 10 miles a day carrying a 
25-pound pack on her back, and she did it. She got publicity all across 
this country. That kind of public determination, that kind of 
perseverance is what we need to help create the public energy to pass 
campaign finance reform in the other body. We need a law. We need a 
bill that will get rid of soft money once and for all. Let me just say 
a word about that.

                              {time}  1900

  The so-called hard money contributions are the contributions that are 
limited, that go directly to campaigns, directly to individual 
candidates. But that system of limits is completely undermined if 
wealthy individuals, corporations, and labor unions can give unlimited 
amounts of money to the national parties, which can then be used to run 
TV ads in the districts of individual Members. So this system does not 
work; these rules do not work anymore.
  Last year I warned that a failure to pass campaign finance reform 
would unleash a deluge of soft money contributions in this 2000 cycle, 
and, unfortunately, it has come true. The national political party 
committees raised a record $107 million in soft money contributions 
during the 1999 calendar year. That is 81 percent more than the $59 
million they raised during the last comparable presidential election 
period in 1995.
  Now, the opponents, the opponents, the big money coalition which 
tries to call itself the Free Speech Coalition, are always trying to 
argue that campaign finance reform's reasonable limitations on what 
individuals can give is a violation of the First Amendment, and, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) just pointed out, not true.
  The Supreme Court, in Nixon versus Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 
reaffirmed the constitutionality of contribution limits. It reaffirmed 
its view that the Government has a compelling interest in enacting 
contribution limits in order to protect the integrity of our democratic 
system. The Court reaffirmed that large donations can corrupt this 
process or create the appearance of corruption.
  It is time to change this system. We have gone too far, allowing 
unlimited contributions to the national parties. This has been a 
position almost universally supported on the Democratic side of the 
aisle. Fortunately, we have had enough Republicans in the House who 
will come over and support campaign finance reform to achieve victory 
here. But victory here is not enough, because victory in the House 
alone does not make a law. We need to have enough public support, 
enough public pressure, to get this through the Senate.
  I believe that when you look at what Granny D has accomplished, when 
you look at the Supreme Court opinion in Nixon versus Shrink Missouri 
Government PAC, that we are seeing a crescendo of support for campaign 
finance reform. It is incumbent upon all of us here to keep working on 
this issue, to keep talking about this issue, to keep reminding the 
voters that until we get campaign finance reform, we cannot, we cannot 
trust this system to produce the kind of results that we expect a 
democratic system to produce.
  There is too much money in politics; there is too much big money in 
this system, and we have to get the biggest of the big money out of 
this system so that the people can have some confidence again that we 
are doing the public's business, and not the business of our largest 
contributors.
  We still have the opportunity, we have most of a year, to enact real 
campaign finance reform this year and to stop the flow of big money, of 
soft money, to the national parties. We need bipartisan support in 
order to do that; we need support on both the House and the Senate side 
in order to do that. I think this is the year.
  This is an important day. Granny D has made it an important day. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership on this 
issue, for helping to push this issue, and for holding this special 
order tonight.
  Mr. KIND. I wanted to reciprocate that and thank my good friend from 
Maine for the work and leadership he has brought to this Congress for 
the cause of campaign finance reform. In fact, the great State of Maine 
has really led the revolution sweeping across the country right now by 
passing their own public referendum, going to public financing of State 
campaigns. It is already being used as a model in the many other State 
referenda today.

  Mr. ALLEN. If the gentleman would yield for a moment, what we are 
doing in Maine is interesting and exciting. The 2002 elections will be 
the first where we have what we call the Clean Elections. The bill has 
been upheld by the court. Candidates for the State legislature and 
candidates for Governor can opt, can choose, to be a Clean Elections 
candidate. If they get the requisite number of signatures and a certain 
number of $5 contributions, that is all, $5 contributions, they will 
qualify for public financing.
  I hope and pray that this system will be one way to reduce the 
influence of money in politics. I think it is a very interesting 
experiment, and I hope in time other States will follow Maine's lead.
  Mr. KIND. It is an exciting development. It is going to be that type 
of snowball effect, sweeping across the country, with State 
legislatures each taking their own approach to financial reform, which 
will hopefully put more pressure to bear on the United States Congress 
to act.
  It seems every session of Congress we have a discussion and debate 
about campaign finance reform, trying to get the big money out of the 
political process; but for one reason or another it has always come up 
short, most recently in the United States Senate where we ended up 
eight votes short of being able to break the filibuster over there. It 
is almost inconceivable that we have a majority of Members in the House 
and even in the Senate and a President down Pennsylvania Avenue who is 
more than willing to sign the legislation if it can pass the Congress, 
but it is being held up by a small vocal minority in the Senate 
filibustering it. Of course, we need 60 votes in order to break the 
filibuster and bring the legislation to the floor.
  But I am sure my friend from Maine and also my good friend from New 
Jersey who has joined us for tonight's discussion would concur with me 
if we

[[Page H543]]

dedicated tonight's special order in honor of Doris Haddock, Granny D, 
given her marvelous triumph and achievement, what she has accomplished 
and brought to our doorstep here today.
  I would like to recognize the freshman Member from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), who is also serving with me on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, bringing an important perspective on education issues 
based on his scientific background, but also someone who has taken up 
the cause and has turned into a real leader in his own right on the 
need for finance reform.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend, for 
organizing this special order.
  As a freshman Member of Congress, it is fairly recent since I 
campaigned for election to this august body, and I still vividly 
remember running for Congress, a challenging experience, but a 
wonderful experience. It reminds one of what a magnificent place 
America is, full of hard-working and talented people. It reminds you 
that the citizens here truly care about the important issues facing 
each other and that we as a society can work to solve them.
  But running for Congress also reminds you, reminds me, of something 
else, that our campaign finance system is broken and needs to be fixed 
desperately. We know it; the people know it. The only 38 percent of the 
voters who turn out to vote are sending a message in that way.
  It is a campaign system where wealthy corporations can donate 
millions of dollars to political parties and drown out the voice of 
ordinary citizens. It is a campaign system where special interests can 
spend an unlimited amount of money on attack ads, I know, I have seen 
it, to smear and distort a candidate's record; and that is wrong. It is 
a campaign system where we as elected representatives have to spend an 
inordinate amount of time raising money, instead of addressing the 
issues.
  Campaign expenditures have just gotten out of hand. In primary and 
general elections combined in the year 1976, all candidates for U.S. 
Congress spent a total of $115 million. Twenty-two years later, at the 
most recent congressional election in 1998, candidates spent $740 
million, more than six times what was spent 22 years earlier. I am sure 
the amount of money in this year, 2000, will be even higher.
  When you look at the low voter turnout and widespread cynicism, you 
realize that we have to deal with this key issue that has to do with 
trust in the Government. How can we hope to deal with the big problems 
that we face, whether it is Social Security, health care, 
transportation issues, defense issues, international affairs, where 
these are solutions that we seek as a society, together? How can we 
hope to have solutions to these problems that the people will have 
faith in if they feel that solutions are determined by special 
interests? People understand that their voices are being drowned out.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) spoke earlier about the 
recent Supreme Court decisions, and I think there is cause for hope 
here.
  The opponents of campaign finance reform always trot out the First 
Amendment guarantee of free speech. Well, the Supreme Court back in 
1976 under Buckley v. Valeo gave them some support for that line of 
reasoning, that speech as spending could not be restricted. But last 
month in Nixon v. Shrink the court did hold up a statutory cap on gifts 
and donations to campaigns. That makes sense. But although it did not 
formally reexamine the issue of spending, the comments of the Justices 
give us cause for hope that they will allow some changes in the way 
campaign spending is regulated.
  Recently in an article in the Washington Post, former Chairman of the 
Federal Communications Commission, Newton Minow, and Craig LaMay, 
Northwestern University journalism professor, wrote a very interesting 
piece, pointing out, they say, that a lawyer arguing a case in the 
Supreme Court is limited to 30 minutes of oral argument. Members of the 
House of Representatives, as we well know, are limited in the time we 
have available to speak. In Illinois, voters are given 5 minutes to 
complete their ballots. In none of these cases can the individual, no 
matter how well heeled, buy additional time. The process of governing 
ourselves is something that requires every citizen and is due to every 
citizen; and it should not be reapportioned according to the resources 
of those citizens.
  So elections, say LaMay and Minow, are just as susceptible to 
distortion and destruction as any other institution would be if its 
rules allotted free speech according to one's ability to pay.
  Well, it is a special pleasure to talk about this subject today, 
because we take some hope not only from the Supreme Court's words of a 
month ago, but a great deal of hope from the actions of Doris Haddock, 
Granny D. I, too, walked with Granny D today on her last mile, and 
stood with her as she gave a rousing and moving and very thoughtful 
speech on the steps of this Capitol. We applaud her; and I think it is 
appropriate, as you say, that we dedicate tonight's discussion to her.
  She reminds us that we need to overhaul the current system and that 
it may be difficult; but step by step, we can do it. One of the best 
ways to do it is to start right now with what is in front of us, which 
is the ban on soft money. It is one of the essential steps and one of 
the first steps to begin restoring people's faith in government.
  I would like to point out that on the day I was sworn in, the first 
thing I did was seek out my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays), Republican cosponsor of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance 
bill, seek out the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and sit 
down with them and let them know that I take that to be the most 
important step we can take to restoring trust in government. So I 
joined with a large majority, a bipartisan majority of people here, in 
supporting the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act.
  It now appears that this legislation is going to have trouble getting 
out of Congress this year, but we who care about government, and that 
is millions of people, and care that we have a government that is 
responsive to the people, rather than special interests, should not let 
up.
  Granny D did not let up; and she made it clear she was not walking 
for Republicans; she was not walking for Democrats. She was walking for 
her children and her grandchildren and all of the other millions of 
people that they symbolize who want a government of the people.

                              {time}  1915

  I am delighted that the gentleman is doing this. I am pleased to join 
with the gentleman to talk about this great need to take some concrete 
steps to restore trust in our government. We look to the other body to 
finish the work that we have begun, but we cannot stop there. There are 
some other steps we need to take so that we have campaigns financed in 
a way that give everyone a voice in how they find solutions to the 
tough problems facing our society.
  Mr. KIND. If the gentleman will yield back.
  Mr. HOLT. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KIND. I commend the gentleman, again, for the gentleman's work, 
for the gentleman's contribution to this important issue. I think what 
we need, and was demonstrated a little bit on the steps of the Capitol, 
is a Granny D revolution in the country. She started that in no small 
part by committing herself to a cause that she feels very strongly in.
  The gentleman is absolutely right, it was not a partisan issue, the 
Granny D; it was an American issue. It was an issue about the future of 
her grandchildren and her great-grandchildren and the stake of her 
democratic government that she loves so well, that she was willing to, 
even though she has emphysema and is arthritic, walk over 3,100 miles 
for this cause. It is such a marvelous story.
  I do not know if the gentleman had an opportunity yet to tap into her 
Web site, but she put together a very good Web site, a lot of neat 
pictures. I would like to share the Web site address with any 
colleagues who are listening here tonight. It is www.GrannyD.com. Could 
not get any easier than that.
  I would encourage those who are listening to take a little bit of 
time, a few minutes, and page through that Web site. It displays the 
beginning and the

[[Page H544]]

end of her journey. What a great story it has been.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. KIND. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOLT. On that subject, this was not a stunt. She was out there 
with the American people. She brought with her what she learned along 
the way. In a particularly moving part of her speech today on the 
steps, she talked about finishing her walk yesterday and starting her 
walk today at Arlington Cemetery.
  As the gentleman knows, she walked in 10-mile segments approximately 
all across the country. She said those spirits were with her today as 
she walked through Washington and as she stood on the steps of the 
Capitol.
  These are people who had fought for American ideals. She wondered, in 
fact, she was quite sure that they did not fight and die for a 
government that goes to the highest bidder, for a government where 
special wealthy interests have more voice than the common people, where 
we have, as some say, auctions, rather than elections.
  It was moving when she put it in that context and when she put it in 
the context of all that she had heard from people in Arizona and in New 
Mexico and in Texas and in Tennessee and West Virginia. It was not a 
stunt. This is an effort to recapture what is great about the American 
government.
  Mr. HOLT. And I had a chance to listen to her speech and also jot 
down some of the factors that motivated her for embarking upon this 
cause. Just to recite a few of those tonight: she was concerned that 
government is being corrupted through campaign contributions made by 
the big contributors, the big money going into campaigns that results, 
in her words, in a quid pro quo response from elected officials.
  That has been a common theme during her talks or speech today as the 
growing cynicism and the perception  of corruption in the political 
process. And it is a theme that is reiterated in the recent Supreme 
Court decision, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government, in which the 
Justices in a six to three decision basically said legislators have the 
constitutional authority to limit the amount of money coming into 
campaigns, not only to combat corruption in the political process, but 
also to deal with the appearance of corruption in the political 
process.

  That is an important point. Again, the opponents of reform are always 
quick to come down to the House floor arguing against a piece of 
legislation by trying to turn the issue around, by pointing to us and 
saying listen, Rush Holt, you have accepted campaign contributions. Do 
you feel corrupted? Do you feel like you are influenced now because of 
those contributions? Asking us to specifically cite instances of 
corruption that might be going on in the halls of this great body.
  The Supreme Court says that is really beside the point. It could be 
one justification, a constitutional underpinning for why Congress feels 
the need to limit the amount flowing into campaigns. But there is also 
another very important reason, and that is the appearance of 
corruption, that all this money flowing into the campaigns have on the 
American people, on people like Granny D, who cited it.
  It is really giving cause, I feel, to the growing cynicism that is 
permeating our society and why we are seeing voter participation 
declining election year after election year. It is because they feel a 
disempowerment.
  A couple of other reasons that she cited, she feels that the 
politicians today do not give enough concern to people who do not 
contribute the big money, no matter how important the issue might be. 
She also saw an opportunity to do something about it, and she did. She 
felt politically powerless, this is in her words, something that no 
American should ever feel.
  She sees the three most important things that our government must do 
in regards to financial reform is, A, banning the soft money; B, 
enacting the public financing of an election, starting at local levels 
and working up, just as the State of Maine has done, and we will see it 
play out this year for the first time during an election cycle; and, 
finally, the right to free political advertising on a controlled scale.
  Finally, these are ideas that we have been working with in the 
context of finance reform, ideas that she again cited in support of her 
cause for finance reform.
  But during the course of her travels, she was interviewed by the 
national media numerous times. Some of the early morning talk shows had 
her on, Eyewitness. She said she met a lot of wonderful people who 
would feed and house her at different times in different States. She 
went through four pairs of sneakers during her 3,100-mile hike.
  The people around the country would come up to her and say things 
such as, you are walking for me, Granny. You are my voice. You are my 
face. God bless you. And get this, she even caught pneumonia in 
Arizona, of all places. She needs to come and visit my great State of 
Wisconsin before she gets some real pneumonia. But she recovered. After 
she recovered, she kept going with her walk.
  Her intent was actually to conclude her walk on the steps of the 
Capitol on February 24, which was her 90th birthday. Unfortunately, she 
was a few days late in arriving, but her message was as strong arriving 
today as it would have been even on the 24th.
  Her message focuses on getting people to contact their Federal 
representatives to get them to support Shays-Meehan on the House side 
and the McCain-Feingold bill on the Senate side. During her walk she 
gained  increasing support from both public and national leaders.

  Granny D's concern is that the government is being corrupted through 
money from large contributors. Just to quote a couple of statements 
that she made during a New Hampshire town hall meeting last October, 
1999, she said,

       First, we do need to get soft money out of our elections 
     with the Federal law. A minority of Senators did not want to 
     take their medicine last week when they killed the McCain-
     Feingold bill in Washington, so we will have to make them 
     take their pill when they come home for reelection. If they 
     won't get soft money out of the system, and they have turned 
     down opportunities to do so 4 years in a row, then it is 
     simply time for us to get them out of the system.

  That I think is a very important point, because in all issues such as 
this it ultimately becomes an election issue, and what campaigns and 
elections are all about: who you support for the issues that you want 
to see pursued and enacted in the United States Congress.
  Until there are enough Americans, I feel, that feel strongly enough 
about the appearance of corruption or even the corruption itself in the 
political process and start holding their representatives' feet to the 
fire and make this an election year issue, I am afraid it is going to 
continue to languish, and it will continue to meet excuse after excuse 
for failing to enact it.
  That is why I think good policy is making good politics, even in the 
presidential campaigns today. We have seen Senator McCain talking about 
this issue. He is the chief cosponsor, along with my Senator, Russ 
Feingold, from Wisconsin driving this issue in the Senate for many 
years already. I think that has been resonating with the American 
people, and why he has been receiving the support that he has during 
the course of the campaign season.
  Vice President Al Gore has also been a champion of McCain-Feingold 
and Shays-Meehan, and is fully supportive of the reform bill. Senator 
Bill Bradley, another presidential candidate, is in strong support of 
campaign finance reform.
  I think in this instance, in this election year, good policy is going 
to make for good politics.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman commented a few moments ago that 
Granny D spoke about a feeling of powerlessness. I hope she does not 
feel powerless now as she sees the thousands of people who joined her 
on the steps of the Capitol, who are joining her on her web site, who 
are joining her at every stage here.
  It is interesting, many of them carried signs and chanted, ``Granny D 
speaks for me.'' It is perhaps ironic that a rather diminutive 90-year-
old has such a powerful voice. In fact, when she stood up to the 
microphone she did have a powerful voice, but an even more powerful 
voice in her actions.
  She spoke about this cynicism that people have. I hasten to say that 
our

[[Page H545]]

colleagues here are honorable people, almost all driven by real 
altruism. But there is a perception out there in the country, and this 
is what the gentleman spoke about when he talked about the Supreme 
Court, a perception that is crippling, crippling our democracy, a 
perception that anything that comes out of Congress is determined by 
the wealthy special interests. We need to take action on that. I really 
commend the gentleman for doing this.
  Some States are doing some things. In New Jersey, we have public 
financing of the gubernatorial campaigns. It works well. It is not a 
perfect solution. The soft money ban that we have been talking about 
this evening is not a complete solution, but it certainly is a good 
first step.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, with the remaining moments that we have in 
this special order, I would like to get into a little bit of the teeth, 
the meat of what the Supreme Court ruled last month in upholding the 
ability of legislators to impose limitations on the amount of money 
flowing into the campaigns. It was a 6 to 3 decision, which is a very 
good, decisive decision.
  The opinion was written by Justice Souter. I would just like to pull 
out a few of the quotes that Justice Souter used within his majority 
opinion.
  One is getting at the appearance of corruption, in which he wrote, 
``The prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption was 
found to be a constitutionally sufficient justification''. In that he 
was referring to Buckley v. Valeo, the 1970 Supreme Court decision.
  He also went on to write,

       In speaking of improper influence and opportunities for 
     abuse in addition to quid pro quo arrangements, we recognize 
     the concern, not confined to bribery of public officials, but 
     extending to the broader threat from politicians too 
     compliant with the wishes of large contributors. These were 
     the obvious points behind a recognition that the Congress 
     could constitutionally address the power of money to 
     influence governmental action in ways less blatant and 
     specific than bribery.

  Justice Souter also went on to write,

       Democracy works only if the people have faith in those who 
     govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high 
     officials and their appointees engage in activities which 
     arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.

  What was also interesting in the decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist 
joined the majority in the 6-3 decision, but also Justice Stevens' 
concurring opinion that he wrote. It is relatively short, and I would 
like to quote liberally from that concurring opinion, because I think 
what he had to write makes a lot of sense and is the direction that we 
would like to see the constitutional analysis, at least in finance 
reform, go in this country.
  Justice Stevens wrote, ``Justice Kennedy,'' who wrote a dissenting 
opinion,

       Suggests that the misuse of soft money tolerated by this 
     Court's misguided decision in Colorado Republican Federal 
     Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Commission . . . 
     demonstrates the need for a fresh examination of the 
     constitutional issues raised by Congress' enactment of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974 and this 
     Court's resolution of those issues in Buckley v. Valeo.

                              {time}  1930

  ``In response to his call for a new beginning, therefore, I make one 
simple point.'' And it is a point I felt was not just simple but really 
gets to the heart of it, and I decided to blow it up here tonight to 
emphasize the importance of it in the underlying decision. ``I make one 
simple point. Money is property; it is not speech.''
  Mr. Speaker, that, I think, has been the main crux of the opposition, 
or at least the opponents' argument to campaign finance reform, is that 
we cannot do this. We cannot limit the amount of money coming into 
campaigns. We cannot ban the soft money contributions, the unlimited 
unregulated millions of dollars that are flooding the parties' campaign 
coffers every election season, because it would be an infringement on 
the First Amendment freedom of speech clause. Here we have a Court 
basically saying, no, that argument does not hold water.
  Justice Stevens got more direct to the point where he says: Money is 
property. Let us not fool ourselves. It is not speech.
  Justice Stevens went on to write in his concurring opinion: ``Speech 
has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on 
a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field.'' I 
think he was referring to Vince Lombardi on that last one.

       Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to 
     perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the 
     First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to 
     the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to 
     the use of ideas to achieve the same results.

  Finally, he wrote,
       Reliance on the First Amendment to justify the invalidation 
     of campaign finance regulations is the functional equivalent 
     of the Court's candid reliance on the doctrine of substantive 
     due process as articulated in the two first prevailing 
     opinions in Moore versus East Cleveland. The right to use 
     one's own money to hire gladiators or to fund speech by proxy 
     certainly merits significant constitutional protection. These 
     property rights, however, are not entitled to the same 
     protection as the right to say what one pleases.

  I think it was such a strong concurring opinion that Justice Stevens 
wrote that I wanted to share that. But Justice Breyer also in a 
concurring opinion brought up another valid point. He acknowledges that 
speech is not money, or money is not speech, but he said, ``On the one 
hand, a decision to contribute money to a campaign is a matter of First 
Amendment concern. Not because money is speech, it is not, but because 
it enables speech.'' And that is why the Court in their holding opinion 
said that so long as the contribution limits do not get so ridiculously 
low that it inhibits or prevents an individual being able to 
communicate or get their message out, it will then withstand 
constitutional scrutiny by our third branch, the highest Court in the 
land.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I thought that was a very important Supreme Court 
decision that hopefully will have reverberations throughout the context 
of campaign finance reform. And why is this important? Because the lid 
has just blown off any type of semblance of control or limitations in 
the amount of money coming into campaigns.
  I brought with me a chart to illustrate what I am talking about. This 
chart demonstrates the amount of soft money contributions that have 
been flowing into the parties' campaigns over the last few presidential 
election years. Notice in 1987-1988 presidential campaign there was 
roughly $45 million in soft money contributions. That is when the 
political parties first started realizing there is a huge gaping 
loophole that exists in campaign finance reforms, and they started 
taking advantage of it back in the 1988 presidential campaign.

  That soon escalated to $86 million in the 1992 campaign. It jumped to 
$262 million in the 1996 presidential campaign. And according to 
current estimates of the amount of soft money that is being raised in 
the current presidential campaign, we are on pace of more than doubling 
the 1996 soft money contributions; anywhere from $500 million up to 
$750 million in soft money contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what I mean by the lid has just been blown off. 
They are driving truckloads of money through the loophole that exists 
right now with campaign financing. And if it is not creating the 
potential for corruption in the political process, it certainly has 
created already the appearance of corruption in the political process.
  That, I think, is a compelling reason enough by itself to fight for 
campaign finance reform so we can restore a little bit of dignity and 
integrity to our government and hopefully instill a little bit of faith 
with the American people that there is not this big ``for sale'' sign 
hanging over the United States Congress and we are going to the largest 
contributor.
  That is not what our founders intended this government to mean. It 
was envisioned to be a process that all Americans could feel they could 
participate in. But so long as there is the appearance that it is the 
big money contributors that are gaining access, that are controlling 
the agenda, and also controlling the outcome of the agenda, I think we 
are going to only see more and more cynicism growing throughout this 
country.
  I yield to the gentleman, again.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. Talking politically for a 
moment, the cynics say we will not do

[[Page H546]]

 anything, it does not poll. The opinion polls, when we ask people what 
do they care about, the pollsters come back and say campaign finance 
reform is way down the list. It does not poll. Let me tell my 
colleagues that certainly in my district, and certainly in all the 
districts that Granny D walked through, it is very much on people's 
minds.
  It is not clear in people's minds how to deal with it, but they know 
we must deal with it. It is not just a political issue on a list of 
items. It is not just another item for a plank in a political platform. 
This is fundamental to our democracy. It is fundamental to our system 
of government and people understand that.
  That is why this is of utmost importance. So that we can be able, so 
that we can deal with these other tough problems that we as a country 
face. We have got to get on with it.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, again. Again, coming back 
to what Justice Souter wrote in his majority opinion Nixon v. Shrink 
last month, writing for the majority perhaps he said it best, that 
countering the perception that politicians are being bought is a proper 
justification for regulating donations. Directly quoting from his 
opinion, he said, ``Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered and 
the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune would jeopardize 
the willingness of voters to take part in democratic government.''
  That, I think, basically summarizes the crux of what the Supreme 
Court was getting at saying: Congress, hey, you have the ability under 
the Constitution to limit contributions. And after this recent Supreme 
Court decision, the chief obstacle to achieving a less corrupt campaign 
finance system is not the U.S. Constitution but the people hiding 
behind it and using that Constitution as an excuse for inaction. And 
that, I think, is our chief obstacle that we face today.
  A willing Congress can now take action to solve the problem of big 
money and the influence of money in our political process. The 
political will, not the constitutional authority, is really the only 
missing ingredient that we have here today. And I feel in my analysis 
of the Supreme Court decision, and a lot of constitutional experts who 
looked at it as well, basically view this recent decision as giving us 
the green light for the ban on soft money contributions. All the 
underlying justifications for upholding spending limits in the State of 
Missouri I feel has the same constitutional application to what we were 
trying to accomplish in this session of Congress, and that is just an 
out-and-out ban on soft money contributions before it becomes 
unmanageable and before, what I think, decent people do indecent things 
for the sake of the money race that has come to dominate and become 
all-important in these type of political campaigns.

  So that, I think, is really the challenge that we face today. I 
cannot emphasize this enough, that until the American people really 
start holding their representatives' feet to the fire on this issue and 
start making it an election issue, until they are going to go out and 
support people who are in favor of reform who are no longer going to 
try to defend the status quo, the status quo that I feel is not working 
the way it should for the average person back home in my district in 
western Wisconsin, I do not think we are going to see a strong 
political push then to overcome the resistance that we still encounter 
in the United States Senate on this issue. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman's class came to 
Congress a couple of terms ago, including the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen) and the gentleman deserves a lot of credit for this. He has 
gotten some reinforcement from our class, this freshman class, and this 
one representative from New Jersey is going to be with them all the way 
until we can get good sensible campaign finance reform. The people want 
it. We need it for the sake of our democracy.
  And I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin very much for all that he is 
doing. I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for his efforts. 
And, of course, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who have carried 
the banner for this here in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for his 
participation tonight and also for the work that he is doing for the 
sake of getting finance reform finally passed and signed and enacted 
into law in this country.
  What I would like to do is with the remaining minutes that we have 
left is to cite a Time Magazine article that came out on February 7, 
2000. It was a special investigation Time Magazine and it is titled 
``Big Money in Politics: Who Gets Hurt?''
  It is very insightful, I think, investigation and review of some of 
the issues that we have been working on here in Congress and what the 
authors, at least, the investigators feel is the influence of money 
with these issues.
  The article is entitled ``How the Little Guy Gets Crunched'' and they 
cite specific chapter and verse and list specific instances that they 
feel has a direct correlation between the large money contributors and 
the influence or outcome of legislation or access and action in 
Washington and the impact that it has on smaller people who do not 
write the big checks throughout the country.
  The case that they cite, they reviewed, is the issue of the banana 
wars that is going on between the United States and the European Union 
right now. I believe it is an important WTO issue, however, where the 
EU has been found in violation of World Trade Organization rules by 
prohibiting the importation of bananas from certain areas in Central 
and South America. But the authors of this article point as one of the 
underlying causes of why the United States was quick to react and to 
condemn the European Union and even apply trade sanctions, which we are 
allowed to do when we have a violation of WTO, is because of the family 
ownership of the Chiquita company and their role in the political 
process.

  In fact, they tracked the amount of contributions that the owner of 
Chiquita has made in the course of campaigns starting back in 1991 and 
continuing through 1999, and the amount of sums that have been given, 
which really are extraordinary from one family in this country. Just to 
cite a couple of years, in 1996, the owners of Chiquita contributed 
$736,000 to the Republican Party, $114,000 to the Democrats. 1997, they 
contributed $460,000 to the Republican Party, $116,000 to Democrats. 
1998, they contributed $1.1 million to the Republican Party, $217,000 
to the Democratic Party. 1999, $555,000 to the Republican Party and 
$260,000 to the Democratic Party.
  Again, I think the point the authors are making in this Time Magazine 
article is that if this is not buying influence and access to 
government decision-making, the appearance sure stinks and it is giving 
this appearance of corruption and that the United States is not moral 
holy ground when it comes to our dispute with the European Union over 
this banana fight. And then they cite specific examples of individual 
entrepreneurs, small business owners in the country who have been 
adversely affected because of the sanctions that are now applied 
against the European Union because of their violation of import quotas 
on bananas.
  One individual in particular, Timothy Dove, has a small business in 
Somerset, Wisconsin, Action Battery, whereby he has to import batteries 
from Germany in order to service his business and to keep him in 
business. It just so happened that the Trade Representative's 
designation of certain items now that we are going to be hitting with 
sanctions because of this banana war applies to those batteries that he 
needs to import in order to keep his business vibrant and strong and to 
keep it coming.

                              {time}  1945

  Now, here is a little guy who is trying to provide for his family 
with a small business back in Wisconsin, and all of a sudden he gets 
caught up in this gargantuan trade war between the United States and 
the European Union over bananas. If he would have woke up one morning 
and someone said that bananas were going to have a devastating and 
adverse impact on his health and his life, he would have thought they 
were crazy. But because of these effects of the sanctions now that are 
being applied and the designation of items that are being hit with 
sanctions coming

[[Page H547]]

from the European Union, his business now is in jeopardy of surviving.
  And Mr. Dove is not a big contributor to either of the political 
parties. The authors, again, in this article insinuate that the reason 
why he is the one getting hurt in this big banana war more than someone 
else is because he is not a big contributor to the political parties.
  This is just a very interesting article that Time magazine reported 
on that the authors had investigated. Again, it gets back to what the 
Supreme Court in their decision in Nixon was basically saying, that if 
there is not reason enough not to prevent corruption from occurring in 
the political process to justify campaign finance reform, there is 
certainly enough reason because of the appearance of corruption that 
other people sitting back in Wisconsin, for instance, the Mr. Doves 
throughout the country have towards the political process that adds to 
the cynicism and I think disenchantment and eventually 
disenfranchisement of their participation in the political process.

                          ____________________