[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 23 (Monday, March 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1165-S1166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senators from the other side of the 
aisle made comments about the Republican Presidential primary, taking 
sides in those primaries. I think it is somewhat odd they would want to 
debate some of the issues here.
  With regard to the concerns over contributions that are going to 
independent groups--I believe New York was complained of--to run TV 
ads, money was given by a small number of people who made large 
contributions to run those ads. It was said that this is a 
justification for passing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform 
legislation.
  My best understanding of what that bill is all about is that this 
would not

[[Page S1166]]

be covered. Fundamentally, the McCain-Feingold bill covered 
contributions of larger sums of money to political parties but it did 
not prevent people giving large contributions to an independent 
environmental group, an independent pro-choice group, or an independent 
pro-life group so they could run ads during a campaign season and say: 
Candidate Jeff Sessions doesn't agree with our views, vote against him.
  The problem I have had with campaign finance reform is it was not in 
this McCain-Feingold bill. Why? Because this is America, these are 
political campaigns. Is the Senate going to pass a law that says 
individual American citizens can't raise money and run an ad and 
express their view as to how the American public should or should not 
vote on an issue?
  It is frustrating to have the moneys come in. I certainly believe 
they ought to be disclosed. I was, I believe, a victim or target of one 
of these ads when I ran for the Senate 3 years ago. It came under the 
guise of an environmental group, but I know the money came mainly to 
beat up on me.

  How can anyone say that is wrong? How can we say a group cannot raise 
money and run ads during an election campaign season about issues? I am 
troubled by that. I am frustrated not having a lot of money myself, 
facing two candidates in my primary, both of whom spent over $1 million 
of their own money, most of it beating up on me. I was struggling with 
$1,000 maximum contributions per person to try to fight back. I was 
able to do so. Fortunately, the American people don't vote on who has 
the most money. There are other issues. We have seen that time and time 
again. They are pretty sophisticated in how to evaluate this.
  I am troubled by this idea that we can, out of some sort of vision of 
good government, blithely walk in and say candidates are not going to 
be able to raise money; they are not going to be able to spend money to 
express their ideas during an election campaign.
  When do we want to do it? They say just accept certain guidelines for 
6 months prior to the election. When do we want to speak out, if it 
isn't when people are getting ready to vote?

                          ____________________