[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1597-S1598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 2269. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
ban soft money donations, increase individual contribution limits to 
candidates, and increase disclosure for issue advocacy; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.


                  campaign finance reform legislation

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which I hope might move the Senate closer to the passage of meaningful 
campaign finance reform. I have voted for versions of the McCain-
Feingold reform legislation at least six times in the past 4 years. I 
continue to support passage of that bill, and I will vote for it in the 
future.
  I am concerned, however, that this legislation might not come up for 
a vote again in this Congress. Earlier this morning, the Rules 
Committee, of which I am a member and which Senator McConnell chairs, 
began a series of hearings on the constitutionality of campaign finance 
reform. At that time, I indicated that what I wished to do was submit a 
bill which might have an opportunity to break the gridlock surrounding 
campaign finance reform, and develop some kind of consensus.
  So if I may, on behalf of Senator Torricelli and myself, I send a 
bill to the desk and ask for its submission to committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the bill will be received 
and referred.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this bill has three simple provisions. 
First of all, it bans soft money. Second, it raises hard money 
contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. Third, it requires 
the disclosure of those parties who pay for the so-called issue ads, 
who contribute to the soft money which at present is undisclosed. So it 
would require disclosure of any expenditure of $10,000 or more of an 
independent campaign within 48 hours, and it would require disclosure 
of any individual who contributes more than $3,000 to an independent 
campaign. That is all this bill would do.
  I think, any way you look at it, looking at campaign spending reform, 
one has to look at the unregulated nature of soft money and the 
appearance--and I use the word ``appearance''--of corruption that it 
brings to campaigns.
  Clearly, when in the same session of Congress you have tobacco 
legislation in front of this body and you have a tobacco company that 
contributes $1 million in soft money at the same time, you can draw a 
conclusion--perhaps falsely, but nonetheless draw it--that that money 
is contributed in large amounts with hopes of gaining votes in support 
of the company.
  I think the numbers, the size of soft money contributions, really, 
are what ought to concern this body. The Republican Party raised $131 
million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 150-
percent increase over the last midterm election, in 1994. So from 1994 
to 1998, 4 years, there has been a 150-percent increase in the amount 
of soft money. The Democratic Party raised $91.5 million during this 
same period. That is an 86-percent increase over 4 years.
  At this rate, you can see the amount of soft money is going to, by 
far, dominate anything individual candidates can raise or do during an 
election.
  A recent analysis found that national political party committees 
together raised $107 million just during 1999 alone. That is 81 percent 
more than the $59 million they raised during the last comparable 
Presidential election period in 1995. Congressional campaign committees 
of the national parties raised more than three times as much soft money 
during 1999 as they raised during 1995--$62 million compared to $19 
million.
  We clearly have a trendline going. I think the decision one has to 
make is, is this trendline going to be healthy for the American 
political process? Those who think it is will be for soft money. But I 
think most of us believe, truly, that it is not.

[[Page S1598]]

  The problem comes because the contribution limit is so low for an 
individual candidate. My bill says eliminate soft money, and the 
tradeoff is to increase the hard money contribution for every 
individual candidate from $1,000 to $3,000.
  We heard that the 1971 contribution limit of $1,000 today in real 
dollars is worth about $328. The limit was set 29 years ago and clearly 
needs to be raised because the costs of campaign materials, consultant 
services, television, radio, all of the necessary tools of any viable 
campaign have clearly increased. So what was worth $1,000 in 1971 is 
now worth $328. This would clearly be equalized to have a meaningful 
parity with 1971 if the sum were raised to $3,000.
  What my bill will do is move campaign contributions from under the 
table to above the table. Instead of hundreds of thousands of 
unregulated dollars flowing into the coffers of national political 
parties, this legislation will increase the amount an individual might 
contribute to a candidate under the existing rules of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act. So what we would be doing is exchanging soft 
money for increased limits, soft money being undisclosed and 
unregulated and hard money being both disclosed and regulated.
  It is not the small contributions to an individual's campaign, I 
think, that Americans view as corrupting.
  It is the large checks of $100,000, $250,000, and $1 million, or 
more, to parties that creates this appearance. My bill would eliminate 
this soft money while still allowing candidates to compete without the 
influence of the national parties and these huge amounts of money.
  The final component of the bill is the greater regulation of so-
called issues advocacy. A current campaign law loophole allows unions, 
corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without 
being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions.
  Issue advocacy does not use the so-called ``magic words'', such as 
``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``defeat'' or ``reelect'' that the Supreme 
Court has identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not 
subject to FEC regulation.
  This bill would define ``electioneering communications'' as an 
advertisement broadcast from television or radio that refers to a 
candidate for Federal office and is made 60 days before a general 
election or 30 days before a primary.
  Any individual or organization that spends more than $10,000 on such 
an ad must disclose the expenditure to the FEC within 48 hours. In 
addition, all contributions greater than $3,000 to groups that engage 
in electioneering communications must be disclosed to the FEC within 48 
hours.
  This takes that anonymous area of independent campaigns and clarifies 
express advocacy and regulates and discloses all of the money.
  The Annenberg Public Policy Center has studied the amount that 
independent groups have spent on issue advocacy in each of the last two 
election cycles: 1995-96 and 1997-98. The study estimates that the 
amount spent on issue ads more than doubled, to some $340 million.
  The Center's report indicates that as election day gets closer, issue 
ads become more candidate-oriented and more negative. This kind of 
unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and driving 
voters, I believe, away from the polls.
  With the passing of every election, it becomes increasingly clear 
that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I think this reform 
measure has a very real chance of being passed.
  Once again, let me say, it bans soft money; it increases hard money 
contribution limits to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000; it ties them 
to inflation after 2001; it says simply that anyone engaging in 
independent campaigns must, in effect, disclose, within 48 hours, 
contributions greater than $3,000 or expenditures of more than $10,000.
  I strongly believe that congressional action on meaningful campaign 
finance reform is a very necessary first step in restoring the public's 
confidence in our government. I hope that my colleagues will see this 
as an attempt to reach across the partisan gap, and join me in 
supporting this bill.
                                 ______