[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 50 (Thursday, April 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3011-S3012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CALLING OF THE BANKROLL KICK-OFF

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues may remember, 
during the first session of this Congress I initiated the Calling of 
the Bankroll. It is a time when I come to the floor to chronicle the 
massive amount of PAC and soft money pumped into the campaign finance 
system by donors looking to influence the work we do here on this 
floor.
  I called the bankroll many times last year--19 times, to be exact.
  And I included not just donations by business interests but from 
interests on both sides of these debates, including trial lawyers and 
gun control advocates.
  Last year when I began my Calling of the Bankroll effort, I did so 
because I thought it was time for someone in this body finally to talk 
about what we all think about and what the American people really are 
quite angry about; and that is, how money can influence what we do here 
and how we do it.
  I know that this is an uncomfortable topic, and I know full well that 
there are some who would prefer that I stop Calling the Bankroll--that 
there are those who wish that I would stop putting the spotlight on 
facts that reflect poorly on our system, and in turn on the Senate, and 
on both major political parties.
  I have to tell you, Mr. President, no one wishes I could stop Calling 
the Bankroll as much as I do.
  I wish wealthy interests with business before this body didn't have 
unlimited ability to give money to our political parties through the 
soft money loophole, but they do.
  I wish these big donors weren't able to buy special access to our 
political leaders through meetings and weekend retreats set up by the 
parties, but they can.
  I wish fundraising skills and personal wealth weren't some of the 
most sought-after qualities in a candidate for Congress today, but 
everyone knows that they are.
  Most of all, I wish that these facts didn't paint a picture of 
Government so corrupt and so awash in the influence of money that the 
American people, especially young people, have turned away from their 
Government in disgust, but every one of us knows that they have.
  But I also know something else: that we have the power to change this 
embarrassing state of affairs.
  Here in the Senate we have the power to show the American people that 
we have the will to shut down the soft money system.
  As I said, I Called the Bankroll 19 times last year--and I could have 
done it even more times.
  Unfortunatey there is never a shortage of material.
  When I Call the Bankroll I describe how much money the various 
interests lobbying on a particular bill have spent on campaign 
contributions to influence our decisions.
  I Called the Bankroll on: A mining rider to emergency supplemental 
appropriations, the gun control amendments to the juvenile justice 
bill, the Super Hornet amendment to DoD authorization, the Y2K 
liability legislation, the Patients' Bill of Rights--we did it twice on 
that, China/NTR, the tobacco industry, last summer's tax bill, 
agriculture appropriations, the FCC rule on the siting of 
telecommunications towers, oil royalties--we did it twice on that one, 
consolidation in the railroad industry, the Passengers' Bill of Rights, 
the F-22 program, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, the Financial 
Services Modernization bill, and finally the Bankruptcy Reform Act.

  As I said, there was no shortage of material for calling the 
bankrolls.
  This year, it's time again to examine legislation before this body 
with an eye to the interests that seek to influence the legislative 
process.
  I have already begun that effort--I recently called the bankroll 
during the debate on the budget resolution. Of course, the budget 
process itself is tainted by the flood of money that flows to those of 
us who decide the nation's spending priorities. During that debate we 
addressed the question of whether or not we should drill for oil in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I called attention to the 
significant contributions by the companies with an interest in the 
outcome of that debate.
  Before that I also called the bankroll on the interests lobbying both 
sides of the nuclear waste debate.
  I talked about phony issue ads, PAC contributions, unlimited soft 
money contributions--the money that's always here, just beneath the 
surface of our debates.
  It's our unwillingness to discuss it or even acknowledge the 
influence of this money that speaks volumes about how uncomfortable so 
many of us are with the current campaign finance system.
  The purpose of the Calling of the Bankroll is to force this body to 
face up to the appearance of corruption the system causes and face up 
to our responsibility to do something about it.
  So I can assure my colleagues that I will keep Calling the Bankroll 
until we do something about the campaign finance system that causes the 
American people to question our motives when we act on legislation, 
and, I am afraid, to question the very integrity of this body and our 
democracy.

  And today they have more reason than ever to take a cynical view of 
our work.
  Because last year was another record-breaker in the annals of soft 
money fundraising--the national political party committees raised a 
record $107.2 million during the 1999 calendar year--81 percent more 
than they raised during the last comparable presidential election 
period in 1995, according to Common Cause.
  An 81 percent increase is astounding, especially considering that the 
year it's compared with--1995, the last off-election year preceding a 
presidential election--which was itself a record-breaking year for soft 
money fundraising.

[[Page S3012]]

  This year one of the most notable fundraising trends hits very close 
to home, or to the dome, as the case may be: Congressional campaign 
committees raised more than three times as much soft money during 1999 
than they raised during 1995--$62 million compared to $19.4 million.
  That's a huge increase, Mr. President.
  It is three times as much soft money--much of it raised by Members of 
Congress. The latest reports show record-breaking soft money figures 
for the first quarter of the year 2000, as well.
  How should the public view this?
  What can we expect them to think as Members of Congress ask for these 
unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy 
individuals, and then turn around and vote on legislation that directly 
affects those donors?
  Frankly Mr. President, it's all the more reason for Americans to 
question our integrity, whether those donations have an impact on our 
decisions or not.
  But we can regain some of the public's trust by doing one simple 
thing--banning soft money.
  On January 24, in its opinion in the Shrink Missouri case, the 
Supreme Court stated even more clearly to us that we may take that step 
today without the slightest offense to the First Amendment.
  I'll continue the fight to ban soft money this year, and ask every 
one of my colleagues to join me.
  The fight to ban soft money is a fight to regain the public's trust, 
and Mr. President, there's no fight in our democracy today more 
worthwhile than that.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________