[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7647-S7648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Mr. McCONNELL. As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which has
jurisdiction over the campaign finance issue, and one who has been
rather closely identified with the spirited debate in this arena over
the past decade, I wholeheartedly support putting S. 1816, the Hagel-
Kerrey bill, on the Senate Calendar.
That is not to say I would vote ``aye'' were there a rollcall vote on
the bill as it is currently drafted.
Senator Hagel's legislation was the backdrop for a comprehensive
series of hearings held by the Senate Rules Committee between March and
May of this year. The final hearing featured the testimony of Senator
Hagel, Senator Kerrey, Senator Abraham, Senator Hutchison, and Senator
Landrieu. An impressive, to say the least, bipartisan lineup of
Senators bravely stepping into the breach separating those who persist
in trotting out the old, blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance
schemes of the past, from others like myself who firmly believe that
the first amendment is America's greatest political reform and must not
be sacrificed to appease a self-interested editorial board at the New
York Times.
The Senator from Nebraska has taken what for the past couple of years
has been the biggest bone of contention in the campaign finance fight
in the Senate--party soft money--and essentially split the difference
between the opposing camps. Rather than an unconstitutional and
destructive provision to entirely prohibit non-federal activity by the
national political parties, Senator Hagel has crafted a middle ground
in which the party so-called ``soft'' money contributions would be
capped. Yet, even a cap raises serious constitutional questions and
would surely be challenged were one to be enacted into law.
Nevertheless, the Hagel-Kerrey approach is more defensible and
practicable than outright prohibition.
Coupled with the party soft money cap in the Hagel-Kerrey bill is an
ameliorative and common sense provision to update the hard-money side
of the equation by simply adjusting the myriad hard money limits to
reflect a quarter-century of inflation. An inflation adjustment of the
hard money limits is twenty-five years overdue. Candidates, especially
political outsiders who are challenging entrenched incumbents, are put
at a huge disadvantage by hard money limits frozen in the 1970s.
The lower the hard money limits are, the more that insiders with
large contributor lists are advantaged. Incumbents and celebrities who
benefit from the outset of a race with high name recognition among the
electorate also start way ahead of the unknown challenger. The greatest
beneficiary of low hard money limits are the millionaire and
billionaire candidates who do not have to raise a dime for their
campaigns because they can mortgage the family mansion, cash out part
of their stock portfolio and write a personal check for the entire cost
of a campaign.
As hard money limits are eroded through inflation and non-wealthy
candidates are further hampered, election outcomes are ever more likely
to be determined by outside groups whose independent expenditures and
issue advocacy are completely unlimited. That is ``non-party soft
money.''
Mr. President, absent from the attacks on party soft money is any
acknowledgement by reformers that the proliferation is linked to
antiquated hard money limits which control how much the parties can
take from individuals and PACs to pay for federal election activities.
It stands to reason that hard money limits frozen in 1974 and thereby
doomed to antiquity are going to spawn an explosion of activity on the
soft money side of the party ledger.
It also is not coincidence that increased soft money activity in the
past decade corresponded to vastly increased competition in the
political arena. We are amidst the third fierce battle for control of
the White House in the past decade And every two years America has
witnessed extremely spirited contests over control of the Congress.
Democrats who had been exiled from the White House since Jimmy Carter's
administration at long last got to spend some quality time at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue and are not keen to give that up. Republicans,
after four decades in the minority, got to savor the view from the
Speaker's office in the House of Representatives and would like very
much to keep it. And we have seen more than a little action on the
Senate-side of the Capitol.
Reformers look upon all this activity over the past decade in abject
horror, seeing only dollar signs and venal ``special interests.'' I
survey the same era and see an extraordinary period in which every
election cycle featured a tremendous and beneficial national war of
ideas over the best course for our nation to pursue in the coming years
and which party could best lead America on that path.
All signs, Mr. President, of a competitive, healthy, and vibrant
democracy.
While I strongly support the hard money adjustments in the Hagel-
Kerrey bill, I remain concerned by the bill's silence in an area sorely
in need of reform: Big Labor soft money. The siphoning off of
compulsory dues from union members for political activity with which
many of them do not agree is a form of tyranny which must not be
permitted to continue. Senate Republicans have fought hard, and
unsuccessfully, to protect union workers from this abuse. Democrats are
understandably and predictably loathe to risk any diminution of Big
Labor's contributions which may result from freeing the rank-and-file
union members from forced support of Democratic candidates and causes,
but the absence of reform in this area is unacceptable. Big Labor soft
money and involuntary political contributions must be part of any
comprehensive reform package which ultimately passes Congress.
With those provisos and a few others, I will close by again
commending the Senator from Nebraska from his willingness to wade in a
big way into one of the most contentious issues before Congress--an
issue in which all Members of Congress have a vested personal interest
but that affects not just us but every American citizen and group that
aspires to participate in the political process. That is why the U.S.
Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of any campaign finance bill of
consequence. And those are the reasons we should continue to be
cautions and deliberative as the effort continues for a nonpartisan,
constitutional campaign reform package.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today we have moved a step closer to
implementing comprehensive campaign finance reform. With the help of
Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, the
Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000 will soon be placed
on the Senate Calendar, ready for debate by the full Senate.
I introduced the Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000
along with Senators Bob Kerrey, Spence Abraham, Mike DeWine, Slade
Gorton, Mary Landrieu, Craig Thomas, John Breaux, Kay Bailey Hutchison,
and Gordon Smith as a bi-partisan approach to campaign finance reform
because we felt it was a common sense, relevant and realistic approach.
We offered it as a bipartisan compromise to break the deadlock on
campaign finance reform and to bring forth a vehicle that could address
the main holes in the net of our current system.
The purpose of our legislation is to place more control and
responsibility
[[Page S7648]]
for the conduct of campaigns directly in the hands of the candidates.
Our legislation is not the solution for all of the problems now facing
us, but I believe it is a good solid beginning to accomplish meaningful
campaign finance reform.
After a series of hearings in the Senate Rules Committee this spring
on campaign finance reform, we will now be able to put a bill on the
Senate Calendar that has bipartisan support. If we are to accomplish
comprehensive reform this year, bipartisan support is essential and our
bill has that support.
While I was very pleased with the recent vote in Congress to require
disclosure for the `527' organizations, that bill is not a substitute
for more comprehensive campaign finance reform. It is a solution for a
small problem. We need to continue to fight for campaign finance reform
that is broader and more comprehensive.
I am hopeful that the full Senate will be able to debate
comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation, including the Open
and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000, this year. We have an
opportunity to achieve something reasonable and responsible this year.
Again, I would like to thank Senator McConnell for holding hearings
in the Rules Committee on campaign finance reform and helping move the
process along. I look forward to working with him and all Senators
interested in advancing campaign finance reform.
____________________