[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 7 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S356-S358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 93. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
require disclosure of certain disbursements made for electioneering 
communications, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


                            campaign reform

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill along with my 
friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, to ensure that we 
will have balanced, comprehensive campaign finance reform that doesn't 
close one loophole while leaving another open. It is a bipartisan 
approach to a burgeoning segment of undisclosed and unregulated 
campaign activity that will only get worse if left unchecked.
  Mr. President, the bill I am offering is based on a provision this 
body added to the McCain-Feingold bill three years ago, and a bill we 
introduced in the 106th Congress. With that amendment, the Senate 
finally went on record as having a majority in support of campaign 
finance reform. In fact, 53 senators cast a vote supporting the 
combined approach of a soft money ban and a sound, constitutional 
approach to addressing a veritable explosion in unregulated, so-called 
``issue ads''.
  Senator Jeffords and I crafted this measure because we wanted 
campaign finance reform; we wanted a bill that represented the best 
possible policy; and we wanted a package that could bridge the 
political gap that had opened between supporters and opponents.
  On the one hand, we had Republicans concerned that McCain-Feingold, 
as it stood, might not have done enough to focus on the use of the 
union dues for political purposes. On the other hand, we had Democrats 
who didn't want unions signaled out and wanted corporate money to be 
addressed as well.

[[Page S357]]

  That's the context in which we set out to carefully construct a 
measure that would withstand constitutional scrutiny, address some of 
the most egregious abuses, and focus on areas where we know the Supreme 
Court has already allowed us to go--disclosure, and a prohibition on 
union and corporation money for electioneering. Indeed, the compromise 
language eventually adopted was supported by groups like Common Cause 
and Public Citizen, and by the bill's sponsors themselves.
  I would also like to enter into the record a portion of a March 1, 
1998 Washington Post editorial that said,'' The (Snowe-Jeffords) 
amendment was a reminder of how good a bill might be in reach if only 
there were the political will, and willing leadership, to write it.'' 
The editorial went on to say that ``that's the sort of compromise that 
the legislative process at its best produces.''
  I am pleased that a provision based directly on that amendment is now 
included in the McCain-Feingold bill being introduced today, and of 
which I am an original cosponsor. I think the provision strengthens the 
McCain-Feingold bill in terms of providing balance and more 
comprehensive approach to reform.
  Mr. President, I have stood on the Senate floor and spoken of the 
burgeoning problem this bill seeks to address. And I have said that, if 
we do nothing, the situation will only get worse. Well, it has gotten 
worse, and let me just take a moment before describing what the bill 
will do to detail why this bill is necessary in the first place.

  What I'm talking about here are broadcast advertisements the sole 
purpose of which is to influence federal elections, but that require no 
disclosure and have none of the restrictions that for decades have been 
placed on other forms of campaigning. These are broadcast ads that 
masquerade as informational or educational, but are really ``stealth 
advocacy'' ads for or against candidates.
  According to estimates by the Annenberg Public Policy center which 
has been extensively studying this trend, in the 2000 elections over 
$400 million was spent on these so-called ``issue ads''--many of which 
are blatant attempts to influence federal elections, and everyone knows 
it. And that number--which is four times what was estimated for the 
last presidential election cycle, I might add, may be just the tip of 
the iceberg. Because we simply don't know all the money that's being 
spent.
  So how do we address the problem?
  The Snowe-Jeffords approach is simple and straightforward. First, we 
require disclosure on all groups and individuals running broadcast ads 
within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of any election that mention 
the name of a federal candidate. And second, a ban on the use of union 
or corporate treasury money to pay for these ads.
  That's what this boils down to, Mr. President. Disclosure, 
disclosure, disclosure. In fact, nothing in this bill prevents anyone 
from running any ads at any time saying anything they want.
  All we say is, if you spend more than $10,000 per year on these 
broadcast ads you can't use union or corporation money. That's the only 
ban on anything in this bill. And we require you to disclose who is 
bankrolling the ads if they give $500 or more.
  We developed this approach in consultation with noted constitutional 
scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise 
Institute Joshua Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for 
Justice at NYU, and Daniel Ortiz, John Allan Love Professor of Law at 
the University of Virginia School of Law. The bill is narrowly and 
carefully crafted, and based on the precept that the Supreme Court has 
made clear that, for constitutional purposes, campaigning--which make 
no mistake, these ads do--is different from other speech.
  Corporations have been banned from direct involvement in campaigns 
since the Tillman Act of 1907--unions were first addressed in the 
Smith-Connally Act of 1943 and the prohibition was finally made 
permanent in 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act.
  Under Snowe-Jeffords, unions and corporations still have a voice in 
federal elections through the appropriate avenue--a political action 
committee to which individuals voluntarily contribute up to the amount 
allowed by law. They just can't use unlimited shareholder monies or 
money from union coffers to fund the ads--a logical extension of 
current law.
  As for disclosure, the Brennan Center analysis has concluded that, 
``Congress is permitted to demand that the sponsor of an electioneering 
message disclose the amount spent on the message and the sources of the 
funds.''
  It has been said in the past that this measure prohibits running 
these ads altogether. In point of fact, anyone can run any ad saying 
anything they want at any time. They simply must not use union or 
corporate treasury money within 30 days of a primary or 60 days before 
a general election, and they must let us know who paid for them. Is 
that too much to ask?
  The fact is, Mr. President, we are burying our heads in the sand if 
we do nothing about this problem. It is clearly taking elections out of 
the hands of individuals and of candidates.
  Certainly, there are some legitimate issue ads out there. They are 
truly designed to inform the public, or advocate a particular position. 
We don't effect these ads one iota. We don't want to effect these ads.
  And certainly, people have a right to disagree with candidates, and 
even attack their positions. That is why nothing in this bill prevents 
people from doing so. All we say is that we ought to know who is paying 
for these ads, and that they should not be paid for with union or 
corporation money--like any other activity that is influencing a 
federal election.

  Again, the bill only requires disclosure for large donors to all 
groups spending more than $10,000 on ads running 30 days before a 
primary and 60 days before a general election. And it only bans union 
and corporation treasury money from funding such ads, based on the 1907 
and 1947 laws I mention earlier.
  This approach has garnered majority support from the Senate in the 
past and in light of the previous elections it deserves even greater 
support today. We need balanced, meaningful, and comprehensive campaign 
finance reform, and this bill is a vital component. I urge its 
consideration.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing and urge my 
Senate colleagues to join as cosponsors of this important legislation.
  Throughout the last Congress the Senate spent many legislative hours 
debating campaign finance reform. In fact, since my election to the 
House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I have spent many long 
hours working with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform 
legislation that could ensure the legislative process and survive a 
constitutional challenge. We have come close in the past, and I believe 
circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful campaign 
finance reform during this Congress.
  I believe that the irregularities associated with our recent 
campaigns point out the fact that current election laws are not being 
strongly enforced or working to achieve the goals that we all have for 
campaign finance reform. Without action, these abuses will become more 
pronounced and widespread as we go from election to election.
  The Snowe-Jeffords bill, the Advancing Truth and Accountability of 
Campaign Communications Act (ATACC), will boost disclosure requirements 
and tighten the rules on expenditures of corporate and union treasury 
funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election.
  I would like to begin with a story that may help my colleagues 
understand the need for this legislation, and that many of my 
colleagues may understand from their own campaigns. Two individuals are 
running for the Senate and have spent the last few months holding 
debates, talking to the voters and traveling around the state. Both 
candidates feel that they have informed the voters of their thoughts, 
views and opinions on the issues, and that the voters can use this 
information to decide on which candidate they will support.
  Two weeks before the day of the election a group called the People 
for the Truth and the American Way, let's say, begins to run television 
advertisements which include the picture of one of the

[[Page S358]]

candidates and that candidate's name. However, these advertisements do 
not use the express terms of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' These 
advertisements discuss personal and family issues.
  The voters do not know who this group is, who are its financial 
backers and why they have an interest in this specific election, and 
under our current election law the voters will not find out. Thus, even 
though the candidates have attempted to provide the voters with all the 
information concerning the candidate's views on the issues, they 
will be casting their vote lacking critical information concerning 
these advertisements.

  Some people may say that voters do not need this information. But as 
James Madison said, ``A popular government without popular information 
is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both. Knowledge 
will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own 
governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''
  Mr. President, the ATACC act will arm the people with the knowledge 
they need in order to sustain our popular government. And the need to 
arm the people with this knowledge is becoming greater every year. The 
amount of money spent on issue advocacy advertising is increasing over 
time at an alarming rate. In the 1995-1996 election cycle an estimated 
$135-150 million was spent on issue advocacy, while in the 1997-1998 
cycle an estimated $275-340 million was expended on these types of 
advertisements. There appears to have been no slowing of expenditures 
during the 1999-2000 election cycle as the most recent estimates show 
the previous election cycle's total being surpassed with the final two 
months of campaigning, where a large proportion of these advertisements 
are run, remaining.
  I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, ``Sunlight 
is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' The disclosure requirements 
in the ATACC act are narrow and tailored to provide the electorate with 
the important pertinent information they will need to make an informed 
decision. Information included on the disclosure statement includes the 
sponsor of the advertisement, amount spent, and the identity of the 
contributors who donated more than $500. Getting the public this 
information will greatly help the electorate evaluate those who are 
seeking federal office.
  Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant as Justice Brandeis 
puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and avoid the 
appearance of corruption that many already feel pervades our campaign 
finance system. This, too, is an important outcome of the disclosure 
requirements of this bill. Getting this information into the public 
purview would enable the press, the FEC and interest groups to help 
ensure that our federal campaign finance laws are obeyed. If the public 
doesn't feel that the laws Congress passes in this area are being 
followed, this will lead to a greater level of disillusionment in their 
elected representatives. Exposure to the light of day of any corruption 
by this required disclosure will help reassure our public that the laws 
will be followed and enforced.
  While our bill focuses on disclosure, it will also prohibit 
corporations and unions from using general treasury monies to fund 
these types of electioneering communications in a defined period close 
to an election. Since 1907, federal law has banned corporations from 
engaging in electioneering. In 1947, that ban was extended to prohibit 
unions from electioneering as well. The Supreme Court has upheld these 
restrictions in order to avoid the deleterious influences on federal 
elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control 
over large aggregations of capital. By treating both corporations and 
unions similarly we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. 
I feel that this prohibition, coupled with the disclosure requirements, 
will address many of the concerns my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle have raised with regards to our current campaign finance laws.

  Mr. President, I think it is important to clarify at this time some 
of the things that this bill will not do. It will not prevent grass-
roots lobbying communications, it does not cover printed material, nor 
require the text or a copy of the advertisement to be disclosed. 
Finally, it does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, nor 
restrict how much money a group raises. These points must be expressed 
early on to ensure that my colleagues can clearly understand what we 
are and are not attempting to do with our legislation.
  We have taken great care with our bill to avoid violating the 
important principles in the First Amendment of our Constitution. This 
has required us to review the seminal cases in this areas, including 
Buckley v. Valeo. Limiting corporate and union spending and disclosure 
rules has been an area that the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of 
regulation. We also strove to make the requirements sufficiently clear 
and narrow to overcome unconstitutional claims of vagueness and 
overbreadth.
  Mr. President, I wish I could guarantee to my colleagues that these 
provisions would be held constitutional, but as we found out with the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even with near unanimous support, it 
is difficult to gauge what the Supreme Court will decide on 
constitutional issues. However, I feel that the provisions we have 
created follow closely the constitutional roadmap established by the 
Supreme Court by the decisions in this area, and that it would be 
upheld.
  I know that campaign finance reform is an area of diverse viewpoints 
and beliefs. However, I feel that the ATACC act offers a constructive 
and constitutional solution that addresses some of the problems that 
have been expressed concerning our current campaign finance system. The 
American people are watching and hoping that we will have a fair, 
informative and productive debate on campaign finance reform. I know 
that the proposal that Senator Snowe and I have put forward will do 
just that.
  The electorate has grown more and more disappointed with the tenor of 
campaigns over the last few years, and this disappointment is reflected 
in the low number of people that actually participate in what makes 
this country and democracy great, voting. I feel that giving the voters 
the additional information required by our legislation will help dispel 
some of the disillusionment the electorate feels with our campaign 
system and reinvigorate people to participate again in our democratic 
system.
  In conclusion, the very basis of our democracy requires that an 
informed electorate participate by going to the polls and voting. The 
ATACC act will through its disclosure requirements inform our 
electorate and lead people to again participate in our democratic 
system.
                                 ______