[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 40 (Friday, March 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2812-S2813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SNOWE-JEFFORDS PROVISIONS

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to more fully discuss the 
Snowe-Jeffords provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. 
Accountability and transparency are two of the most important 
principles in a democracy. The Snowe-Jeffords provisions will 
strengthen our campaign finance laws and democracy by ensuring the 
financial sponsors of sham issue ads are accountable to the voters 
through increased disclosure.
  I am concerned that the intent and effect of these provisions have 
been distorted by some of those who oppose campaign finance reform. I 
am here today to set the record straight.
  I have been proud to work with my good friend the senior Senator from 
Maine to develop these provisions that our citizens demand and that 
abide by the First Amendment. Senator Snowe has shown great leadership 
and dedication in developing a legislative solution that will fully and 
fairly address the proliferation of these sham issue ads.
  Let me begin with a discussion of what the Snowe-Jeffords provisions 
would do. First, they require disclosure of certain information if an 
individual spends more than 10,000 dollars in a year on electioneering 
communications which are run in the 30 days before a primary, or 60 
days before a general election. Second, Snowe-Jeffords prohibits the 
direct or indirect use of union or corporate treasury monies to fund 
electioneering communications run during these time periods. For my 
colleagues and those watching on C-SPAN, an electioneering 
communication is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which 
references a clearly identified federal candidate within the time 
period explained above.
  Now let me explain what the Snowe-Jeffords provisions will not do:
  The Snowe-Jeffords provisions will not prohibit groups like the 
National Right to Life Committee or the Sierra Club from disseminating 
electioneering communications;

[[Page S2813]]

  It will not prohibit such groups from accepting corporate or labor 
funds;
  It will not require such groups to create a PAC or another separate 
entity;
  It will not bar or require disclosure of communications by print 
media, direct mail, or other non-broadcast media;
  It will not require the invasive disclosure of all donors, and
  Finally, it will not affect the ability of any organization to urge 
grassroots contacts with lawmakers on upcoming votes.
  The last point bears repeating. The Snowe-Jeffords provisions do not 
stop the ability of any organization to urge their members and the 
public through grassroots communications to contact their lawmakers on 
upcoming issues or votes. That is one of the biggest distortions of the 
Snowe-Jeffords provisions. Any organization can, and should be able to, 
use their grassroots communications to urge citizens to contact their 
lawmakers. Under the Snowe-Jeffords provisions any organization still 
can undertake this most important task.
  My colleagues may wonder what led Senator Snowe and I to work so hard 
for the inclusion of these provisions in the McCain-Feingold campaign 
finance reform bill. Since the 1996 election cycle we have both seen, 
and experienced first hand, the explosion in the amount of money spent 
on these so-called issue ads. From the 135-150 million dollars spent in 
1996, spending on these so-called issue ads has ballooned to over 500 
million dollars during the last election cycle.
  It is not the increase in the amount spent on these so-called issue 
ads alone that concerns us. Studies have shown that in the final two 
months of an election, 95 percent of television issue ads mentioned a 
candidate, 94 percent made a case for or against a candidate, and 
finally 84 percent of these ads had an attack component. Does anyone 
think these statistics are just a coincidence? An overwhelming majority 
of the public recognizes this problem. They see an ad identifying, 90 
percent, or showing a candidate, 83 percent, or an ad being shown in 
the last few weeks before an election, 66 percent, as ads that are 
trying to influence their vote for or against a particular candidate.
  Some of my colleagues are of the opinion that this increase in money 
spent on sham issue ads is fine. They believe that more money in the 
system will better inform the electorate about the candidates. 
Unfortunately, these sham issue ads are corrupting our election system 
and are not better informing the voters about the candidates.
  The public can differentiate between electioneering communications 
and other types of communications done to purely inform the public on 
an issue. A recent study done by the Brigham Young University Center 
for the Study of Elections and Democracy shows this, and the effect 
these ads are having on the public.
  As you can plainly see from this chart, I have beside me the public 
views electioneering communications as trying to persuade them to vote 
against a candidate. These ads--80 percent--evoke as strong of a 
reaction in the viewing public as the party advertisements--81 
percent--and are even stronger than the candidate's own ads--67 
percent. This chart also shows that the public knows when it is viewing 
a pure issue ad as compared to the other types of ads tested. Seventy 
percent of the public recognizes that.
  This next chart, chart No. 2, also demonstrates how the public views 
these ads, again showing what is the real purpose behind these 
electioneering communications. Here, like the first chart, you can see 
that the public is able to differentiate between ads run to help or 
hurt a candidate versus a pure issue ad meant to inform the public. 
What is interesting, or frightening, about this chart is that the 
electioneering communications generate a higher response from the 
viewing public--86 percent--than even the candidate--82 percent--or 
party ads--84 percent.
  My third chart shows the degree to which the public felt an ad was 
intended to influence their vote, with 1 being not at all and 7 being 
clearly intended to influence their vote.
  This chart again shows that the public is able to differentiate 
between the communications they receive. Like before, there is a stark 
difference in public perception between those ads which are seen as 
trying to influence a vote, election issue ads, party ads, and 
candidate ads, versus those seen as portraying a purely informational 
purpose, pure issue ads. The chart also shows that the public views the 
intent of these electioneering communications to be to influence their 
vote as strongly as a party ad--6.3 to 6.3; about even--and even more 
strongly--6.3 to 5.8--than the candidate's own advertisement. The chart 
also shows the stark difference in the public's mind between the intent 
of electioneering communications--6.3--and pure issue ads--3.7.

  While the public correctly perceives that electioneering 
communications are meant to influence their vote, the public is 
confused about the origin of these communications. As this chart shows, 
chart No. 4, an overwhelming majority--75 percent--of the public 
believe that these communications are being paid for by the party or 
the candidate themselves. The voters deserve to know who is trying to 
influence their vote, and the Snowe-Jeffords provisions will give them 
that information.
  My final chart, chart No. 5, shows that the public craves the 
information that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions would provide them. 
Eighty percent of the public believes that it is important or very 
important that they know who pays for or sponsors a political ad.
  I ask our opponents, do they not believe that the public deserves to 
know who is trying to influence their vote? The public both wants and 
deserves that information, and Senator Snowe and I provide it to them 
with our provisions.
  I think this is an incredibly important part of the bill. I strongly 
urge all of my patriots to study the Snowe-Jeffords provisions to make 
sure they fully understand that all we are requiring is disclosure. We 
want to make sure people know from where the information to influence 
them is coming.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for as much time as I 
may consume in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________