[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 41 (Monday, March 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2879-S2882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                     bipartisan campaign reform act

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, for a week now we have been debating 
campaign finance reform. It has been a healthy debate, and a debate I 
am glad we are having. Some want dramatic changes by overhauling the 
whole system. Others want simple reforms around the edges. Some want to 
limit soft money. Some want to ban it. Some want full disclosure. 
Others want none. Some want to raise the ceiling on hard money given by 
individuals. Others want to leave hard money limits alone. Some want to 
protect paychecks of union members from having their dues used for 
political activities. Some do not want to ensure that protection at 
all.
  But let's all agree on one thing. We all think our present campaign 
finance system needs reforming. However, the underlying McCain-Feingold 
bill, S. 27, is an attack on the rights of average citizens to 
participate in the democratic process. Attacking these rights only 
enhances the power of wealthy individuals, millionaire candidates, and 
large news corporations.
  McCain-Feingold hurts the average citizen's participation in the 
process because it targets and imposes restrictions on two key citizen 
groups: issue advocacy groups and political parties. These two groups 
serve as the only effective way through which average citizens across 
America can pool their $10, $20, $100 donations to express themselves 
effectively. One individual alone in the public arena can accomplish 
little with his or her small donation. But the small donations of 
thousands of like-minded individuals can accomplish a lot when they 
work together.
  The right to associate is fundamental in our democratic Republic, and 
the ability of the average citizen across America to effect public 
policy is very important. It is so important that the U.S. Supreme 
Court has recognized it as a fundamental right with constitutional 
protections. If McCain-Feingold succeeds as it is now, the influence of 
average citizens would be drastically reduced. Associations with like-
minded individuals is essential to engaging in the debate of public 
policy, but under McCain-Feingold the average citizen would be buried 
in the tomb of nonparticipation and the rich and powerful would run 
politics.
  Under McCain-Feingold, the power of the giant news media corporations 
is not eliminated. Their editorial content and news coverage are 
protected by the first amendment. And the wealthy multimillionaires 
will not be prohibited from spending their money to self-finance their 
campaigns or express their views on public policy issues. The media and 
the wealthy have all the power and money they need to pay for 
communications about issues. Therefore, the campaign finance reform as 
proposed by McCain-Feingold strips power from the average citizen and 
allows the wealthy and powerful to retain their influence.

[[Page S2880]]

  Although well intended by the bill's sponsors, the underlying bill 
does not present us with a clear and level playing field for all 
Americans. There are winners and there are losers. The losers are the 
citizens of average means, citizens' groups, advocacy organizations, 
labor unions, and political parties. The winners are the wealthy, major 
news corporations, and incumbent politicians.
  Think about who supports this bill. The wealthiest of America's 
foundations and individuals are supporting this bill. The mainstream 
media is the prime cheerleader of this bill, and many incumbent 
politicians are attracted to this bill. The majority of average 
citizens e-mailing my office, calling me and writing me, overwhelmingly 
oppose this bill.

  To try to level the playing field in elections with superwealthy 
candidates, I cosponsored an amendment with Senators Domenici and 
DeWine and others. That amendment, known as the wealthy candidate 
amendment, would have allowed a candidate running against a wealthy 
candidate who self-financed his or her campaign to increase the 
contribution limits from individuals and PACs.
  This amendment, thankfully, passed. It is a great improvement to the 
base bill and helps to level the playing field and take advantage away 
from the superwealthy candidate who sometimes pours tens of millions of 
dollars into their own campaign to win a House or Senate seat.
  This amendment helps those candidates who are not millionaires, or 
wealthy, to have the limits raised on what they can accept from 
individuals and PACs. I think it is a commonsense and bipartisan reform 
provision, and that it will do much to create freer elections and 
confidence of the public in those elections where the superwealthy 
spend millions and millions of dollars.
  There are other campaign reform measures that should be enacted as 
well to enhance and not stifle the voice of citizens. The hard dollar 
individual contributions have not been raised since 1974. This limit 
needs to be raised and indexed for inflation. One thousand dollars just 
does not buy what it used to in 1974. This limit must be raised 
substantially, especially if soft money to the parties is going to be 
reduced. The limit should be raised to $3,000 from the current $1,000. 
Raising this limit would enable more individual citizens to run for 
office, enable all candidates to concentrate more on the job at hand 
and less on fundraising. It may also remove some of the incentive for 
interest groups to make independent and issue advocacy expenditures. 
While a $1,000 contribution may have been high in 1974 when it was 
imposed, it would be worth about $3,000 today.
  In addition, the aggregate hard money individual contribution limit 
should be raised higher than it is already in the bill. McCain-Feingold 
raises current law from a $25,000 limit to $30,000, but, like the hard 
dollar limits for individuals, this limit should be raised higher and 
indexed for inflation.
  The Hagel-Landrieu bill raises this amount from $25,000 in current 
law to $75,000. I would feel much better about supporting a measure 
which raises these two amounts to strengthen the voice of the 
individual citizen.
  Finally, the heart of campaign finance reform must be disclosure. We 
have seen in recent years TV blitzes and ad wars in campaigns. Many 
people wonder who puts out these ads and commercials, and how much 
money is spent on ad blitzes, and who in the world is paying for them. 
For American citizens to make a better informed decision in their 
voting, they deserve to know who is sponsoring these ads and especially 
who is paying for them and how much they cost. We have the ability to 
make this information available over the Internet instantly.
  The Federal Election Commission can and should make this information 
available on the Internet as soon as possible but no later than 24 
hours after the information is received by the FEC. Full disclosure 
will instill better confidence in our citizenry.
  This provision is something many of us have advocated in the past, 
and it is part of the Hagel-Landrieu proposal, which I hope becomes 
part of this underlying bill.
  We have spent a week on campaign finance reform, and we have another 
week to go. I hope we can make some real effort and progress in 
strengthening the voice of the average citizen.
  I fear that so far we still have an unequal playing field, and that 
the underlying bill still favors the wealthy incumbents and the media.
  We need to enhance, not squelch, the voice of the people in their 
elections. Free political speech is the best campaign finance reform. 
It is the very core of what James Madison drafted and the Framers 
adopted when they guaranteed to the people that ``Congress shall make 
no law abridging the freedom of speech.''
  If we are going to pass campaign finance reform, then we need to 
ensure that average citizens are not absolutely out of the system. We 
must pass a bill that does not restrict the freedom of speech of any 
American.
  I urge my colleagues to make sure that happens when we pass this 
bill. If it doesn't have those features in it, I suggest that we vote 
against McCain-Feingold. If it has those features, then I suggest that 
we vote for the underlying bill.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
generosity and courtesy.
  Right to the point with respect to the big bugaboo about the first 
time in our history that we are amending the first amendment, we are 
not amending any first amendment on speech. I will emphasize that in 
just a second. But if we were, it would not be the first time. And the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky and others understand that. They 
continue to raise that bugaboo to intimidate the Senators about the 
seriousness of this by saying it is the first time that we carved and 
etched out of the first amendment since the founding of our country and 
the passage of the Bill of Rights.
  I know that the Senator from Kentucky and others who use that 
expression know about the limits, about the Tillman Act in 1907, about 
Teddy Roosevelt, or the Taft-Hartley Act, and limits on speech by union 
activity. They also know about the limits with respect to the obscene, 
the seven dirty words in the specific case where we gave the FEC the 
power to control these kind of words, and about speech on the airwaves 
with respect to false and deceptive advertising. Everybody believes in 
the Federal Trade Commission.
  I have given a dozen examples of where there is already limited 
speech. But our particular resolution, S.J. Res. 4, is not an 
amendment, as the Senator from Alabama would infer. He says, of all 
things, that even during campaign times this amends the right to speak. 
It doesn't amend anything. It is merely a joint resolution, and not 
even signed by the President but referred to the States for 
ratification to give Congress the power to legislate. It legislates 
nothing. It doesn't approve of McCain-Feingold. It doesn't disapprove 
of it. It doesn't approve of any particular legislation. It only gives 
the power back to us to stop this money chase, and the corruption of 
the system.
  You can see it here this afternoon already. We have had a pretty good 
debate, relatively speaking. But everybody has been out, and they are 
allowed to stay out until 6 o'clock in order to chase the money. We 
used to vote all day Monday when I first got here, and all day Friday. 
Those two days are gone. Tuesday morning is gone. Usually it is after 
lunch on Tuesday when we really start. Then we have a window on 
Wednesday and a window on Thursday, both at lunch and in the evening.
  The entire time is not spent on doing the job of a U.S. Senator, but 
of keeping the job. You have to raise $7 million over six years; $3,000 
every day for six years, including Sunday and Christmas Day. That is 
obscene.
  This gives the Congress the power to deal with that particular 
problem for the first time. Those who would oppose this amendment have 
no idea of controlling that spending.
  I yield the floor. I thank my distinguished colleague from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

[[Page S2881]]

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to my colleague 
from South Carolina. I disagree with him that all we do in the Senate 
is go out and raise money. I think Senators work very hard. I have to 
admit that we generally don't have to vote on Monday until after 5 
o'clock in the evening. There is a reason for that, because Senators 
are returning. Not all of us live in close proximity to the District of 
Columbia. I know this. When I go to Utah, my time isn't spent raising 
money. Most of my time is spent going to town meetings, meeting with 
people in my offices, and working with staff and others who do the job 
that we have to do. I think most Senators around here, including the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, spend inordinate hours here 
during the week. I generally get to the office around 6 a.m. I don't 
know many days when I am home before 7 or 8 o'clock at night. The days 
are completely filled meeting with people.
  Yes, you have to raise money. But everybody has to do that. That is 
part of the process. It is not a bad part of the process. There are 
just a few who do it illegally. If that is the sole thing that you do, 
then you are selling your vote for money. But I don't know of one 
Senator in this body who has ever sold his or her vote for money. I 
believe there is no question that money does talk in the sense that 
groups support you and support Senators around here. Generally the 
groups that have donated to my campaigns do that because they agree 
with my position. Certainly, I am happy to have their help, because you 
do have to raise enough money to run.
  But the Senator is right in one respect; that is, it is costing a 
fortune to run for the U.S. Senate now. The average Senate race is at 
least $4 million. That makes it very difficult for incumbents. But if 
we pass the McCain-Feingold bill, it makes it even worse in some 
respects, especially if you do not increase the limits. Those limits 
were set back in 1974, I believe, and just by the rate of inflation, 
the limits should be raised no less than three times, and probably as 
much as five or six times.
  The cost of elections have gone up dramatically. Back in 1976, a 
couple of years after the rules were set, when I ran for Senate, I have 
to say that my opponent spent in hard dollars somewhere around 
$570,000. I raised in hard dollars about $569,000, if I recall it 
correctly. It cost me more money to raise it than it did to spend it, 
because I had to use direct mail because nobody knew who I was. I had 
to win that race by out-working and out-performing the incumbent. But 
today, if I was to try to do the same thing, I wouldn't even consider 
it, because I would have to start at least $1 million, or $2 million. I 
would have to have a lot more support than I have today. It is going up 
every year.
  It is not a bad thing to have to raise money. I am a perfect 
illustration that it isn't money that always talks because I bet that I 
did not spend over $100,000 in real terms in that race back in 1976. My 
opponent, who I think took me for granted, and made a terrible mistake 
in doing that, he had at least $600,000, it seemed to me, in actual 
dollars to spend, plus he had the support of all kinds of soft money 
groups that came into the State and assisted him as well. So it was 
really a lot more money than that.
  The worst race I had was in 1982, when the mayor of Salt Lake, who is 
a wonderful person, and a good man, ran against me. It was a very tight 
race. I raised close to $4 million in that race. He admitted he raised 
probably at least $2.3 million, if I recall it correctly. But that was 
only part of the story. The trade union money came into that State. 
According to sources, they had as many as 100 dues-paid political 
operatives operating there in Utah, who spent all kinds of money trying 
to assist my opponent in defeating me, something that Republicans just 
do not have on their side.
  When we get out the vote, we have to raise the money ourselves, we 
have to spend it ourselves. We do not have outside groups doing it for 
us. In the case of Democrats, at least in that race--and I think in 
many other races--the get-out-the-vote money, the advertising money, a 
lot of other things come from the trade unions. I think that is their 
right. They believed in my opponent. He had voted virtually a straight 
union line for them, and they supported him. I can't say I disagreed 
with their right to do that.
  In our worries about having to raise all this money, we don't want to 
throw out the baby with the bath water. We don't want to infringe upon 
first amendment rights or freedoms.
  In relation to this particular constitutional amendment, however, let 
me conclude with this simple observation. Free speech and free 
elections are one and the same. This constitutional amendment involves 
speech no matter how you write it, because Buckley v. Valeo said that 
money in politics is a form of speech. This constitutional amendment 
would hurt free speech by giving Congress--535 Members of Congress--and 
the respective State legislatures--they call it ``the States'' but it 
is really, in effect, the State legislatures--too much power to change 
the Supreme Court cases that protect free speech.
  Make no mistake about it, this amendment, if it would pass, would do 
away with Buckley v. Valeo and would send us down that road of allowing 
State legislatures to determine just what can or cannot be spent in 
political campaigns, and allow the Congress of the United States to 
determine what can or cannot be spent in political campaigns.
  I suspect that is going to create a system that is a lot worse than 
our current system. Because if you ban soft money for the two parties--
where you would want the money to be spent; where it is accountable; 
where they have to be accountable--they have to explain what they are 
doing--you can look at it and see whether you want to support the 
parties or not--if you take the soft money away from them, and leave it 
in the hands of everybody else in society, then basically what you are 
doing is, I think, stultifying the electoral process and certainly the 
party process, which all of us ought to be encouraging. Because under 
our current rules, the parties have to disclose the moneys that they 
receive. Under our current rules, many of the outside groups do not 
have to disclose the soft moneys they use in political campaigns. 
And some of them use them in reprehensible ways.

  This amendment says that

       Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on the 
     amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the 
     amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or 
     in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, 
     or for election to, Federal office.

  The same language for the State legislatures.
  In essence, this would overrule Buckley v. Valeo. If you got the 
wrong people in Congress, this could mess up the whole process. But if 
you do not think Congress is capable of doing it, think of what the 
State legislatures might be willing to do in certain States that have 
completely different viewpoints from say my State of Utah.
  So one of the things our Founding Fathers were most concerned about 
was absolute majoritarian control of our country. They were absolutely 
concerned that a straight majority control could lead to mob control 
similar to what happened in the French Revolution that occurred later. 
They were concerned about that.
  So they set up checks and balances. They set up the Senate as a check 
and balance, in a sense, because in the Senate every State has equal 
rights with suffrage. It is not proportional. Every State, no matter 
how large or small, has two Senators. Wyoming with 700,000 citizens has 
the same number of Senators as California with now approaching 33, 34 
million citizens. They did that to have these checks and balances so 
that there would be no way that one side or majoritarian group would 
run away with the process. This amendment would allow them to do so.
  We have 5 minutes left. I see the distinguished chairman here. I 
yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his fine work on 
this amendment again this year. We have had this debate a few times, I 
say to my friend from Utah.

[[Page S2882]]

  Let me just sum it up. This is a unique opportunity for a large 
majority of the Senate to vote against a proposal and be in concert 
with the Washington Post, Common Cause, Senator Feingold, and Senator 
McConnell. That is truly a unique opportunity in the course of this 
debate.
  I commend the Senator from South Carolina. His intentions are clear 
and honorable. He understands that in order to do what is sought in 
McCain-Feingold you need to amend the first amendment for the first 
time in over 200 years, or the first time ever--carve a niche out of it 
to give both the Congress and State legislatures an opportunity to get 
complete control of all of this pernicious speech that is going on out 
there that offends us. That is at the core of this debate.
  This is a constitutional amendment. It should be overwhelmingly 
defeated, as it was last year when we had the same vote. There were 67 
Senators who voted against it and only 33 Senators who voted for it. I 
thought the 67 Senators exercised extraordinarily good judgment. I hope 
that will be the case again when the roll is called at 6 o'clock.
  I do not know if anyone else wishes to speak.
  Mr. President, is all the time used on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes under the control of 
Senator Hatch.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed with the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass? The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) and 
the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``no.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and 
the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Baucus) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Wyden

                              NAYS --- 56

     Akaka
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Collins
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Allard
     Baucus
     Burns
     Landrieu
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 
56. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not 
having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 
was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________