[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 41 (Monday, March 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2882-S2890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 145

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 15 minutes 
of debate on the Wellstone amendment. The time is to be divided between 
the sponsor and Mr. Feingold of Wisconsin.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think we are in a critical time 
regarding the direction and prospects for this bill. This is an 
important piece of legislation. It started out weaker than it once was. 
It is still a very important effort.
  The question is whether or not reformers will support amendments that 
are proreform that will improve the bill or whether we will go in the 
direction, for example, of taking the caps off hard money and having 
yet more big money in politics.
  This amendment improves this bill. This amendment says when you have 
the prohibition on soft money in parties and then you have a very 
important effort by Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords to also apply 
that prohibition of soft money to the sham issue ads when it comes to 
labor and corporations, in the Shays-Meehan bill, that prohibition on 
soft money applies to all the groups and organizations. In the other 
McCain-Feingold bill, it applied to all of these organizations.
  If you don't have that prohibition of soft money, you will take the 
soft money from parties and it will all shift to a proliferation of the 
groups and organizations that are going to carpet bomb our States with 
all these sham issue ads. This is a loophole that must be plugged.
  My amendment is what is in the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Third, colleagues, I want to be very clear. I have written this 
amendment in such a way that severability applies. Even if a Supreme 
Court in the future were to say this amendment is not constitutional, 
there is complete severability here and it would not apply to any other 
provisions, including the Jeffords-Snowe provision.
  Also, looking over at my colleague from the State of Tennessee, 
Senator Thompson, we accepted the millionaire amendment which will in 
all likelihood be challenged by the courts. That is why I am so clear 
there is severability of principle that applies to this amendment.
  Finally, if we are going to pass this bill and we are going to try to 
get some of the big money out of the politics, please let's not, when 
we have a chance to fix a problem, not fix it. Don't let the soft money 
no longer apply to parties and all shifts to these sham ads. Let's be 
consistent.
  I do not believe that an effort to improve this bill is an effort to 
kill this bill. The argument that if the majority of Senators vote for 
this amendment and improve the bill, then later on the majority of 
Senators who voted for this amendment will vote against the bill that 
the majority just voted for on the amendment, doesn't make any sense. I 
have heard this argument too many times. We ought to fix this problem.
  I hope I will have your support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reluctantly, I move to table this amendment, both for 
concerns of its constitutionality and also the practical considerations 
of what it will take to get our piece of legislation through this 
Senate and maintain the bipartisan spirit and reality that it has had.
  With regard to the issues of constitutionality, I yield 5 minutes to 
the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

[[Page S2883]]

  Mr. EDWARDS. Let me also add to what Senator Feingold said. I agree 
with Senator Wellstone, that what he is trying to do makes a great deal 
of sense in terms of basic equity and fairness. The problem is that 
501(c)(4) corporations, at which his amendment is aimed, have not been 
treated the same by the U.S. Supreme Court as unions and for-profit 
corporations.
  Snowe-Jeffords is very carefully crafted to meet the constitutional 
test of Buckley v. Valeo. Basically, it meets the two fundamental 
requirements of Buckley:
  First, that there can be a compelling State interest. The Buckley 
Court found that exactly what is being done with Snowe-Jeffords 
constituted a compelling State interest.
  Second, it be narrowly tailored. Snowe-Jeffords is limited to the 60 
days before the election. It is narrowly tailored, limited to broadcast 
advertising.
  It also requires the likeness or name of the candidate to be used.
  What has been done with Snowe-Jeffords is a very careful effort to 
make sure the constitutional requirements of Buckley v. Valeo have been 
met. In fact, they have been met. It is not vague; it establishes a 
very clear bright-line test so we don't have a vagueness constitutional 
problem. We also don't have a problem of substantial overbreadth 
because all of the empirical evidence shows 99 percent of ads that meet 
the test are, in fact, election campaign ads and constitute 
electioneering.
  Snowe-Jeffords has been very carefully crafted. It is narrow. It 
specifically meets the requirements of Buckley v. Valeo, the 
constitutional requirement.
  The problem with what Senator Wellstone is attempting to do is there 
is a U.S. Supreme Court case, the FEC v. The Massachusetts Citizens for 
Life, that is directly on point, saying that these 501(c)(4)s have a 
limited constitutional right to engage in electioneering to do campaign 
ads. There are some limits, but unfortunately if you lump them in with 
unions and for-profit corporations, you create a very serious 
constitutional problem because the U.S. Supreme Court has already 
specifically addressed that issue.
  So the reason Senator Feingold and Senator McCain are opposing this 
amendment is the same reason that I oppose this amendment: It raises 
very serious constitutional problems. The U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, 
in 1984 specifically ruled on this question.
  What we urge the Members of the Senate to do is not support this 
amendment, to vote for tabling. Those people who are in favor of real 
and meaningful campaign finance reform we hope will support Snowe-
Jeffords, support McCain-Feingold, and vote to table the Wellstone 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is a situation that is very similar 
to what happened in the other body when they sought to pass the Shays-
Meehan bill. There were times that amendments that were very attractive 
had to be defeated to maintain a coalition to pass the bill. They were 
tough votes. Members of the House on both sides of the aisle stuck 
together and made sure the most important consideration was that the 
reform package pass.
  We also face a political test with this amendment. Those who remember 
the debate we had a few years ago will remember that Senators Snowe and 
Jeffords developed their provision and then joined the reform effort 
while under enormous pressure to kill reform by voting for the so-
called paycheck protection proposal. They agreed to work with us and to 
vote with us to defeat those unfair proposals once the Democratic 
caucus agreed to the Snowe-Jeffords language. And our entire caucus 
voted to add this provision to the McCain-Feingold bill in place of the 
previous provision that would have treated 501(c)(4) advocacy groups 
the same as for-profit corporations, similar to the approach and effect 
of the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.

  I think we saw last week that the Senators from Maine and Vermont, 
along with other Republican supporters of reform, have been true to 
their word. If we adopt this amendment, in a way, we will be going back 
on our word. I have worked for years with the Senator from Maine and 
the Senator from Vermont on this bill. I know how sincerely they want 
to pass it. So I stand with them to defend the Snowe-Jeffords provision 
which I have come to believe is our best chance of making a significant 
difference on this issue of phony issue ads and also the best chance we 
have, as the Senator from North Carolina has so well expressed, to 
actually have this provision approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 
inevitable court challenge that will ensue if we manage to get this 
bill all the way over there.
  Once this bill has been enacted and upheld by the courts, and once we 
see whether and how the Snowe-Jeffords provision works, I would have no 
objection to revisiting the issue with the Senator from Minnesota and 
others to see if there is a way we can constitutionally expand this to 
include these other groups that have traditionally been treated by the 
courts differently from the corporations and the unions.
  For now, I think we should stick with the provision that is in our 
bill and vote against this well-intentioned amendment.
  I understand under the unanimous consent agreement it is only 
appropriate to have an up-or-down vote on this amendment; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement did not specify. It simply said 
a vote would occur in stacked sequence.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The amendment was offered in good faith. I see no 
reason to avoid the request, and instead of moving to table at the 
appropriate time, I will simply ask my colleagues to vote no on the 
Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 19 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana, 1 
minute to the Senator from Illinois, and reserve the remainder of my 
time for myself and Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. One of the most popular misconceptions of the underlying 
bill is we are eliminating soft money in Federal elections. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. The Senator from Minnesota is 
absolutely correct in what he is attempting to do.
  There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations, 
single interest, special interest organizations, which will be able to 
continue to raise unlimited amounts of soft dollars to argue their 
cause after this underlying bill would be passed.
  You all remember the Flo ads, Citizens For Better Medicare. There is 
nothing in the underlying bill, without the amendment of the Senator 
from Minnesota, that would prohibit Flo and all of our citizens for 
Medicare from doing exactly what they did, attack Members across the 
board time after time after time. There are literally thousands of 
groups that are not affected without the amendment of the Senator, that 
would continue to use soft money to affect elections, unrestricted. We 
are not going to be able to do anything with that unless the amendment 
of the Senator from Minnesota is adopted.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  The Senator from Illinois?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is naive to believe we can eliminate 
soft money from candidates and political parties and that that money 
will disappear. That money will find its venue in these issue ads that 
we will then face. Believe me, the voters of your home State will not 
be able to distinguish where the soft money is being spent. It is going 
to be soft money spent for the purpose of influencing political 
campaigns.
  The Senator from Minnesota has adopted the Snowe-Jeffords standard in 
terms of these ads. It is not changing it in any respect. I say, with 
all due respect to my colleague from North Carolina, the Senator from 
Minnesota has included a severability clause. If we are wrong, if this 
is unconstitutional, it can be stricken without having any damage to 
the rest of this McCain-Feingold bill as written.
  In 1974, when the Senate and House presented to the Supreme Court our 
version of campaign finance reform, they decided spending limitations 
were unconstitutional but, in terms of contribution limitations, they 
were constitutional. When it comes down to it,

[[Page S2884]]

they can make that same decision on this provision.
  I hope if it is in the bill they will leave it there because then we 
will clearly takeout all soft money. Unfortunately, the Senator from 
Minnesota is not part of the bargain today. What he has brought before 
us is not something that has been bargained for by those who have 
written this bill. But his is a good-faith and valuable addition to 
this, and I hope my colleagues will vote for it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 54 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me be clear. When the Senator from Illinois argues 
that there is a severability clause, the fact is there is going to be 
an effort on this floor to make this entire bill nonseverable. That 
raises the stakes to the point of threatening the entire piece of 
legislation because if any one piece of this bill--if we lose on 
nonseverability--is determined to be unconstitutional, the whole bill 
falls. I think we are going to win on the severability issue, but if we 
do not, this amendment raises the very distinct prospect, which I 
believe all of us fear, that the entire effort will fall if the U.S. 
Supreme Court finds one defect. This is a critical amendment in that 
regard.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is not true. Does the Senator have any time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much do I still have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 43 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to get campaign finance reform, 
but I am not going to be bum-rushed down a path where you forgo all 
analytical abilities. This severability issue is an important issue. In 
1974, we passed campaign finance legislation and the Supreme Court 
threw out a number of very important provisions in that legislation and 
totally changed the scheme. Much of what we are suffering today is a 
consequence of that Court's decision.
  Now we are being told you can't have nonseverability; you have to 
stick with this thing through thick or thin. I am told, suppose the 
Court throws out a minor provision. You want the whole bill to go down?
  The answer to that is no. But then the question is, Suppose the Court 
throws out a major provision. Suppose the Court throws out a major 
provision. Do you want the whole bill to go down there?
  The Senator from Minnesota has made an exceedingly good-faith effort 
because he has included the provision if the Court throws out this 
amendment, the rest of the bill will stand. I do not understand these 
arguments on the constitutionality, given that provision of the 
Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a reform. The soft money, it doesn't let it 
channel into all these sham ads. It makes the bill stronger, I say to 
my colleagues.
  Mr. GRAMM. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I say in response to what the Senators 
from Maryland and Illinois said, without regard to severability, we 
also have a responsibility not to pass an amendment that the U.S. 
Supreme Court has already ruled is unconstitutional, black and white, 
in 1984. That is the issue.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague yield? That amendment applied to 
broadcasting. The Senator knows that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 145. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) is 
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 PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Dayton
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Allen
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Collins
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Baucus
     Burns
     Landrieu
  The amendment (No. 145) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, is the Fitzgerald amendment the pending 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I inquire of the Senator from Illinois if he has plans 
for that amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thought maybe my colleague might want to 
inform our Members as to what the program is tonight and tomorrow.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I inform all of our colleagues that the next amendment 
to be dealt with is the Hagel-Breaux amendment which will be laid down 
shortly. It is my understanding that it is agreeable on both sides to 
have very limited debate on that amendment tonight, with the remainder 
of the debate coming in the morning and a vote before the noon policy 
luncheons tomorrow. I say to my friend from Connecticut, is that his 
understanding as well?
  Mr. DODD. It is, Mr. President. We may have additional requests. I 
think 10 minutes is what Senator Hagel wanted. We may have a request 
for 15 or 20 minutes over here tonight because people want to be heard. 
After the Hagel amendment, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts has been 
waiting. We would be prepared to offer his amendment after the 
consideration of the Hagel amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that is where we stand for the evening. 
I believe the Senator from Illinois would like to dispose of his 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I ask what the parliamentary procedure 
will be?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Arizona, what I 
thought I would do is give the Senator from Illinois a chance to 
withdraw his amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like consent to withdraw it 
and resubmit it. I am still working on getting it so that it 
technically complies with all I want to achieve.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Arizona, what I had hoped was 
to enter into an agreement where there would be 10 minutes on the side 
of the Hagel amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Fifteen minutes is what I need.

[[Page S2885]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. Fifteen minutes opposed to the Hagel amendment, with 
the remainder of the time being reserved. We would go into session at 9 
o'clock in the morning; is that correct?
  After consultation with the leader, the thought was that we would 
come in at 9:15 and resume debate on the Hagel amendment, with the 
remainder of the time on each side reserved for the morning. Is my 
friend from Arizona comfortable with that arrangement?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the purposes of withdrawing his 
amendment, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Illinois is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 144, Withdrawn

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendment I introduced on Friday, to be resubmitted later in the 
week, as there are now some technical glitches.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tonight 
there be 10 minutes of debate on the proponents' side of the Hagel-
Breaux amendment and 15 minutes on the side of the opponents of the 
Hagel-Breaux amendment. I see Senator Hagel is present.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Kentucky: 
Senator Breaux, I believe, wanted to speak. He may need 5 minutes. We 
may not use all of the time, but is that agreeable for an additional 5 
minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from Nebraska, he may carve up 
that 10 minutes any way he would like.


                           Amendment No. 146

(Purpose: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide 
meaningful campaign finance reform through requiring better reporting, 
     decreasing the role of soft money, and increasing individual 
              contribution limits, and for other purposes)

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hagel] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 146.

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of Friday, March 
23, 2001, under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, in this final week of debate on campaign 
finance reform, we have an opportunity to achieve something relevant 
and important. Our hope has always been to get a bipartisan bill 
approved by the Senate that brings reform to the system, is 
constitutional, does not weaken political parties, and that our 
President Bush will sign.
  It is in that spirit that we offer our amendment, my colleagues and 
I, Senators Breaux, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, DeWine, Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
Gordon Smith, Thomas, Enzi, Hutchinson, Roberts, Allard, Brownback, 
Craig, and Voinovich.
  Whatever we do this week to reform our campaign finance system, we 
must look to expand, not constrict, opportunities for people to 
participate in our democratic process.
  The amendment we offer today is very similar to the legislation we 
first offered in the fall of 1999. It will improve the way Federal 
campaigns are finance and has three main components.
  First, hard money limits:
  This is just a matter of fairness and common sense. Today's hard 
money contribution limits are worth less than one-third of their value 
when the 1974 act was passed. They haven't been adjusted in more than 
26 years. Hard money is the most accountable method of political 
financing. Every dollar contributed and every dollar spent is fully 
reported to the Federal Elections Commission. The individual limit of 
$1,000 in 1974 now equates to $3,300 in today's purchasing power. Our 
amendment raises this limit to $3,000 and indexes it for inflation.
  Second, our amendment focuses on disclosure. This is the heart of 
real campaign finance reform. We start from a fundamental premise that 
the problems in the system do not lie with political parties or 
candidates' campaigns but with unaccountable, unlimited outside monies 
and influence that flows into the system where there is either little 
or no disclosure.
  In recent years, we have seen an explosion of multimillion dollar 
advertising buys by outside organizations and individuals. These groups 
and wealthy individuals come into an election, spend unlimited sums of 
money and leave without anyone knowing who they were or how much they 
spent or why.
  Our amendment increases disclosure requirements for candidates, 
parties, independent groups, and individuals. We ensure that the name 
of the individual, or the organization, its officers, address, phone 
numbers, and the amount of money spent are made public.
  It is a very relevant question. Why do we want to ban soft money only 
to political parties--that funding which is accountable and reportable 
now? This ban would weaken the parties and put more control in the 
hands of wealthy individuals and independent groups that are 
accountable to no one.
  Our amendment caps soft money contributions to political parties to 
$60,000 per year--far below the unlimited millions that are now poured 
into the system. This is a very real and very significant limit. The 
Wall Street Journal recently reported that nearly two-thirds of the 
soft money contributions in the last election cycle came from those who 
gave more than the $120,000 election cycle soft money ban that would be 
in our bill. Two-thirds of the soft money contributions, or a total of 
nearly $300 million, in the last election cycle would have been 
prohibited by this cap.
  Regarding the State parties, our amendment codifies a defined list of 
activities that State parties must pay for with a percentage of hard 
dollars. For activities that promote candidates in Federal elections, 
State parties would follow a funding formula determined by the number 
of Federal candidates. For example, if 50 percent of the candidates 
promoted are Federal candidates, then 50 percent of the funding must 
come from Federal, or hard dollars. We agree with curbing the abuse of 
soft money.
  Finally, we believe our campaign finance reform proposal would pass 
constitutional muster. As Senator Sarbanes said on the floor of the 
Senate a half hour ago, what good does it do to pass legislation we 
know will be struck down by the courts?
  I look forward to debating the merits of our proposal with my Senate 
colleagues.
  Now I turn to my friend and colleague from Louisiana, who was an 
original cosponsor of this bill in October of 1999, Senator John 
Breaux.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska for his contribution in working so diligently to try to bring 
a degree of reform to our system and yet at the same time recognizing 
the practicalities of what we do in the real world. One of the most 
popular misconceptions that members of the press, as well as many 
Members of this body, the other body, and many people in the general 
public have of the underlying bill, the McCain-Feingold bill, is that 
somehow it takes the so-called soft money out of Federal elections.
  It simply does not do that. It only does it, as the distinguish 
Senator has pointed out, to probably the two most responsible 
organizations out there involved in Federal elections, and that is the 
Democratic Party, of which I am a member, and the Republican Party, of 
which the Senator from Nebraska is a member.
  It takes the so-called soft money out of the party operations, but it 
leaves it available to every other group in the United States, all of 
the so-called 501(c)(4) organizations and the 527 organizations, which 
under the McCain-Feingold bill would continue to be able

[[Page S2886]]

to raise large sums of money--that is, unrestricted as to the amounts--
to be used in Federal elections and, in most cases, against Federal 
candidates. I do not know how anybody writing about what we are doing 
in this body tonight can say that this type of a bill, which leaves all 
of those areas unrestricted, somehow eliminates soft money in Federal 
elections. If you look at the list of groups that are single issue 
groups, special interest groups, that have been running ads since 
January of 1999--just that group--I have two columns of print that is 
so small I can hardly read it without putting it as far away from my 
eyes as I possibly can. But every group on this list would be untouched 
by the McCain-Feingold amendment--at least outside of 60 days before 
the election--with the adoption of the Wellstone amendment.
  It is very clear that most of the damage these groups do is not 
within 60 days of an election; it is the year before the election. It 
is the 2 years before the election. As in my State of Louisiana, when 
the election is not until the next November, one of these groups is 
already on the air running television advertisements, using soft 
dollars, unrestricted--unrestricted today and after if the McCain-
Feingold bill were to be adopted. They would do the same thing right up 
until the election. At that time, they don't need to do it anymore. The 
damage is done, and the impression is created about a particular 
candidate, whether he or she is good or bad. Sixty days means nothing 
to them because they have already accomplished their purpose for the 2 
years prior to that time when they did the damage, armed with all of 
the soft money they would want. That is one of the reasons why I am 
concerned.
  I will mention very briefly the type of ads that will still be 
allowed under McCain-Feingold and the damage they can do. If they are 
unanswered by our State parties and the Republican Party and the 
Democratic Party, they will do serious damage to the integrity of our 
elections.
  Rather than say we are taking ourselves away from the shackles of 
special interests, I daresay that candidates will be more prone to 
listen to all of these special interests, single interest 
organizations, which will continue to use all of the money that they 
need.
  Now pick your poison because they have them from both sides. But 
these groups would continue to be able to do anything they want with 
soft dollars up until 60 days. Here are the National Abortion Rights 
League and the National Right To Life. Which side would you want 
attacking you in your State? Do you remember the TV ads with Harry and 
Louise on the Clinton health plan? Some of the folks on that side of 
the aisle thought they were great but not this side. Harry and Louise 
represented the Health Insurance Association of America. They would do 
exactly what they did 2 years ago and 4 years ago. Somebody said 
candidates would not be able to help them raise money. Does anybody 
think they need candidates to help them raise money--the Health 
Insurance Association of America? They will have more money than they 
know what to do with.

  Do you remember Flo? She did a terrific job. On my side of the aisle, 
they didn't like what Flo had to say. Citizens For Better Medicare was 
Flo. It is a 501(c)(4) organization. They will continue to raise 
unlimited amounts of money and do exactly what they did several years 
ago.
  Therefore, I think the Hagel-Breaux approach--we will call it that 
for the purpose of our discussion tonight--is a balanced and proper 
approach and one that makes a great deal of sense. It is real reform, 
and it is something that should merit our support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Nebraska. The Hagel amendment is 
very simply antireform. Over the course of this debate, many Members of 
this body have proposed thoughtful, and even provocative, amendments 
that have made important contributions to the substance of the McCain-
Feingold bill. I thank my colleagues sincerely for their efforts.
  But this amendment clearly does not contribute to the strength of the 
bill. On the contrary, the Hagel amendment would weaken McCain-Feingold 
beyond recognition. My colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, has said he 
can't imagine a system worse than the one we have today. I think we 
have found it today in the Hagel amendment.
  I am sorry to say that because I know my friend Senator Hagel is 
sincere in his attempt to improve the campaign finance system. As many 
colleagues know, the centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold bill is a ban 
on soft money. The ban on soft money defines the legislation. Banning 
soft money is the most vital reform we can enact and, without it, all 
the effort that the Senate has put into the bill would be meaningless.
  Make no mistake, as we vote on this amendment, the Hagel amendment 
simply guts the soft money ban. Under Hagel, the soft money that is so 
outrageous to the public, and that so few Members of this body are even 
willing to defend at this point, is suddenly, permanently, forever 
written into our law. That is unacceptable, and it is certainly not 
reform.
  We can't be credible to the American people if we are going to 
characterize as reform changes in the law that give even more power to 
the wealthiest people in our country.
  We are not here to sanction or institutionalize the soft money 
system. We are here to stop it. We did not fight for 6 years to get to 
the place where we are today, within a few days of passing a bill to 
ban soft money from our system, only then to step back at the last 
minute and say: Never mind; soft money creates a dangerous appearance 
problem for Members of this body.
  It is sad to say--you know it, Mr. President, and I know it--we pick 
up the phone to raise soft money with one hand and we vote with the 
other hand. Is the answer for the Congress to officially sanction this 
system, to say it is OK forever for Members of Congress to ask for 
$50,000 checks from corporations and unions, and make it live forever? 
That is what this amendment will allow. I think most of my colleagues 
understand that for this body to have any credibility with the American 
people, the answer to that question must be a resounding no.
  When this body succeeded in stopping the appearance of corruption in 
the past, we did not do it with half-hearted measures that sanctioned 
our own behavior. When the Senate responded to concerns about the 
honoraria system, the Senate banned honoraria. It did not say we would 
just take a little less in speaking fees than we did before.
  When the Senate responded to the public's concern about Members 
receiving lavish gifts from outside interests, we enacted the gift ban. 
We did not say the system that was in place was OK and open a new and 
permanent loophole.
  We did not take the easy way out in those circumstances because we 
knew the American people would see through any attempt to dodge the 
reforms that needed to be made.
  Those were important moments where the Senate acted to renew the 
people's faith in us and the work we do. We sent the message with those 
reforms that we understood that just because something is standard 
practice around here does not make it right. We understood that our 
inaction fostered the appearance of corruption, and so on those 
occasions we took decisive action to change the system.
  I say to my colleagues, we are only going to get credit where credit 
is due. The American people may not be following every nuance of this 
debate and every detail of each amendment, but they know phony reform 
when they see it. If we simply engrave soft money into law and allow 
soft money to continue to flow unchecked to State parties, we are not 
fixing the system; we are perpetuating it. We are continuing to allow, 
in effect, two sets of books: The hard money system and the soft money 
system; if you will, a second secret-secret fund that involves enormous 
amounts of money.
  That is not why we are here. I for one cannot go home to Wisconsin to 
one of my listening sessions and town meetings and say to a 
constituent: We just passed campaign finance reform in the Senate; 
isn't that great?
  It used to be legal for a couple to give up to $100,000 in an 
election cycle to candidates, parties, and PACs, and now it is $540,000 
per cycle. That is what the Hagel bill does. That is what the Hagel

[[Page S2887]]

amendment does. It allows every couple in America to give $540,000 
every 2 years of hard and soft money combined.
  I do not know about the other States--actually, I think I do. It 
would seem ridiculous to the people of any State to suggest you could 
have a campaign finance reform bill that allowed any couple in America 
to give $540,000 every 2 years. I could not say it with a straight 
face, and I think every other Member of this body would be in the same 
boat.

  My friend from Nebraska says this amendment at least limits the 
amount of soft money. I am sorry to say that just is not the case. 
While it is true the Hagel amendment caps what a corporation or union 
or wealthy individual can give to the national parties in soft money, 
that same soft money can still be raised and spent by the State 
parties--by the State parties--on Federal elections. It leaves a 
gaping, complete loophole for wealthy donors to funnel unlimited money 
to the States.
  In contrast, the State loophole is sealed shut in the McCain-Feingold 
bill, and it is not even addressed by the Hagel bill. McCain-Feingold 
does not prohibit States from spending their money on campaigns as long 
as it does not relate to Federal elections, but when it comes to States 
spending money on Federal elections, soft money is strictly prohibited.
  I know this provision in our bill has led to a new argument, a new 
charge that I have had some fun debating with the Senator from 
Nebraska. The new charge is that our bill ``federalizes" State election 
law.
  Let's put this matter to rest right now. We only address State 
spending on Federal elections--on Federal elections. Federal elections 
should be conducted under Federal rules, and that is what McCain-
Feingold ensures. You cannot leave open loopholes that we already know 
exist, as the Hagel amendment does, and somehow purport to be doing 
something about or limiting soft money. It just is not true. That is 
just a roadmap. The Hagel amendment is just a roadmap to the parties to 
just restructure their operations and continue what they have been 
doing.
  I ask my colleagues whether they think the donors on this chart might 
send soft money donations to the States under the Hagel amendment. What 
do they think? Look at the growth under each of these amounts. For 
donors of $200,000 or more, $400,000 or more, or $500,000 or more, one 
can see the enormous growth from 9 people who gave $500,000 or more to 
167 people giving $500,000 or more. Do we really think these donors 
will just reduce their contributions to $60,000 per year if the Hagel 
amendment becomes the law? Of course they will not, and they will not 
have to because the Hagel amendment tells them exactly how to get the 
rest of that cash to whom they want it to get to just running it 
through the State parties that can spend it freely on Federal 
elections, every dime under the Hagel amendment.
  It is a roadmap for continuing to exert influence over the Congress 
and the administration by contributing all that money to the State 
parties and then having it spent on the Federal elections.
  I thought this category of donor deserved its own chart because this 
is phenomenal. Since the 1992 election cycle, the number of $1 million 
donors--I say to the Senator from Connecticut, when I came here, I 
could not even imagine--and I came here only 8 years ago--the idea of a 
$1 million donor. I did not think it possible to even give $25,000. 
Million-dollar donors have developed in the last few years, and it has 
gone through the roof.
  This chart shows the astronomical growth of these mega-donors. There 
was only one in 1992. I did not know about it when I got here. It sure 
did not help me. In 1996, it rose to seven--seven $1 million donors. In 
the year 2000 cycle, it was really moving: 50 different groups, 
interests, corporations, unions, or individuals gave over $1 million-- 
50.

  I have a feeling that some of these donors would be very happy to 
exploit the State loophole under the Hagel amendment. Members of 
Congress will, unbelievably, still be able to ask for these 
contributions.
  Members of this body are allowed under the Hagel amendment to call 
somebody up, to call a CEO, or the president of a labor union or an 
individual and say: We need a million-dollar check from you. That is 
what the Hagel amendment would permit; it just has to be done through 
the State laws. They will still be able to ask for them because, unlike 
the McCain-Feingold bill, the Hagel amendment does not contain any 
restriction on Federal officials or officeholders raising soft money, 
and to me that is the very worst thing about this whole system, that 
people elected to this institution are allowed not only to do this, but 
they are pressured into asking for those contributions every day by 
their political parties and by their political leaders.
  Finally, I think some of these donors would certainly be giving soft 
money to the States under the Hagel amendment. I think this chart shows 
better than any how savvy soft money donors are. They can have it both 
ways because they can give unlimited amounts to both parties. They pay 
tribute to both of the parties and exert influence on the entire 
Congress. These are the kinds of donors who will choose to take the 
State soft money route mapped out for them under the Hagel amendment--
Federal Express, Verizon, AT&T, Freddie Mac, Philip Morris--all giving 
to both parties, covering their bets. Believe me, they will proceed 
through the loophole in the Hagel bill with every dime they want to 
contribute.
  We can hardly be naive enough to think that just because the soft 
money to the national parties would be capped, soft money donors would 
not give heavily to State parties, as plenty of soft money donors 
already do.
  As I mentioned, there is another crucial difference between McCain-
Feingold and the Hagel proposal. We prohibit officeholders and 
candidates from raising this soft money. The Hagel amendment does 
nothing to address this problem. Under the Hagel bill, for the first 
time in American history, we would legitimize soft money, having 
politicians call up every CEO and every corporate head, saying ``I need 
your $60,000.'' That is what you can give. That is the price of 
admission.

  It has been the wisdom of the Nation for 100 years, starting with 
Teddy Roosevelt, that we should not do that. Under the Hagel amendment, 
it becomes the norm; it becomes standard procedure. Call up the union 
and say it is time for your $60,000. Call up a corporation and say it 
is time for your $60,000. I hope we do not go down that road.
  I have been asked whether I think the Hagel bill is better than 
nothing at all. With all due respect to my colleague from Nebraska, 
that is exactly how I feel. The Hagel amendment doesn't pass the 
commonsense test. If there is one thing Americans have plenty of, it is 
common sense. We can't support the Hagel amendment and call the bill 
reform. If anybody wants to go home to their State to tell people that 
our answer to the soft money problem was to sanction soft money and 
ensure that it lives forever, good luck. You will need it.
  The Hagel bill also triples the hard money limits from the current 
$2,000 a donor can give a candidate per cycle. To most Americans, 
$2,000 is still a large sum of money; $2,000 is what an individual can 
give to a single candidate in an election year under the current law. 
They can give $1,000 in the primary and another $1,000 in the general 
election. This bill is about closing loopholes that allow the 
wealthiest interests in our country to exert undue influence in our 
political system.
  As I said before, it is only a first step to cleaning up the system. 
There are many provisions we can consider down the road that affect our 
campaigns. I know some in this body would like to increase the amounts 
that donors can give to our campaigns. But a tripling of the hard money 
limits, combined with a codification of the soft money system, is 
simply beyond the pale. There is no way a bill that contains those two 
provisions can be called reform.
  Finally, what is most troubling about the Hagel amendment is that it 
allows corporations and unions to give directly to parties. That is 
what writing soft money into the law would achieve. It actually sends 
the campaign finance laws back in time to the very beginning of the 
20th century before the Tillman Act banned direct corporate donations 
to the parties and before Taft-Hartley banned direct labor

[[Page S2888]]

contributions to the parties. I know this is understood with the Hagel 
amendment. People don't seem to give it a second thought.
  I think it is worth pausing to consider just what a throwback the 
Hagel amendment really is. How often do lawmaking bodies consciously 
dismantle reforms that have stood for nearly 100 years. The Hagel 
amendment isn't just a codification of the soft money status quo; it is 
actually a step backward in time. Teddy Roosevelt signed the Tillman 
Act in 1907, in the days when the public was so concerned about the 
power of certain corporate interests, the power of railroads and the 
trusts. It was a landmark reform that has helped to shape everything 
that has come after it. It wrote into law the understanding, the most 
important part about this whole bill, that direct corporate 
contributions to the parties create enormous potential for corruption. 
With the stroke of a pen, Teddy Roosevelt wrote that into law and now 
we are considering whether to write it out of the law.
  I say to my colleagues, that would be a grave mistake and an 
embarrassment for this Senate. I hope my colleagues will take a careful 
look at the amendment, and I hope the Senate will soundly reject it. 
The Hagel amendment undermines McCain-Feingold in every conceivable 
way. McCain-Feingold bans soft money while Hagel makes sure we can have 
it forever, unlimited amounts through a loophole to the State parties.
  Hagel combines the codification of soft money with a tripling of the 
hard money limits, allowing a couple to give $540,000 in donations to a 
given cycle. I almost can't say it without laughing at that amount of 
money.
  Finally, the Hagel proposal would undue the ban on corporate and 
union contributions to the parties that are at the very foundation of 
the campaign finance reforms of the last 100 years.
  There are some reform proposals in the Hagel bill that deserve some 
consideration, but a vote for the Hagel amendment is simply a vote to 
unravel the most basic reforms of the McCain-Feingold bill.
  The Hagel amendment would remove the ban on corporate and union 
contributions to the parties, replacing it with a soft money system 
that would have the Senate's stamp of approval. I urge my colleagues to 
think about what it means to turn back the clock on the laws that 
protect the integrity of this government.
  This campaign finance debate is about moving forward, not going back. 
We must defeat this amendment and bring this debate to a conclusion. It 
is time to pass real reform. The Hagel amendment must not be adopted.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As the manager of the bill on this side and a 
supporter of the Hagel-Breaux amendment, I ask unanimous consent the 
last 5 minutes prior to the vote be under my control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senate continues consideration of 
campaign finance reform this week, I want to commend Senator Lott and 
Senator Daschle for their leadership in bringing this important issue 
before the Senate for a full and open debate. And I thank Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold for their commitment and hard work in 
crafting meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation.
  The enormous amounts of special interest money that flood our 
political system have become a cancer in our democracy. The voices of 
average citizens can barely be heard. Year after year, lobbyists and 
large corporations contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to 
political campaigns and dominate the airwaves with radio and TV ads 
promoting the causes of big business.
  During the 2000 election cycle alone, according to Federal Election 
Commission records, businesses contributed a total of $1.2 billion to 
political campaigns. A recent Wall Street Journal article reported that 
$296 million, almost two-thirds of all ``soft money'' contributions 
given in the last election, came from just over 800 people each of whom 
gave an average of $120,000. With sums of money like this pouring into 
our political system, it's no surprise that the average American family 
earning $50,000 a year feels alienated from the system and questions 
who's fighting for their interests.
  The first step in cleaning-up our system is to close the gaping 
loophole that allows special interests to bypass existing contribution 
limits and give huge sums of money directly to candidates and parties. 
These so-called ``soft-money'' contributions have become increasingly 
influential in elections. From 1984 to 2000, soft money contributions 
have sky-rocketed from $22 million to $463 million an increase of over 
2000%. We cannot restore accountability to our political system, until 
we bring an end to soft money. McCain-Feingold does just that.
  Another vital component of meaningful reform is ending special 
interest gimmickry in campaign advertising. Today, corporations, 
wealthy individuals, and others can spend unlimited amounts of money 
running political ads as long as they do not ask people to vote for or 
against a candidate. These phony issue ads--which are often confusing 
and misleading--have become the weapon of choice in the escalating war 
of negative campaigning. The limits McCain-Feingold places on these ads 
will help clean-up the system and make it more accountable to the 
American people.
  So far, all the Republican leadership in Congress and the President 
have proposed is reforming the system to allow more money in politics, 
not less. Increasing hard money contribution limits across-the-board 
and legalizing soft-money will not restore the public's confidence in 
our political system. Instead, it will only enhance the influence of 
big corporations and other special interests.
  What is even more troubling are Republican efforts to use campaign 
finance reform as an excuse to silence working families and to prevent 
their unions from speaking up on the issues they care about. In the 
2000 election, corporations outspent labor unions 14-1, yet Republicans 
would have us believe that muzzling unions--the voice for working 
families is real campaign finance reform.
  The reality is that the Republican amendments offered last week to 
regulate union dues are not reform, but revenge for the extraordinary 
grassroots effort that the labor movement exerted in the last three 
Presidential campaigns. Fortunately, the Senate stood up for working 
families by defeating these anti-union amendments.
  For the first time in over two decades, the Senate has a real chance 
to meaningfully reform our campaign finance laws. We will learn a lot 
during the debate this week about who is committed to real reform and 
who is committed to maintaining the status quo.
  Finally, Mr. President, I happen to be one who, along with Senator 
Scott and Senator Stafford in 1974, offered public financing for House, 
Senate, and Presidential campaigns. That was in the wake of the 
Watergate financial scandals. The Senate took a good deal of time 
debating those issues. We were successful in passing it. So we would 
have had public financing for primaries for the House of 
Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency.
  In the course of those negotiations with the House of 
Representatives, we were unable to get movement in the House of 
Representatives. As a result, we eliminated the public financing for 
the House and Senate and took a partial public financing for the 
Presidential elections, which is the basis of a good deal of the 
challenge we are trying to face today.
  I personally believe we are not going to get real reform until we 
have a public financing program. Many people say--and I have heard it 
here on the floor--if we do that, we are using the public's money in 
politics and somehow this is evil and wrong. They say politics should 
not include the public's money.
  The tragic fact of the matter is that the public is paying for 
campaigns, and they are paying for them every day with the large 
loopholes that are being written into our Tax Code day after day, year 
after year, that are favoring many of the special interests that are 
making the largest campaign contributions.
  We would save the American public, I believe, a good deal in terms of 
their taxes, should we move toward a public finance kind of system. 
That is not the issue that is before the Senate now, but

[[Page S2889]]

I do believe that the steps that were included in the proposed 
legislation before us provide for some progress. I intend to support 
it. I do believe that ultimately we are going to have to come to some 
form of system for public financing. I hope this will not require that 
we have a change in the Constitution. There will be those who will 
debate this issue this afternoon who think that is absolutely 
essential.
  At this point, I do not support those changes, but we need to take 
the necessary steps to address the larger issues, which I think will 
include public financing, in order to get a handle on this situation.
  I am a strong believer that public officials ought to be accountable 
to the people, not to financial interests. We ought to have the debates 
on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives with people 
who are representing their own best judgment and the interest of their 
States rather than--which I am afraid is too much the case--the 
interests driven by special interests and the largest contributors.
  Until we return to that kind of integrity in the financing of our 
election system, we are going to have difficulty assuring the American 
electorate that we are really meeting our responsibilities and have an 
institution that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, 
and responsive only to the people.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to refer to an article by 
David Tell which recently appeared in the March 26, 2001 edition of The 
Weekly Standard entitled ``Shut Up, They Explained.'' In it, Mr. Tell 
explains the tenth amendment problems that would result from McCain-
Feingold's federalization of State and local campaign activities, and 
he notes the first amendment problems with the bill's restrictions on 
outside groups. This article begins:

       This week and next, the U.S. Senate will consider 
     amendments to a piece of omnibus campaign finance reform 
     legislation--and then approve or reject the result by a 
     majority vote.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The substantive pretext for a soft-money prohibition has 
     always been deeply flawed. To pay for an expensive campaign 
     of nationwide image advertising, the 1996 Clinton-Gore 
     reelection effort organized an unprecedented harvest of soft-
     money contributions to the Democratic National committee. 
     Eventually publicized, the scheme became infamous for its 
     abuses, responsibility for which the Democratic party was 
     thereafter eager to evade. The problem, they told us over and 
     over, was bipartisan: ``the system.'' And McCain-Feingold was 
     the reform that would make it go away. Except that all the 
     misdeeds charged to Clinton and Gore in 1996 were illegal 
     under existing law. And it was the irrationality of a 
     previous ``reform''--the suffocating donation and expenditure 
     limits imposed on publicly financed presidential campaigns--
     that inspired those misdeeds in the first place. Soft money 
     per se had nothing to do with it.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The Democratic and Republican parties exist to do more than 
     elect members of the House and Senate. They are national 
     organizations with major responsibilities, financial and 
     otherwise, to state and local affiliates that act on behalf 
     of candidates for literally thousands of non-federal 
     offices--in campaigns conducted according to non-federal 
     laws, most of which still permit direct party contributions 
     by businesses and unions. The McCain-Feingold soft-money ban 
     would criminalize those contributions by requiring that 
     virtually all state-party expenditures, during any election 
     in which even a single candidate for federal office appears 
     on the ballot, be made with money raised in strictly limited 
     increments, and only from individual donors. By unilaterally 
     federalizing all American electioneering practices, in other 
     words, the McCain-Feingold bill would violate our 
     Constitution's Tenth Amendment.
       Even so stalwart a Democratic interest group as the AFL-CIO 
     has lately adopted some form of this argument. Since it 
     happens to be true, it would be nice to hear it echoed more 
     broadly.
       As it would be nice to hear more widespread warnings about 
     a still more pernicious feature of the McCain-Feingold bill 
     as presently constituted: its harsh assault on independent 
     political activity by business, union, and non-profit issue 
     groups. Some sympathy is certainly due to congressmen and 
     senators who find themselves, late in a reelection campaign, 
     subjected to a televised barrage of soft-money-funded 
     criticism from such groups. Constrained by hard-money rules, 
     most incumbents are never able to respond at equal volume. 
     Nevertheless, this problem, real as it is, cannot possibly 
     justify the elaborate and draconian restrictions McCain-
     Feingold seeks to impose on private citizens who might so 
     dare to criticize their elected officials: rules about whom 
     the critics are allowed to consult or hire before they open 
     their mouths in public, for example, and other rules about 
     what they can say, and with whose money, when they do.
       An unbroken, quarter-century-long line of Supreme Court 
     jurisprudence makes clear: Under the First Amendment, all 
     this stuff is unconstitutional.

  Mr. President, I would like to refer to an article from November 15, 
1999 from The New Republic written by Professor John Mueller entitled 
``Well Off. Good riddance, McCain-Feingold.'' In it, Professor Mueller 
notes that the influence of ``special interests'' in the democratic 
process is not ``a perversion of democracy,'' but ``it's the whole 
point of it.'' He also notes that ``campaign finance reform'' will not 
be able to stifle the special interests; if certain forms of political 
speech are suppressed, citizens groups will simply use other methods.
  The article begins:

       Once upon a time, carping about campaign finance abuse was 
     mainly the province of Democrats.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       But it is the defenders of money in politics, the ones so 
     widely reviled in the elite press, who speak the truth about 
     campaign finance reform. In a democratic system of 
     government, there will always be some inequality of 
     influence. Yet that is not necessarily a flaw, and it is 
     rarely as debilitating to good government as reformers would 
     have you believe. When you dig beneath the rhetoric of 
     campaign finance reform, you discover that the ``reforms'' 
     being proposed would, in practice, constitute anything but an 
     improvement.
       The essential complaint of reformers is that the present 
     system gives too much influence to so-called special interest 
     groups. This is also the most popular complaint. Who, after 
     all, supports special interests? Actually, we all should. 
     Democracy is distinguished from autocracy not as much by the 
     freedom of individual speech--many authoritarian governments 
     effectively allow individuals to petition for redress of 
     grievances and to complain to one another, which is some-
     times called ``freedom of conversation''--as by the fact that 
     democracies allow people to organize in order to pursue their 
     political interests. So the undisciplined, chaotic, and 
     essentially unequal interplay of special interest groups that 
     reformers decry is not a perversion of democracy--it's the 
     whole point of it.
       Nor is campaign finance reform likely to subdue special 
     interests. People and groups who seek to influence public 
     policy do so not for their own enjoyment but because they 
     really care about certain issues and programs. If reformers 
     somehow manage to reduce the impact of such groups in 
     election campaigns, these groups are very likely to find 
     other ways to seek favor and redress, no matter how clever 
     the laws that seek to inconvenience them are. For example, if 
     Congress prohibited soft money donations to political 
     parties--which is what the ill-fated McCain-Feingold bill 
     promised to do--special interests would merely spend more 
     money on their own advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts, 
     which are known in the political business as ``independent 
     expenditures.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

       What makes the philosophy of campaign finance reform so 
     ironic is that the laws have such a poor track record of 
     rooting out the alleged abuses they are intended to 
     eliminate. In fact, many of the ills reformers now seek to 
     address are the byproducts of earlier attempts to clean up 
     the system.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Reformers of all stripes argue that political campaigns 
     cost too much. But the real question is, compared with what? 
     The entire cost of the 1996 elections was about 25 percent of 
     what Procter & Gamble routinely spends each year to market 
     its products. In what sense is this amount too much? Some 
     people do weary of the constant barrage of advertising at 
     election time, but democracy leaves them entirely free to 
     flip to another channel, the same method used so effectively 
     by anyone who would rather not learn about the purported 
     virtues of Crest toothpaste.
       There is also the related gripe that the ever-increasing 
     need for donations means that politicians spend too much of 
     their time raising money. But much of this problem arises 
     from the absurdly low limit the reformers have placed on 
     direct campaign contributions. If anything, rather than 
     restricting soft money (as the McCain-Feingold bill would 
     have), it's time to raise or eliminate altogether the $1,000 
     limit on individual contributions to candidates. Politicians 
     seem to find it politically incorrect to advocate this 
     sensible change, even though it would probably reduce the 
     amount of time they spend campaigning or campaign funds. 
     Getting rid of special interest influence by other means--
     say, by regulating independent groups' expenditures--would 
     only work if reformers successfully dispensed with the right 
     to free speech. Since the advocacy of special interests is 
     the very stuff of the democratic process, the unintended goal 
     of the campaign reformers ultimately seems to be the repeal 
     of democracy itself.

  Mr. President, I would like to refer to an excerpt from an article by 
Washington Post columnist David Broder

[[Page S2890]]

that ran on February 21 of this year entitled ``Campaign Reform: Labor 
Turns Leery.'' In it, Mr. Broder notes that Big Labor has echoed my 
concerns about the unconstitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill. 
Specifically, Mr. Broder writes that:

       Last week the AFL-CIO, which in the past had endorsed a ban 
     on soft money contributions, announced that it has serious 
     misgivings about other provisions of the McCain-Feingold 
     bill. Limiting ``issue ads'' that criticize candidates by 
     name--even if not calling specifically for their defeat--in 
     the period before an election would inhibit its ability to 
     communicate freely with union members, the memo said. Other 
     sections would make it impossible for labor to coordinate its 
     voter-turnout efforts with those candidates it supports. None 
     of these concerns is trivial. But they point up some of the 
     very same constitutional objections Mr. McConnell and other 
     opponents--including a variety of conservative groups and, 
     yes, the American Civil Liberties Union--have made for years.

  Lastly, Mr. President, I would like to refer to another article by 
Professor Kathleen Sullivan, professor of constitutional law and dean 
of Stanford Law School. This article is entitled ``Sleazy Ads? Or 
Flawed Rules?'' and appeared on March 8, 2000 in the New York Times. In 
this article, Professor Sullivan notes the controversy that surrounded 
the running of television ads last year by supporters of then-candidate 
George W. Bush. She explains why the real problem with today's campaign 
finance system is the quarter-century-old contribution limits, and that 
real reform would be to raise these limits, bringing them into the 21st 
century. Specifically, Professor Sullivan notes:

       Many have professed to be shocked, shocked that recent 
     television commercials attacking Senator John McCain's 
     environmental record turned out to be placed by Sam Wyly, a 
     wealthy Texas investor who has been a strong supporter of 
     Gov. George W. Bush.
       Predictably, many have called for more campaign finance 
     reform to stop such stealth politics, and Senator McCain 
     filed a formal complaint on Monday with the Federal Election 
     Commission, alleging that the ads, though purportedly 
     independent, were in reality a contribution to the Bush 
     campaign that exceeded federal contribution limits.
       Such calls for greater regulation of campaign donations, 
     however, ignore the real culprit in the story: the campaign 
     finance laws we already have. Why, after all, would any Bush 
     supporter go the trouble of running independent ads rather 
     than donating the money directly to the Bush campaign? And 
     why label the ads as paid for by Republicans for Clean Air, 
     rather than Friends of George W. Bush?
       The answer is the contribution limits that Congress imposed 
     in the wake of Watergate and that the Supreme Court has 
     upheld ever since. The court held that the First Amendment 
     forbids limits on political expenditures by candidates or 
     their independent supporters, but upheld limits on the amount 
     anyone may contribute to a political campaign.
       The result: political money tries to find a way not to look 
     like a contribution to a political campaign. Unregulated 
     money to the parties--so-called soft money--and deceptive 
     independent ads are the unintended consequence of campaign 
     finance reform itself.
       This result is not only unintended but undemocratic. 
     Contribution limits drive political money away from the 
     candidates, who are accountable to the people at the voting 
     booth toward the parties and independent organizations, which 
     are not.
       If Governor Bush places sleazy ads misleading the voters 
     about Senator McCain's record on clean air, voters can 
     express their outrage through their votes. No similar 
     retribution can be visited on private billionaires who decide 
     to place ads themselves.
       The answer is not to enlist the election commission to 
     sniff out any possible ``coordination'' between the 
     advertisers and the official campaign, or to calculate 
     whether the ads implicitly supported Mr. Bush.
       It is unseemly in a democracy for government bureaucrats to 
     police the degrees of separation between politicians and 
     their supporters. And it is contrary to free-speech 
     principles for unelected censors to decide when an 
     advertisement might actually incite voters to vote. What 
     else, after all, is political speech supposed to do?
       The solution is simple: removal of contribution limits, 
     full disclosure and more speech. If it had been clear from 
     the outset that the dirty ads on dirty air had come from Mr. 
     Wyly, a principal bankroller of the Bush campaign, the voters 
     could have discounted them immediately--with vigorous help 
     from the vigilant press and the McCain campaign. A 
     requirement that political ads state their sources clearly is 
     far less offensive to free-speech principles than a rule that 
     the ad may not run at all.
       Better yet, the removal of contribution limits would 
     eliminate the need for stealth advertising in the first 
     place. If Mr.. Wyly could have given the money he spent on 
     the television spots directly to the Bush campaign, the 
     campaign alone would have been held responsible for any 
     misleading information that might have been put out. And such 
     accountability would have made it less likely that such ads 
     would have run at all.
       As it turned out, Senator McCain was able to use the Wyly 
     commercials to attack Governor Bush's campaign tactics. So, 
     in the end, who gained more from the flap? All Mr. McCain 
     really needed to preserve his competitive edge was the First 
     Amendment, which protects his right to swing freely in the 
     political ring. The people are far more discerning than 
     campaign finance reformers often give then credit for; they 
     can sift out the truth from the cacophony.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to indicate that if I were present 
last Friday, March 23, I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion to 
table amendment No. 141, to the campaign finance reform bill, offered 
by Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina.
  I was unable to participate in Friday's session because I flew home 
to Seattle to attend the funeral services for Grace Cole. Grace served 
on the Shoreline School Board for 13 years and represented North 
Seattle in the Washington House of Representatives for 15 years.
  Grace was my mentor and led the way for advocates like me to follow 
her from the local school board to the Washington State legislature. 
Grace made a difference for thousands of families throughout our State 
by standing up for education, the environment and social justice.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to announce that I was unable 
to cast a vote on rollcall vote No. 47, due to unavoidable airline 
delays. If I was present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________