[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 28, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S3022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               HARD MONEY

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will take a little bit of time 
because I think other Senators will be coming out to the floor soon to 
talk about where we are on the hard money changes. We had a proposal by 
Senator Thompson which basically raised the amount of money that an 
individual could give to a candidate from $1,000 to $2,500 per 
election; from $2,000 to $5,000 over a 2-year cycle; so $2,500 per 
election, primary, general, up to $5,000 per candidate. There are other 
provisions as a part of the Thompson amendment.
  The other one I want to mention is raising the aggregate limit from 
$30,000 to $50,000, which actually per cycle means $100,000.
  So what we are saying now is an individual can give up to $5,000 
supporting a candidate, and in the aggregate, an individual, one 
individual could give as much as $100,000 to candidates.
  I have recited the statistics on the floor so many times that I am 
boring myself. But there is the most huge disconnect between the way in 
which--here on the floor of the Senate and in the ante room--the way 
that people who come together in the lobbying coalitions are defining 
compromise and victory, and the way people in coffee shops think about 
this. One-quarter of 1 percent of the population contributes $200 or 
more, one-ninth of 1 percent of the population contributes $1,000 or 
more.
  So I do not really see the benefit of injecting yet more money into 
politics, literally turning some of the hard money into soft money. I 
am sure people in the country are bewildered by hard money, soft money. 
Let me put it this way. I don't see how politics that becomes more 
dependent on big contributors, heavy hitters, people who have more 
money and can afford to make these contributions, is better politics. I 
just don't get it.
  On the Thompson amendment, there was a motion to table. It was 
defeated. I thought, frankly, some of the moderates on the Republican 
side who were part of the reform camp would have voted against the 
Thompson amendment. They did not. Senator Feinstein came out with an 
amendment, and her amendment basically doubles the limits. So I guess 
we go from $1,000 to $2,000 and then $2,000 to $4,000 and it raises the 
aggregate amount but not a lot.
  The Feinstein amendment is certainly better than the Thompson 
amendment. Now there are some negotiations. Regardless of what happens 
in these negotiations, the point is the headlines in the newspapers in 
the country tomorrow for the lead story should be ``U.S. Senate Votes 
for Reform, Votes to Put More Big Money Into Politics,'' because that 
is really what we are doing. I think this is a huge mistake. I have two 
children who teach.

                          ____________________