[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 49 (Thursday, April 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3544-S3546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. 
        Cantwell):
  S. 719. A bill to amend Federal election law to provide for clean 
elections funded by clean money; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senate this week took a historic 
step toward fairer elections. I was proud to join a solid majority of 
my colleagues in voting for the McCain-Feingold bill. However, passage 
of that bill is not the end of the reform debate, but hopefully merely 
a beginning.
  It is clear to me that we need to go still further to reform our 
elections comprehensively, and for that reason I rise today along with 
Senators Kerry, Clinton and Cantwell to re-introduce ``Clean Money, 
Clean Elections'' campaign finance reform legislation.
  Debates about campaign finance reform should be debates about who is 
at the table and how to level the playing field. Looking back at the 
two weeks of debate on McCain-Feingold from this perspective highlights 
the importance of and also the severe limitations of the bill. I say 
importance of the bill, because if you believe that reform of our 
federal elections is essential for the reasons I believe, restoring the 
centrality of one person, one vote, then you need to get soft money out 
of the system since it allows too much political power to flow from too 
few. I say severe limitations of the bill because even if we ban soft 
money and sham issue ads, we will still have too much money in American 
politics. And, the wealthy investors will still have an all too 
prominent role in our elections.
  Fundamentally, we need to go beyond legislation that merely seeks to 
patch a badly broken system. The McCain-Feingold legislation seeks to 
stop a leak here, and block a loophole there. It does not eliminate 
private, special interest money flowing to candidates and parties. The 
Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation that I am reintroducing today 
will fix this problem--it will reduce the costs of campaigns and 
provide public funds to eliminate the dependence on wealthy investors 
entirely. Hence the Clean Money, Clean Elections legislation will truly 
level the playing field for all candidates and ensure fair elections.
  Now that the Senate will finally go on record in favor of the modest 
reform that McCain-Feingold represents, I believe the time is right to 
begin the fight for fundamental reform: public financing of elections.

[[Page S3545]]

  The Clean Money, Clean Elections bill is the ``gold standard'' of 
true campaign finance reform, against which any more modest legislation 
ought to be assessed. The conceptual approach it embodies, replacing 
special interest money in our current system with clean money, is being 
adopted by state legislatures and in referenda across the country.
  In Maine, for example, there was broad participation in the Clean 
Money, Clean Elections program during the last election with 116 out of 
352 general election candidates both Republicans and Democrats 
participating. In Maine, Arizona and Vermont, Clean Money, Clean 
Elections reduced the influence of special interest money and provided 
a level playing field by offering qualified candidates a limited and 
equal amount of public funds. The earliest indications from Maine's 
first election under the Clean Elections law do inspire hope. Far more 
candidates than expected stepped forward to seek Clean Elections 
financing, and all but one succeeded in qualifying. There comments 
about the process tell us we are on the right track. Some of their 
comments are for example: ``Without Clean Elections I couldn't even 
think about running for office. I just couldn't afford it.'' said 
Shlomit Auciello, democrat challenger; ``The main reason I did it was 
that this is what people want.'' Chester Chapman, Republican 
challenger; ``I spent a lot of kitchen table time explaining the system 
to people. Once they knew what it was they really liked it. They like 
that it means no soft money and no PAC money will be used. I want to 
work for the people of Maine and I don't want to be beholden to anyone 
else.'' Glenn Cummings, Democrat challenger; ``It will definitely 
change some things. For one thing I will have about half the amount of 
money I raised last time but much more time to talk with people which 
is a good thing.'' Gabrielle Carbonear; and ``We have an obligation to 
put into practice the system that was approved by voters in 1996. Maine 
is in the lead in this area. It will only work if it is used, and it is 
important for incumbents to embrace it. Also, the Clean Election Act is 
making it easier to recruit candidates to run for office.'' Rick 
Bennet, Republic incumbent, Assistent Senate Minority Leader and a 
candidate for reelection.
  When asked, 60 percent of Americans say they think that reforming the 
way campaigns are financed should be a high priority on our National 
agenda. There is no question in my mind that these people are right, 
reforming the way campaigns are financed should be, must be, a high 
priority.
  Many people believe our political system is corrupted by special 
interest money. I agree with them. It is not a matter of individual 
corruption. I think it is probably extremely rare that a particular 
contribution causes a member to cast a particular vote. But the special 
interest money is always there, and I believe that we do suffer under 
what I have repeatedly called a systemic corruption. Unfortunately, 
this is no longer a shocking announcement, even if it is a shocking 
fact. Money does shape what is considered do-able and realistic here in 
Washington. It does buy access. We have both the appearance and the 
reality of systemic corruption. And we must act. Here in the Senate, we 
must push forward this spring on tough, comprehensive reform.

  I wonder if anyone would bother to argue that our budget debates are 
unaffected by the connection of big special-interest money to politics? 
The budget cuts proposed most deeply affect those who are least well 
off, while the tax cuts proposed mostly go to the wealthy. That is 
well-documented. The tax breaks we offer benefit not only the most 
affluent as a group, but numerous very narrow wealthy special 
interests. Does anyone wonder why we retain massive subsidies and tax 
expenditures for oil and pharmaceutical companies? What about tobacco? 
Are they curious why we promote a health care system dominated by 
insurance companies? Or why we promote a version of ``free trade'' 
which disregards the need for fair labor and environmental standards, 
for democracy and human rights, and for lifting the standard of living 
of American workers, as well as workers in the countries we trade with? 
How is it that we pass major legislation that directly promotes the 
concentration of ownership and power in the telecommunications 
industry, in the agriculture and food business, and in banking and 
securities? For the American people, how this happens, I think, is no 
mystery.
  I think most citizens believe there is a connection between big 
special interest money and outcomes in American politics. People 
realize what is ``on the table'' or what is considered realistic here 
in Washington often has much to do with the flow of money to parties 
and to candidates. We must act to change this.
  We must act to change this because too many people have lost faith in 
the system. People are turning away from the political process. They 
are surrendering what belongs most exclusively to them, their right to 
be heard on the issues that affect them, simply because they don't 
believe their voices will carry over the sound of all that cash. The 
degree of distrust, dissatisfaction, and outright hostility expressed 
by the American people when asked about the political process 
overwhelms me.
  We must act on comprehensive campaign finance reform. We must act to 
restore Americans' trust in our political process. We must act to renew 
their hope in the capacity of our political system to respond to our 
society's most basic problems and challenges. We must act to provide a 
channel for the anger that many Americans feel about the current 
system, and acknowledge the grassroots reform movement that's been 
building for years. These are our duties, and we must act to move the 
reform debate forward.
  As Members of Congress, most pressing for us should be the question 
of why so many people no longer trust the political process, especially 
here in Congress, and what we can do to restore that trust. Polls and 
studies continue to show a profound distrust of Congress, and of our 
process. Many Americans see the system as inherently corrupt, and they 
despair of making any real changes because they figure special 
interests have the system permanently rigged.
  Too many Americans believe that a small but wealthy and powerful 
elite controls the levers of government through a political process 
which rewards big donors, a system in which you have to pay to play. 
Why do you think corporate welfare has barely been nicked, but welfare 
for the poor and needy in this country has been gutted? The not-so-
invisible hand of corporate PACs and well-heeled lobbyists, and huge 
corporate soft money contributions can be seen most openly here.
  Too many Americans see our failures: to alleviate the harsh poverty 
that characterizes the lives of far too many of our inner-city 
residents; to reduce the widening gulf between rich and poor; to combat 
homelessness, drug addiction, decaying infrastructure, rising health 
care costs, and an unequal system of education.
  And they want to know why we can't, or won't, act to address these 
problems head-on. Americans understand that without real reform, 
attempts to restructure our health care system, create jobs and rebuild 
our cities, protect our environment, make our tax system fairer and 
more progressive, fashion and energy policy that relies more on 
conservation and renewable sources, and solve other pressing problems 
will remain frustrated by the pressures of special interests and big-
money politics.
  In thinking about reform legislation, I start with the premise that 
political democracy has several basic requirements: First, free and 
fair elections. It is hard to argue plausibly that we have them now. 
That's why people stay home on election day, why they don't participate 
in the process. Incumbents outspend challengers 8 or 10-1, and special 
interests buy access to Congress itself, all of which warps and 
distorts the democratic process.
  Second, the consent of the people. The people of this country, not 
special interest big money, should be the source of all political 
power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not 
a narrow elite.
  Third, political equality. Everyone must have equal opportunity to 
participate in the process of government. This means that the values 
and preferences of all citizens, not just those who can get our 
attention by waving large campaign contributions in front

[[Page S3546]]

of us, must be considered in the political debate. One person, one 
vote--no more and no less--the most fundamental of democratic 
principles.
  Each of these principles is undermined by our current system, funded 
largely through huge private contributions. Contributions that come 
with their own price tag attached--greater access and special 
consideration when push comes to shove. It's time for real reform.

  Which is why I stand here today, re-introducing the ``Clean Money, 
Clean Elections'' legislation that we introduced during the last 
Congress. We have tightened and strengthened some of the nuts and bolts 
of the legislation, but it is much the same bill that it was when we 
first introduced it: simple and sweeping, fundamental campaign finance 
reform.
  Money has always played a role in American politics and campaign 
spending is not a new problem, but it has exploded during the 1990s. In 
the 1993-94 election cycle, the national political parties raised 
$101.6 million dollars in soft money contributions. By the 1997-98 
election cycle that figure was up to $224.4 million dollars in soft 
money. In the 99-2000 election cycle that figure more than doubled to 
more than $487.5 million.
  However, we must not forget that nearly 80 percent of the money spent 
on elections during the last cycle was hard money. All together, over 
$2.2 billion in hard money was raised by federal candidates and parties 
during the 2000 elections, a figure that dwarfs party soft money. 
Unfortunately, under McCain-Feingold, even more hard money will pour 
into our elections.
  Of all the money given to Congressional candidates, almost none 
represented the millions of Americans who are poor, or parents of 
public school children, or victimized by toxic dumping or agri-chemical 
contamination, or who are small bank depositors and borrowers, or 
people dependent on public housing, transportation, libraries, and 
hospitals. It is clear who is represented under the current system and 
who is shut out.
  During the last election, only 4 out of every 10,000 Americans made a 
contribution greater than $200. Only 232,000 Americans gave 
contributions of $1000 or more to federal candidates--one ninth of one 
percent of the voting age population. By raising the hard money limits 
in McCain-Feingold, the Senate voted to increase the amount of special 
interest money in politics and entrench candidates' dependence on a 
narrow, political, elite made up of wealthy individuals. This was step 
backward and it makes Clean Money reform all the more necessary.
  The bill I am introducing today strikes directly at the heart of the 
crisis in the current system of campaign finance: the only way for 
candidates of ordinary means to run for office and win is to raise vast 
sums of money from special interests, who in turn expect access and 
influence on public policy. Real campaign finance reform needs to 
restore a level playing field, open up federal candidacies to all 
citizens, end the perpetual money chase for Members of Congress, and 
limit the influence of special interest groups. This legislation does 
all of these things by offering: The strictest curbs on special-
interest money and influence. The ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' 
legislation bans completely the use of ``soft money'' to influence 
elections, discourages electioneering efforts masquerading as non-
electoral ``issue ads,'' provides additional funding to clean money 
candidates targeted by independent expenditures, and most importantly, 
allows candidates to reject private contributions if they agree to 
participate in the clean money system of financing. The greatest 
reduction in the cost of campaigns. Because it eliminates the need for 
fundraising expenses and provides a substantial amount of free and 
discounted TV and/or radio time for Federal candidates, this 
legislation allows candidates to spend far less than ever before on 
their campaigns. The most competitive and fair election financing. By 
providing limited but equal funding for qualified candidates, and 
additional funding for clean money candidates if they are outspent by 
non-participating opponents, this legislation allows qualified 
individuals to run for office on a financially level playing field, 
regardless of their economic status or access to larger contributors. 
Right now, the system is wired for incumbents because they are 
connected to the connected. The big players, the heavy hitters, tend to 
be attracted to incumbents, becuase that is where the power lies. This 
bill would allow all citizens to compete equally in the Federal 
election process. And an end to the money chase, shorter elections, and 
stronger enforcement. ``Clean Money, Clean Elections'' campaign finance 
reform frees candidates and elected officials from the burden of 
continuous fundraising and thus allows public officials to spend their 
time on their real duties. In effect, it also shortens the length of 
campaigns, when the public is bombarded with broadcast ads and mass 
mailings, by limiting the period of time during which candidates 
receive their funding. Moreover it strengthens the enforcement and 
disclosure requirements in Federal campaigns.
  What I am proposing are fundamental changes, necessary changes if we 
hope to ever regain the public's confidence in the political process. 
This legislation is both simple to understand and sweeping in scope. As 
a voluntary system this bill is constitutional, and it effectively 
provides a level playing field for all candidates who are able to 
demonstrate a substantial base of popular support. ``Clean Money, Clean 
Elections'' strengthens American democracy by returning political power 
to the ballot box and by blocking special interests' ability to skew 
the system through large campaign contributions.
  Most importantly, this legislation attacks the root cause of a system 
founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather 
than treating the symptoms. The issue is no longer one of tightening 
already existing campaign financing laws, no longer a question of 
what's legal and what's illegal. The real problem is that most of 
what's wrong with the current system is perfectly legal. Big money 
special interests know how to get around the letter of the law as it is 
now written. This current system of funding congressional campaigns is 
inherently anti-democratic and unfair. It creates untenable conflicts 
of interests and screens out many good candidates. By favoring the deep 
pockets of special interest groups, it tilts the playing field in a way 
that sidelines the vast majority of Americans. This legislation takes 
special interest out of the election process and replaces it with the 
public interest, returning our political process to the hallowed 
principle of one person, one vote.
  This week the Senate took an excellent, but limited, step forward. A 
complete overhaul of the financing of elections is required to fully 
restore the public confidence in our democracy. I believe the Clean 
Money approach is what is needed to get the job done.
                                 ______