[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 13, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H339-H364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 344, the House 
now resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2356.

                              {time}  1048


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2356) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
provide bipartisan campaign reform, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is going to be a long debate today, and tonight, and I do 
believe that is good. The legislation we are debating is extremely 
important. The last time this Congress passed significant campaign 
finance reform legislation was 27 years ago. We could be living with 
the consequences of any bill we pass today for decades to come. That is 
important, I think, for the challengers across this Nation, the men and 
women who want to aspire to be able to speak on the floor of this 
House. So what we are doing is important for our energetic give and 
take of public debate.
  Today, as in any debate, a lot of claims are going to be made about 
the various bills and amendments. I think right at the outset, before 
we get under way, we ought to define our terms. We are going to hear a 
lot tonight about a ban--let me repeat that, a ban--on soft money. 
According to Webster's dictionary, to ban means to prohibit the use, 
performance or distribution of. In politics, we often contort language, 
but I would like to make it plain and clear, the bill under 
consideration today, H.R. 2356, the Shays-Meehan bill, does not ban 
soft money under any definition or under any stretch of the 
imagination. I am certain that we will hear otherwise from some of our 
colleagues today, but the fact is anyone who tells you that this 
version, I believe this is the fourth version of what I call an altered 
state of a piece of legislation, that this version of Shays-Meehan bans 
soft money is simply not telling you the truth and is not being 
accurate.
  It could be argued that previous versions of Shays-Meehan did ban 
soft money. H.R. 380, the bill the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) introduced 
last January, and the versions of Shays-Meehan approved by this House 
in years past, did ban soft money donations to political parties. I 
would argue that even those bills were not real, true soft money bans 
because they did nothing to restrict how unions, corporations and 
wealthy individuals spent soft money. Those bills did ban soft money 
donations, but not soft money expenditures. So whether or not earlier 
Shays-Meehan bills really banned soft money could be debated.
  What cannot be debated, however, is the simple fact that this newest 
version of Shays-Meehan fails to ban soft money, again under any 
definition. It cannot even be seriously argued that H.R. 2356 bans soft 
money. Anyone who claims that it does is either deliberately 
misrepresenting the facts, or they just do not know what is in this new 
piece of legislation.

  The difference between H.R. 2356 and the previous versions of Shays-
Meehan is that H.R. 2356 now permits political parties to accept soft 
money donations. Even if this bill were to be adopted today, unions, 
corporations and wealthy individuals could still donate massive amounts 
of soft money to State and local political parties. These donations are 
permitted up to $10,000 and can be made to every State and local party 
in the country. With over 3,000 counties in the United States, this 
means that a corporation or a union, or Enron, because we have talked 
about that a lot in the last couple of weeks for emotional purposes, 
could donate up to $30 million to one political party provided they 
spread it around the country. If somebody wanted to give to both 
parties, they could give up to $60 million, provided they spread it 
around the country.
  We are going to hear a lot of talk about Enron today and how the 
Enron debacle demonstrates the need for campaign finance reform. There 
are two things to say about that. Even if this bill had been law, it 
would not have prevented the Enron collapse. Unfortunately, I have had 
constituents that have called me up and said, is it true what I am 
hearing on TV, what is being insinuated, that people's money could have 
been saved from the terrible things that the corporate top of the 
ladder did to people? This bill, if passed, would not have changed 
that. Let us not fool the American public to make them think that 
people could get their money back. All the money that Enron gave could 
still have been given even if this bill were law.
  Some will say, well, they could not have given it to the national 
parties. Ask yourself, does it really matter? If a company wants to 
influence the political process by spreading a lot of money around, 
does it really matter if the money is given to a national party instead 
of a State party? Are we to believe that if a company was giving 
millions of dollars in contributions to a political party, its 
influence would somehow be diminished because it spread the money 
around to a lot of State parties instead of simply giving it to a 
national party? I do not think so. All this bill does is spread soft 
money around the country. It redirects it. It does not ban it.
  This bill also imposes a number of serious restrictions of political 
speech. It prevents an organization from spending its own money 
promoting a message its members believe in if they happen to mention a 
candidate in the 60 days before an election. That is not America. That 
is not free speech. Whether it is the left, the middle or the right, 
people should not be gagged in this country, and they are gagged under 
this bill.
  Supporters of the bill will argue that they do not restrict free 
speech at all, they simply require that it be funded with hard dollars. 
Let there be no mistake, this bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, burdens free 
expression and free speech. To claim that it is not a burden is to 
simply misrepresent the facts of this bill.
  It has been said that to give people a right to unlimited freedom of 
expression while limiting the amount they can spend promoting their 
message is like telling someone they can drive as far as they want, but 
they can only spend a certain amount on gasoline to get them there. 
Well, telling people they can speak as much as they want so long as 
they use hard money is like telling people they can drive as far as 
they want, but they can only buy one gallon of gas at a time. Even 
worse, it is like telling them they cannot use their own money to buy 
the gas, but can only use money that they are able to raise from people 
they run into along the way. Could it really be argued that such 
burdens did not restrict travel? I do not think so. But proponents of 
the Shays-Meehan legislation want to put similar burdens on free speech 
and then claim they have not restricted free speech. It is obviously 
simply not accurate.
  This is going to be a long debate today. I look forward to it. As we 
proceed, I hope Members will listen to the substance of the provisions 
being put forward. Shays-Meehan has retained the brand name, but the 
quality of the product has totally changed. Today we are going to have 
a good opportunity to debate and consider what this legislation would 
actually do. I look forward to that debate.

[[Page H340]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) may each control 7 minutes of the time allocated to me and that 
they may yield such time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have great respect for my chairman, and great affection for him as 
well, but we disagree on this piece of legislation. On the one hand he 
says that Shays-Meehan does not do much. On the other hand his leader, 
the Speaker of the House, says that it is Armageddon for those who rely 
on soft money to perpetuate their power.
  Mr. Chairman, the long road to victory on campaign finance reform has 
not been paved with ease. But as Woodrow Wilson once remarked, 
``Nothing is worthwhile that is not hard.'' And so it is today in this 
our third vote in 4 years on real, meaningful campaign finance reform.
  We have passed virtually identical versions of this Shays-Meehan bill 
twice before by overwhelming bipartisan votes, 252-179 in 1998 and 252-
177 in 1999. But today's vote, which comes only after a discharge 
petition, led by my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), 
permitted this issue to come to the floor over the objections of the 
Republican leadership, this day is clearly the most important yet. 
Unlike in years past, the other body already has passed nearly 
identical legislation. Thus, the enactment of meaningful campaign 
finance reform is within our sights this day.
  This issue, like the issue of election reform, which the Senate 
hopefully will soon take up, strikes at the very core of our 
participatory democracy. When the typical American, the man or woman 
who works hard every day, pays their taxes and raises their children, 
hears about campaign contributions and the tens of thousands or even 
hundreds of thousands of dollars, they cannot help but wonder, has 
democracy passed me by? Has democracy been reduced to a form of 
government of and by and for the most affluent?
  Make no mistake, I reject the cynical and, I believe, false notion 
that contributions and policy decisions are inevitably linked. But none 
of us could be so naive as to reject the infrequent reality and the too 
frequent appearance of such a relationship. Every one of us recognizes 
that in public life, appearances are as important many times as 
reality. One five-letter word ought to crystallize the point for us. 
The chairman is right. Enron. None of us knows for certain whether that 
Texas energy company received any special treatment because of its 
enormous campaign contributions, from either party, but I am confident 
that congressional investigations and our regulatory and legal 
processes will get to the bottom of that.
  But there is no denying these facts: When Enron began to implode, its 
calls to officials at the highest level of our national government did 
not go unanswered. And, when the Bush administration began to draft its 
energy policy, it rolled out the red carpet for Enron's participation.
  In and of themselves, these facts mean little. But the American 
people have every reason and every right to wonder, did Enron receive 
special treatment because of its contributions? Even the Supreme Court 
of the United States has recognized that we cannot ignore appearances. 
In Buckley v. Valeo, it upheld campaign contribution limits because 
they serve the government's compelling interest in protecting the 
integrity of elections by preventing even the appearance of 
impropriety.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the appearance that something is 
fundamentally wrong with our campaign finance system has clearly 
reached the boiling point, and thus Shays-Meehan is not only necessary, 
it is essential. This legislation, in short, will ban so-called soft 
money contributions to the national political parties and prohibit soft 
money from being used for sham issue ads by third-party groups that 
most of us would agree are nothing more than campaign ads. While this 
legislation will clearly reorder the ways in which candidates and 
parties finance campaigns, it is a modest but crucial investment in our 
participatory democracy.
  We are the role model for democracy in the world.

                              {time}  1100

  We have learned that we cannot take our democratic values for granted 
and we cannot be so naive as to believe that the appearances do not 
matter. As we seek to expand democracy's reach abroad, it is only 
fitting that we strengthen her foundation at home. That is precisely, 
precisely, what this legislation is intended to do.
  Because it is so critical, I urge every one of my colleagues to 
support this legislation this day. Its time has come.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who has been such a leader in this 
effort.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this House today has a historic opportunity 
to end the influence of big money on public policy making. Today we are 
going to have the opportunity to vote on a bill, the Shays-Meehan bill, 
H.R. 2356, that has been worked on for many months in an effort to try 
to craft a bill that not only will pass this House, but that will be 
acceptable to the United States Senate, where they have already passed 
a strong campaign finance reform bill under the leadership of Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold.
  Let there be no mistake about what is going on on this floor today: 
we have heard reference in the opening remarks to a bill that will be 
offered that will be purported and suggested to be ``superior'' to the 
Shays-Meehan proposal.
  There should be no mistake about it: whether the bill is better or 
worse, the bill will never see the light of day, because the purpose of 
those who seek to amend or substitute the Shays-Meehan bill today, 
their purpose is to be sure that the bill they pass is not acceptable 
to the Senate, where it will be relegated to a conference committee, 
which will be a black hole of certain death to the bill because the 
Speaker of the House, who has designated this Shays-Meehan legislation 
as Armageddon, would have the authority to appoint the conferees to 
that conference committee. You can be well assured that the conferees 
that are appointed will be opposed to true campaign reform, and once 
again this Congress will have failed to return the power of this House 
to the people of this country and to get it out of the hands of the 
special interests.
  We have passed campaign finance reform in this House before in the 
last Congress and the Senate failed to pass it. This year the Senate 
passed it first, and it is our job to pass it now.
  Support true campaign reform today, the Shays-Meehan bill, and oppose 
these efforts to kill it.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished deputy chief whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I look forward to this debate today. I think this debate will in 
all likelihood produce a result, whether that result is out of 
conference or from the floor today. Those who suggest that a conference 
would not work, I think, overlook the desire that the President has, 
that others have, to have campaign finance reform.
  The idea that we would file a bill at 11 o'clock or so last night, 
that I think is substantially different from the bill that was filed a 
year ago, and we would be told on the floor today that really this 
cannot be improved, that any amendment is a killer amendment, or a 
conference is a bad thing, we take very important pieces of legislation 
to conference and usually they benefit from that conference. Certainly 
the White House can be more involved in a conference than they would 
ever be involved in debate on the floor.
  This is a bill that for weeks and months now we have talked about a 
bill that would, I think, the phrase, the term of art, is ban unlimited 
soft money. The truth is, there are plenty of soft-money loopholes in 
this bill. Banning unlimited soft money sounds like you are really 
doing something, when maybe you are not doing that at all.
  There is a loophole of about $60 million, where you could give money 
to all

[[Page H341]]

the political organizations in the country, the State parties, the 
county parties, the legislative district parties. This is a huge 
loophole in this bill where soft money is still involved. There is the 
ability to build buildings with soft money. There is the ability to do 
all kinds of things with soft money; and at the same time we hear that 
somehow soft money is corrupting.
  Well, let us accept that premise as we debate today, for at least 
part of the debate. If soft money is bad, it is all bad. We all know 
that money can go from account to account. If soft money is corrupting, 
why would we want to have an exception so that the Democratic National 
Committee could build a building with soft money? We do not want them 
to have a building that has been corrupted by the influence of soft 
money.
  If soft money is corrupting, why would we allow in the bill that was 
filed last night soft money to be used to pay off loans from this 
election cycle? Pages 78 and 79 of this bill, there is a huge problem 
in this bill, because it opens the door wide for soft money today. Not 
only does it not ban soft money in the future, but it opens the door 
absolutely for spending soft money in this election cycle we are in 
right now.
  Maybe that was misdrafted. Maybe that is a mistake. I would like for 
somebody to come to the floor and explained what those pages mean, 
because when you read them, it appears they mean you can borrow hard 
money today, spend it for hard-money purposes, and, on November 6, pay 
off that loan with soft money.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, no, you cannot do that. That is illegal 
under the present law, and it would be illegal if this bill passed. All 
this says is if there are bills that come in after the deadline, you 
can pay those bills in accordance with Federal law. So if there was a 
soft-money bill that could only be paid for with soft money, you could 
pay it before the January 1 date. The same is true for hard money.
  But you could not borrow hard money and then pay it off with soft 
money. That would be illegal.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know my friend from 
Massachusetts has worked hard on this bill. He has had a bill in the 
past on the floor that is much tougher than this bill, that did have a 
total ban on soft money. It had the ability to audit campaign accounts 
at random. It had some stiff criminal penalties. Those are gone from 
this bill.
  What you intended to do and what you did may have been two different 
things. I am told they are two different things. On November 6, in 
fact, you could take the soft money you had on hand and pay off any 
past debts you had, no matter what purpose those past debts were 
incurred for.
  To open the door totally to soft money in the cycle we are in is even 
worse than postponing the date to begin the bill. We cannot let that 
happen. We cannot talk about a soft-money ban for months and then bring 
a bill to the floor at midnight that does just the opposite. I am very 
concerned about that. I am sure it is going to be widely debated today.
  The gentleman will have plenty of time to look at the specific 
language with his attorneys and respond to the problem that I think 
this bill that was filed last night creates in just being totally at 
odds with what we have said this bill would do or what proponents of 
the bill said it would do for over a year.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, so 
basically the gentleman is saying all of the Members who have opposed 
reform, abolishing soft money, now say they want it in effect right now 
right away? Is that what the gentleman is suggesting?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, that is not what I am suggesting at all.
  Mr. MEEHAN. If we are going to do a campaign finance bill, the people 
who have opposed reform now say, well, if we are really going to do it, 
let us put it in effect right away?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there will be an 
amendment that says that. There will be an amendment that says if there 
is bad, let us go ahead and eliminate it, and let us eliminate all of 
it. I will be voting for that amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a member of the Committee on 
House Administration.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan Shays-
Meehan campaign finance bill.
  Against all odds, with the persistence and tenacity of the sponsors 
and with the skill of my ranking member, I believe that this House 
today is going to rise in a bipartisan fashion and pass this bill, 
oppose the amendments that would cause it to end up, as so many other 
attempts in the past have ended up, not coming to full fruition; and we 
are going to give President Bush, who promised on the campaign trail 
that he was a reformer with results, an opportunity to put the 
Presidential signature on a bill that would indeed ban unlimited soft 
money and move elections back to a democratic process, have elections 
be elections, rather than auctions.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that in our country, the work of the Congress 
today is going to go a long way in terms of restoring confidence in our 
form of government.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we are strong proponents of campaign 
finance reform. Do not let anybody say we are not. We want to 
dramatically enhance the opportunity for voters to be empowered so they 
can make the right decision. But I think it is important for us to go 
back to the founding.
  In 1787, we saw three of our framers, James Madison, Alexander 
Hamilton and John Jay, write under a nom de plum, in fact, not full 
disclosure, under the name of Publius, the Federalist Papers, and they 
had a very interesting debate about what it is that generates the 
interests of people.
  In Federalist No. 10, James Madison talked about political faction, 
how the opportunity for people to come together and demonstrate their 
interests is something that is a fact of life. In fact, he said in 
Federalist No. 10, ``Faction is to governing like air is to fire.''
  So we have these attempts being made by some to impose 
extraordinarily onerous regulations on the American people, 
jeopardizing their opportunity to come together and pursue a political 
interest that they have, that a shared group has; and I believe that it 
is wrong. I believe it is wrong to impose those kinds of regulations.
  I do believe also, Mr. Chairman, that we need to realize that we have 
a very important constitutional responsibility here, and that is to go 
through the process of lawmaking.
  The way it works is the United States House of Representatives passes 
a bill, the United States Senate passes a bill; they go to a House-
Senate conference to make sure that they can reconcile those 
differences. We have a bicameral legislature. The Senate has already 
passed this measure. The House should work its will, not marching in 
lockstep.
  People have talked about how a conference would jeopardize this 
fragile coalition for reform. Well, what it does is if they try to 
simply go without a conference, they are jeopardizing the opportunity 
for the White House, the President of the United States, who wants to 
bring about meaningful reforms, to have his say; and it is jeopardizing 
the opportunity for us to work our legislative will.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to do everything that we possibly can to ensure 
that we bring about true reform.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if James Madison could see the $4 million in 
unregulated soft money that went from Enron to both political parties, 
if James Madison could see that 70 percent of the soft money from Enron 
since 1995 went to both political parties, if James Madison could see 
the $1.7 million in the last election cycle, he would be rolling over 
in his grave.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), who has been an advocate for finance 
campaign reform since she got to the House of Representatives.

[[Page H342]]

  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker mentioned the 
Constitution, and I think it is important that we collectively take a 
look at what constitutional case law tells us what Congress can do as 
it addresses campaign finance reform.
  Congress can prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and union 
dues money in Federal elections. Congress can limit contributions to 
candidates, parties and political committees. Congress can pass laws to 
combat actual corruption and the appearance of corruption. Congress can 
require disclosure of the source and size of certain kinds of spending 
and most contributions. Congress can regulate coordinated expenditures, 
though thwart attempts to circumvent existing election law.
  In short, constitutionally Congress has many tools available to it to 
regulate campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court has spoken on this 
issue. Shays-Meehan does no more than what the Supreme Court has 
already endorsed as tools for Congress to use.
  The Shays-Meehan bill is constitutional, and it is absolutely needed. 
I urge support.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who has fought for democracy and 
voting rights probably more than anybody in this body.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Shays-Meehan bill. Now is the time for us to do what is right. It is 
time to remove the corrupting influence of soft money from the 
political process. It is time to open up the political process and let 
the average person come in and participate. It is time to let all of 
our citizens have an equal voice.
  We must pass Shays-Meehan to lessen the people's growing cynicism. 
Soft money and big campaign contributions have polluted the political 
process. When people give $50,000 or $100,000 to candidates, they 
expect something, and, most of the time, they get something for it. We 
are sending the wrong message to the American people. It is time for us 
to enact real reform. It is time to restore the people's faith in their 
government.
  This bill is good for America. It is not just good for the political 
parties, for Democrats and Republicans, it is good for our country.
  There is too much money in politics. Political candidates should not 
be up for sale to the highest bidder. Too many of us spend too much of 
our time dialing for dollars. We should not be elected this way. This 
should not be the essence of our democracy.
  I did not march across the bridge at Selma on March 7, 1965, and 
almost lose my life to become part of a political system so corrupt 
that it pollutes the very idea of what we marched for. That is not why 
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a better way. Shays-Meehan is a better way. It 
is not a cure-all. It is not a panacea. But it is a significant and 
extraordinary step toward cleaning up the process and fixing this 
broken system.
  We have a mandate. We have a mission. We have an obligation to do 
this on our watch, on our time. We must pass Shays-Meehan today.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), our whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I do not think there 
is one Member, Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative, that is 
corrupt in this House. I think what is corrupting in this House is the 
misinformation, especially the misinformation that we have heard over 
the last few weeks, incredible misinformation; misinformation, for 
instance, that we are in this bill banning soft money, we know that is 
not the truth; misinformation that it is not unconstitutional to stop 
people from exercising their right to be involved in the political 
process.
  Let me just point this out: Those who want to ban soft money, I 
appreciate that and respect it; I do not agree with it. Those who want 
to regulate through government the participation in the political 
process, I respect them trying to do that; I disagree with it. We ought 
to let the voters decide through instant disclosure to be able to tell 
and see while people are collecting their money and spending it to 
decide. We should be empowering voters, not government bureaucrats.
  But those that constantly say they are trying to ban soft money bring 
a bill to this floor that is seriously flawed and, in fact, creates new 
opportunities to raise soft money. It is misinformation like the 
previous speaker to say that hundreds of thousands of dollars are going 
straight to candidates. That is not the definition of soft money. Soft 
money is monies raised from corporations and others that go to 
political parties, and that is what they are attempting to do is to ban 
that money. But they are not doing it in this bill.
  Let me just read the bill. In the bill they first move the effective 
date until after the election, so they do not want to ban it for this 
election, because they have a bunch of it in the bank and they want to 
spend it. But they move it until after the election. Then it says in 
the bill, ``Prior to January 1, the committee may spend such funds to 
retire outstanding debts or obligations, both soft and hard money, that 
are incurred prior to such effective date, election date, so long as 
such debts and obligations were incurred solely in connection with an 
election held on or before November 5.''
  They want to be able to spend the soft money they already raised, and 
do we know how they do it? They want to be able to borrow hard money 
and soft money, and then after the election, between November 5 and 
January 1, there will be a huge stampede to raise all this corrupting 
soft money to pay off their loans. That is in the bill. That does not 
ban soft money. That creates a situation that requires more soft money 
and a huge move towards that soft money that they think is so 
corrupting.
  For the first time, we will be paying off hard money with soft money. 
I repeat that. We are paying off hard money with soft money, completely 
changing the situation and the way that we are doing it.
  Then, then they say that they want to limit the parties' 
participation in the election.
  This bill does not contain real reform. Instead, this bill strips 
citizens of their political rights and unconstitutionally attempts to 
regulate political speech.
  The primary protection of our first amendment is the right of average 
citizens to get together and to freely and fully criticize their 
government. Political speech is the key to political freedom, and 
Shays-Meehan would radically weaken our first amendment right by 
inappropriately and unwisely constraining the right to political 
speech. Shays-Meehan denies Americans, denies American citizens their 
fundamental right to criticize politicians for 2 months before the 
election.
  Now, we all know that the last days before an election are a very 
crucial period of political dialogue. That is when voters are really 
paying attention, and that is the precise reason that this incumbent 
protection scheme that is in the bill will suppress political speech 60 
days before Election Day. Shays-Meehan strengthens incumbents and makes 
it far harder for their constituents to hold them accountable.
  This is a sham. It shuts down the system, Mr. Chairman. It shuts down 
political speech. It shuts down the opportunity to participate in 
elections. In a country the size of the United States, an individual 
citizen has very little chance of joining the political debate without 
banding together with others, so by blocking citizens' groups from 
participating in days leading up to an election, Shays-Meehan removes a 
very vital tool that citizens can use to hold elected officials 
accountable.
  This is Swiss cheese. It is full of holes. It does not do what the 
authors want. It is like a fine wine that does not get better with age, 
it just rots.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and then I intend 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. Chairman, just to correct the inaccuracies of the previous 
speaker, we say 60 days to an election, you have to use hard money 
contributions. We limit no speech. We just say you cannot do it with 
corporate treasury money, union dues money, or unlimited money from 
individuals. The effective date begins November 6 because we are 16 
months already into this election. We already have primaries in

[[Page H343]]

process, and our bill basically has a 30-day provision in primaries.
  There is absolutely nothing in our bill, it is a red herring, that 
suggests one can use soft money to pay hard money obligations. It is 
against the law. We did not change that law.
  So with all due respect to one who I think is really the best 
majority whip ever to be in this House, he is just dead wrong on all 
the issues he described.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  A lot of emotion in the House today, and there will be all through 
the day. This is the end of a long process, I believe, and the closer 
we get to finality, the higher the temperature gets. So let us try to 
stay calm and look at these issues.
  A lot of discussion about Enron. I agree: Enron would not have 
changed, I do not think, even if our bill had been signed into law. It 
was an auditing, business scandal. There is no evidence it is a 
campaign finance scandal, but that does not mean that it should not 
point out the need for reform, because other corporations and large 
powerful groups in this country will try to use these large 
contributions to influence us, and they have, and they do, and they 
will, and it needs to stop. It is a loophole. This is the best effort 
in a generation to bring about change.
  There is an old saying that the devil is in the details. It is a 
matter of history now that on this issue, because it affects the 
majorities, it affects the parties, and it affects our own reelection; 
it is not the devil in the details, it is death in the details, and 
that is why the only way to bring this about is to work through these 
debates and to keep some kind of bipartisan coalition together to do 
this.
  Now, it is a weird marriage between certain people here in the House, 
but we need to transcend the divisions between the parties and put the 
voters, the taxpayers, and the people ahead of the parties.
  There are about 250 people in this House that have now agreed over 
and over again on the principles that are in this bill. There is going 
to be a lot of noise about these details that we have worked through to 
bring us to this point. People who say that money is speech need to 
understand, if that is true, there are a lot of people in this country 
that cannot be heard. Money is not speech. We need to stand up for the 
first amendment and treat these groups and these people playing 
politics in elections the same as the candidates themselves. That is 
the underlying message, and that is what this legislation actually 
does. They can talk until they are blue in the face or wrap themselves 
in the first amendment all they want to. This bill is fair to everyone, 
and we need to consider it and pass it today.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong opposition to Shays-Meehan today, principally 
because of the oath of office that I took, flanked by my three small 
children a little over a year ago, right over there. That oath of 
office charged me with upholding and defending the Constitution of the 
United States of America.
  Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts quoted James Madison. James 
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote very simple words: The 
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Now, last 
night I was involved in the debate on the rule, and I went back to our 
home in the Washington area, and my 10-year-old son, who had just 
finished his first unit on the Constitution of the United States, said, 
undoubtedly biased, Dad, you were right, because I just read that 
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
  Now, as much as that meant to me as a dad for my 10-year-old son to 
say that I was right, I truly believe I am right. The Supreme Court 
agrees with me and my 10-year-old son, saying recently that first 
amendment activity applies no less to independent expression by 
individuals or political committees than it does to political parties, 
and the truth is that Shays-Meehan bars individuals and organizations 
from their first amendment rights during 2 months prior to an election.
  I suspect that my friends on my side and on the other side of the 
aisle know this may be found to be true, and that is why there has been 
strong opposition in this Chamber and the other to allowing a 
nonseverability provision to this measure.
  Even though I will oppose this bill, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that 
we can change it, that we can fix it, we can close those soft money 
loopholes. I will support an amendment to ban all soft money from the 
process, which Shays-Meehan does not do, and I will also vote to ban 
the use of soft money for building political party buildings or paying 
off debt this fall.
  The truth is this bill is good for incumbents, bad for democracy; 
good for bureaucracy, bad for liberty. Vote ``no'' on Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  This bill does not prevent any individual, any individual or any 
groups of individuals, from speaking out 60 days before an election. 
They simply have to use hard money, and the public has a right to know 
where that money comes from under the Supreme Court decision and under 
the Constitution. There is no way it stops anyone.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Eshoo). She and I came to the Congress together in 1993, and she 
has been a forceful, eloquent spokesperson for campaign finance reform.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to salute the authors of 
this bill for their courage, for their vision, and for their tenacity.
  Today is the day in this House of Representatives. I think that the 
eyes of the Nation are really on us. They want to see if we are going 
to step over the line and say that we are going to do something for 
democracy. This is about democracy, and it is about respecting the 
voice of the people.

                              {time}  1130

  Every election both parties try to get people to go out and vote. We 
try to inspire them with our ideas for a better future, not only for 
themselves and our country but for our world. And fewer and fewer and 
fewer people are going out to vote. Why? Because they think their voice 
does not count.
  Today's newspaper says that the voices in the Republican caucus that 
vote for the real Shays-Meehan bill are going to be punished. We cannot 
tolerate this. This is not good for democracy. Have the courage to vote 
for the best in America, for our system that is the bright shining 
light of the world. Vote for the only real meaningful campaign finance 
reform bill, Shays-Meehan, McCain-Feingold. Send it to the President. 
We will be ahead, America. And we will be judged for it.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  If my colleagues will read the New York Post, they adequately point 
out that the New York Times editorial asking people to call their 
Members of Congress would be illegal, illegal under Shays-Meehan if it 
were put into a radio or TV ad 60 days before the election. But you can 
use all the soft money in the world you want for newspaper print.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I was actually a little 
taken aback by my friend, the previous speaker, when she talked about 
the voice of the people not being heard because of all this soft money 
in politics. The fact of the matter is when you collate elections, you 
will find out that the more money that gets spent on campaigns, whether 
it is on the ground or on the air, it drives up the turnout, not lowers 
turnouts. We can show you election after election where you have bigger 
spending campaigns and it drives turnout and voter interest and you get 
better penetration with the electorate. So I think that issue does not 
wash.
  This legislation is not about candidates. It really does not affect 
the way most individuals will run their own race or raise money as 
Members of Congress. What it does is affects political parties. If you 
believe as I do that political parties have been a very, very important 
part of the American political system, have, in fact, strengthened

[[Page H344]]

American democracy, a two party system in my judgement is something 
that has stabilized American democracy and keeps us much different from 
other countries.
  This drives a lot of money away from the political parties and puts 
them out into the system to interest groups, basically the right and 
the left. Political parties tend to center the American political 
debate, which I think is a good thing.
  For moderation, this legislation is the death knell because instead 
of candidates, independent members within each party being able to 
appeal to their political party, they have to appeal to interest groups 
to help make up funding gaps that may occur in these particular 
elections.
  But what concerns me the most is the bait and switch we see in this 
legislation before us. Written under the dead of night, we see a new 
substitute, Shays-Meehan IV, V, VI, I do not know which number this is. 
I refer specifically to title IV, severability effective date, section 
402 section B(1) where it says, ``Prior to January 1, 2003 the 
committee,'' meaning the political party committees, NRCC, DCCC, ``can 
spend funds for retiring outstanding debts or obligations incurred 
prior to such effective date, so long as the debts were incurred solely 
in connection with an election date on or before November 5, 2002.''
  What this means is under this legislation which displaces existing 
legislation pertaining to this, and there is no other language in this 
substitute that would replace the language in existing law, it means 
that political parties could borrow hard dollars in this year's 
election cycle and replace them with soft dollars that they could 
raise. So soft dollars can basically pay for hard-dollar borrowing.
  This is exactly opposite of what this legislation is intended to do. 
I do not know if the authors understand what is written in this. We 
have counsel opinions that we will enter into the Record later.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, this legislation does not allow somebody to 
borrow hard money and then pay it back in soft money. In fact, no one 
can raise any soft money under this bill after the next election. So 
what the gentleman is saying just simply is not true.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, one could use their 
building fund which is specifically protected under this to 
collateralize a loan which is soft dollars, which can collateralize a 
loan and come back and pay it back. That is what we can do under this 
legislation. I will be happy to have further discussions with the 
gentleman. I hope it is his intent to say that hard dollars have to be 
replaced with hard dollars. And I hope that we can get additional 
statements on the record. But this language does not say that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I will explain to the gentleman that this bill was not written in the 
dead of night. It was introduced last year. It was brought before the 
House before 10 o'clock. And it is very clear what it does. It enforces 
the 1907 law and the 1947 law and the 1974 law, all of which are 
constitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gracious gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives has a 
historic opportunity to take a stand, a strong stand against the 
corrupting influence of big money campaign contributions with passage 
of the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Bill. I just really must 
applaud the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their tireless efforts for a more 
responsive and responsible campaign finance system.
  The Senate has taken action. It is now up to this body to once again 
pass real reforming that will bring an end to the corruption and 
cynicism that surrounds public service because of the obscene amounts 
of money and soft money that have found its way into the political 
process.
  Think about it. Soft money has been at the heart of every political 
or corporate scandal over the past decade. Enron is currently the 
poster child for campaign finance reform; but even before Enron became 
a household word, the need for reform was just as great. Political fund 
raising records were shattered during the 2000 elections and soft-money 
contributions rose to more than $450 million, nearly double the $231 
million raised in the 1995-1996 cycle, more than five times raised in 
1991-1992.
  It invites corruption. It erodes confidence in government. Let us 
pass Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has 6\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 2-3/4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt).
  (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of campaign reform and in 
opposition to Shays-Meehan. There is no doubt we do need to change some 
things about the campaign process. We should, number one, have full and 
complete reporting disclosure. There is no reason why it could not be 
on the Internet; whenever dollars are contributed within 24 hours, it 
would be reported. We should require that every dollar spent in the 
political process should be voluntarily spent, voluntarily contributed. 
Right now every dollar I raise is a check written by somebody who has 
contributed to my campaign. Yet there are millions of union workers who 
have to have their money, their contributions automatically withdrawn 
from their pay check and used to support candidates for which they do 
not vote for or support.
  Thomas Jefferson said, ``It is tyrannical and sinful to force a man 
to contribute to political views for which he disagrees.''
  Shays-Meehan does nothing to reform this tyranny. It also does do 
some reforms. It does reform the campaign laws. It forms campaign 
dollars into pork for special interests. Let me name one of them. This 
bill restricts soft money and third parties from using their monies for 
free speech through the broadcast media 60 days before election. No 
soft money for 60 days in television, radio or cable; but it does allow 
it in the print media.
  Well, it is no wonder that the New York Times, U.S.A. Today, even the 
Winfield Courier, Winfield, Kansas, supports Shays-Meehan because it 
affects their bottom line. It is pork for papers, pork for newspapers. 
Well, that kind of reform is not what we need in the political process.
  It also does not regulate gutter politics. In 1996 unregulated, 
unreported dollars were used in my campaign to make phone calls to 
women in the Fourth Congressional District in Kansas to say I allowed 
my daughter to pose for sexually provocative photos. My daughter was 14 
years old at that time. She was crushed. She was devastated. She could 
not go to school. And there is nothing in this bill that you are 
proposing for reform to stop that kind of gutter politics.
  It does not reform the campaign laws where you need to reform it. 
Instead, you come up with this pork for papers and other inequities and 
limits in free speech. So I think it is a very inadequate bill, Mr. 
Chairman. It merely shifts where the political dollars will be spent. 
It does not regulate completely, especially in the area of gutter 
politics. And it gives special interests, the newspapers, a financial 
benefit through the campaign process. Pork for newspapers.
  I suggest that we vote against the Shays-Meehan bill, and I say we 
vote for the Armey substitute and bring true reform to the campaign 
process.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Shays-Meehan Campaign 
Finance Reform.
  This was the first bill I co-sponsored after emerging from the most 
expensive House race in the history of this

[[Page H345]]

institution. This bill basically comes down to a single question and a 
single proposition, and that is, do we wish to allow special interests 
to spend unlimited amounts of money anonymously right before an 
election, or do we believe the American people are entitled to know who 
is spending the money to influence the outcomes of elections right when 
the election is coming up?
  That is what this all boils down to. There is no first amendment 
issue here. Everything is permitted. All speech is permitted under 
Shays-Meehan. The question is does it need to be disclosed who is 
paying the freight. And notwithstanding all the protests from the 
opposition that is making the arguments today this bill is too strong. 
It is too weak. It goes too far. It does not go far enough. Me thinks 
the opposition doth protest too much.
  The fact of the matter is the opposition to Shays-Meehan like it the 
way it is. They want special interests to be able to spend what they 
will, when they will, and not disclose who they are. That is wrong and 
today we have the chance to change it. Support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) 
for yielding me time.
  We are told the purpose of this legislation is to lessen the 
influence of corporations on the political process.
  We are told that James Madison would not recognize the system we have 
today. I would submit that James Madison would be appalled if he knew 
of the blatant inconsistencies we have in the bill.
  Corporations cannot spend their treasury money in the last 60 days of 
an election. However, if you consider that the parent company of CNN 
spent $2 billion in soft money last year, yet they will be able to 
speak during the last 60 days of an election unabated. They have a 
media exemption. The parent company of ABC spent $1 million last year 
in soft money to both parties; NBC nearly a half million dollars; CBS, 
23,000; Fox nearly 700,000. Yet these entities will be able to speak 
within the last 60 days like nobody else.
  If you wonder why the big media corporations support this legislation 
it is because they will be the only one ones standing after this is 
passed. If that is not inconsistent, what is? Now, are the supporters 
of this legislation blind to this? I would submit they are not.
  Just a few months ago supporters of this legislation were pushing for 
hearings on the fact that one of the parent companies of NBC tried to 
weigh in with NBC on when to call the election for one of the 
candidates in Florida. If that is not a conflict of interest, what is? 
We have got to recognize that you cannot treat one corporation 
differently than another.
  This is just one of the problems with the bill, and I would urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I just point out we are trying to enforce the 1907 law banning the 
corporate treasury money, the 1947 law banning union dues money, and 
the 1974 law which bans unlimited sums by one individual in a 
collective campaign and to enforce all three laws. You can still 
advertise 60 days prior to an election with hard money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Meehan bill 
with some reluctance. It is too little, too late, too compromised. 
Nonetheless it represent a credible step to constraining one of the 
worst abuses in our current system, the rising tide of soft money.
  At issue is the shape of American democracy; at issue also is the 
shape of our political parties. There is a question of balance of power 
between the parties, but shape matters too. Do we want our parties 
dependent on the big and powerful or the individual citizen?
  The system needs reform; so do the parties. In a new-fangled world, 
what is needed is old-fashioned politics, old-fashioned political 
parties, old-fashioned people-oriented representation. The case for 
Shays-Meehan is imperfect, but it is also compelling.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who has been a leader on campaign 
finance reform since he first arrived in January 1997.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Shays-Meehan bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. There has been a 
lot of debate, a lot of speculation on the floor of the House today as 
to who benefits under the bill. Is it Republicans, Democrats, labor 
unions, corporations, the media? The truth of the matter is we really 
do not know how this law is going to be used in the endless contest 
between the parties and all the competing interest groups; but the one 
thing we do know about this bill is it will reduce the amount of money 
that has infected and taken over politics, and it will begin to shift 
control back to the people for whose benefit this institution was 
founded. It will give them more control over the outcome of elections.
  This bill is not a panacea. It is not perfect. What it attempts to do 
is to close the two most gaping loopholes that exist in our campaign 
finance system today, the uncontrolled issue ads that are influencing 
the outcome of elections today and soft money.
  The story that was just told I found incredibly offensive about the 
ad that was used against a Republican Member of Congress, making up 
blatant lies about a member of his family. One of the best things we 
could do to protect the voters against that kind of trash is to force 
people to put their names on these ads because right now there are 
people running ads in this country on every end of the political 
spectrum that refuse to put their names on their ads.
  We had a hearing in which some of these groups said, if you force us 
to put our names on these political ads, we will not run the ads. Our 
response was what is wrong with that, if you are not willing to 
publicly associate yourself with the inflammatory and often deceitful 
content?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, does the current Shays-Meehan bill require 
the signature or the identification of the sponsor?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the Shays-
Meehan proposal subjects those people who attempt to influence the 
outcome of an election to the same requirements that congressional 
candidates face now when they spend money to influence the election. 
There will be meaningful full disclosure that will allow the voters to 
judge who is making the statement and I believe will force people to 
discontinue making these inflammatory, deceitful actions.
  The second point that this bill addresses is incredible proliferation 
of soft money. I think it is fair to say there are thousands of people 
who are being forced or choosing to make campaign contributions of 
unlimited amounts to both political parties, and this is not for good 
government.
  Soft money was created to support political parties to encourage 
people to get the vote out and that will continue under Shays-Meehan. 
It was not intended to take over control.
  I just want to conclude by saying the amount of soft money was $86 
million in 1992, $260 million in 1996; over half of a billion dollars 
in the year 2000, a half a billion dollars. We need to put a stop to 
that. We need to adopt this bill. It is for the good of the people. It 
is not for the good of a particular political party, and I urge my 
colleagues to adopt the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis), who just spoke on his points. He made them all so 
equally well in committee. The question I asked is does this bill 
require that identification, and there is no evidence to me that it 
does.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a leader in campaign finance reform.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
has declared that this bill represents ``Armageddon'', the ``life or 
death'' of

[[Page H346]]

the Republican Party and the loss of control of the House. But the 
strange thing is that last session I heard one Member of the Democratic 
leadership make essentially the same claim in reverse, that Democrats 
would be assured defeat by passage of such legislation. Both cannot be 
right. Indeed, both are wrong.
  The truth is that a political party that cannot survive without 
unlimited amounts of unregulated contributions and hate ads does not 
deserve to govern. A vote for the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill does not 
test loyalty to a party. It tests loyalty to meaningful democracy.
  Did my colleagues hear the story about the lobbyist who gave a 
million dollars to a political party in soft money donations and 
demanded absolutely nothing in return? Well, neither has anyone else. 
To avoid government of, by, and for the highest bidder, accept no 
substitute. There is only one alternative, the Shays-Meehan bipartisan 
proposal.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) for yielding me the time, and I do rise in support of the Shays-
Meehan legislation.
  I rise in support of this because I have watched elections in this 
country for a long time now, and I have seen the evolution from 
individuals running for office with knowledge as to who their 
contributors were to advertisements which are being run by outside 
groups without any acknowledgment as to exactly who they are. There 
might be names on the ad, but that was the extent of it. Who 
contributed to it, exactly what it is they represent, all these 
nebulous figures out there, we cannot do anything about; and I think 
frankly we have to do it, and the best way to do it is to ban soft 
money.
  I wish we were banning soft money entirely. We know we are not at the 
State level, but we are at the Federal level; and I think it is a step 
in the right direction and something we should do. I think that the 
hard money, so that we know who gave it, it is limited as to how much 
it is, is the way to go as far as future elections are concerned.
  I would also point out, and I have heard this question a lot, that 
this legislation does not ban voter guides in terms of how people voted 
and what the story may be with respect to that; and it also does not 
limit free speech. It only speaks to the source of money that pays for 
the speech.
  For all these reasons, I would encourage everyone to support the 
Shays-Meehan legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) has 30 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  This is going to be a long day. I think it will be a good day. I 
think we will have disagreements, but I think we can do it with 
graciousness.
  We are going to have three substitutes that come before us, the 
gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Armey) substitute, the gentleman from 
Ohio's (Mr. Ney) substitute, and the Shays-Meehan substitute. We are 
asking for a ``no'' vote on the first two substitutes and passage of 
the Shays-Meehan substitute; and then we will have 13 amendments 
brought before the House if, in fact, the Shays-Meehan substitute is 
the one that stands.
  We are trying to enforce the 1907 law banning corporate treasury 
money, the 1947 money banning union dues money, and enforce the 1974 
law banning unlimited sums of money. That is what our attempt is.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  We have a historic opportunity today, a historic opportunity to pass 
real campaign finance reform; and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for the hard work he has put into this and my 
partner, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has worked 
diligently over the years. There are so many Republicans, the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) who did such a wonderful job on the floor. We are 
going to hear more from the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) as this 
debate goes on. So many Democrats who have stood together for campaign 
finance reform, our colleagues in the other body.
  What makes this unique is we understand campaign finance reform will 
die if we let this go to a conference committee. So we have 
preconferenced this bill over a period of the last year, making sure 
that Democrats and Republicans have equal footing, making sure that the 
Senate and the House negotiate in good faith so that we now have a 
wonderful opportunity to pass this bill and send it over to the Senate 
where it will still need 60 votes.
  Then we are going to send it over to the President, and the President 
has made it very clear to the Republican leadership and anyone else in 
this House, do not count on me to veto this bill. Why is it the 
President made it clear? Because this President knows what we all know, 
that there is a cloud over the Capitol and the White House because of 
this Enron scandal, and the American people are demanding that that 
cloud be removed by removing this soft money system that has had such a 
corrupting influence on the decisions that we make day in and day out, 
making good people do bad things. They want this removed and the 
President wants this removed, I am sure. I am sure that is why he will 
sign this bill.
  Let us join together today and have a good debate. But let everyone 
know, the other side that is trying to kill this bill does not have a 
philosophical perspective. They do not have a set of principles that 
are determining what amendments they offer. What they offer is anything 
they can think of to defeat this bill, anything that they can think of 
to send this bill to conference. It has gotten so wild over the other 
side that they are actually putting in a substitute that is a bill that 
we were working on a few years ago before we preconferenced.
  We have a unique opportunity. Let us join together and pass Shays-
Meehan.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry? Mr. Chairman, the 
Member says other Members have no principles. Is he not attacking them, 
and is that not grounds for having words taken down, by questioning the 
motivation of why Members vote?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) will read the quote, though, he will find that it was not----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) has expired.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if a Member says or casts aspersions as 
to why other Members are voting, is that not a personal attack and, 
therefore, the words that we would have taken down ordinarily, by 
questioning their motivation?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not proper for a Member to arraign the motives of 
another Member.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) yield for 
that purpose?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, no, sir.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to respond to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, what I was referring to was the principles 
on the concept of campaign finance reform, the principles of the 
concept. That is what I referred to. That is what we are debating. It 
is not personal, it is substantive; and we are going to debate it till 
3 a.m. if we need to, and we are going to win in the end.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of our 
time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the 
Democratic whip.

[[Page H347]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me the time and for his leadership on 
this important campaign finance reform and on electoral reform as well. 
I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), my colleague, 
for his tremendous leadership and that of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his, and the distinguished leadership of 
our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), for bringing us 
to this very, very important and historic day.
  Today, we have an opportunity to achieve a great victory for the 
American people, to bring democracy back to them. Every one of us who 
serves in the Congress takes an oath of office to protect and defend 
the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. The corrosive and corrupting effect of special interests' big 
money in the political process is indeed a danger to our participatory 
democracy.
  This beautiful city in which we serve 200 years ago was built on a 
swamp and a swamp it is again today, a swamp of special interest money. 
Today we have the opportunity to drain that swamp. We have the 
opportunity to bring a more wholesome attitude to the Washington 
atmosphere, to Washington, D.C. We have an opportunity to create a new 
architecture of political fund-raising in our country which devolves to 
the grassroots, to the people from which power comes and where it 
belongs.

                              {time}  1200

  We have an opportunity today to send a valentine to the American 
people; to tell them they are important to us; that what they think 
matters to us; that they should have faith in government and they 
should have hope that the issues that they care about will have a fair 
shake and not be eclipsed by the blizzard, by the blizzard of special 
interest money in Washington, D.C.
  A vote for the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill, the only real campaign 
finance reform bill, will end, will end the corrosive influence of 
special interest money and level the playing field so that all 
Americans can participate and be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, imagine a situation where we clear the deck, where we 
make a clean sweep and we start fresh for the American people, where 
the money that is raised is at the grassroots level, and we train a 
cadre of young people interested in politics, interested in government, 
a more wholesome situation for our country. I urge a ``yes'' vote for 
Shays-Meehan and a ``no'' on all the poison pills.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
want to thank my distinguished ranking member for giving me a few more 
minutes here.
  Let me say this and say it in the right way. This is well-intentioned 
by individuals. And this is regardless of the last comment, because I 
do not think we need to be saying that because we do not support 
something, that there is something ethically challenged about an 
individual. So this is well-intentioned, it is just not well-crafted.
  And we hear the words ``vote your conscience,'' but of course the 
implication today that we have heard is that if we do not vote for 
Shays-Meehan, then there is something wrong with our conscience. And I 
do not believe that about the other side.
  Let me just say that this bill does gag millions of union workers in 
this country. Soft money can be spent on newspaper ads, but the money 
of those workers, their hard-earned money, cannot be spent where they 
want to direct it, into radio or TV. It does gag people who work in 
business. It does gag the rights of free speech, unless of course, 
again, the money is spent on a newspaper ad. That is just not the 
American way.
  The amendments we will see today are good-intentioned amendments. 
This is not the same bill. Enron could have spent $60 million under 
Shays-Meehan. We know that. They can pay off building funds under 
Shays-Meehan by using it as a collateral backup for hard money that can 
be paid off after the election.
  And, by the way, why is this not effective immediately? Last year, 
before the Committee on House Administration, people banged their fist 
and said, we have to do the whole thing by May, or we need a discharge 
petition. We accommodated it and moved it to around the first of July. 
It had to be done right there on the spot. Now all of a sudden we can 
do it after the election.
  Challengers in this country are going to have a hard time figuring 
this bill out. This is an incumbent protection bill. It is not crafted 
the right way. The amendments we will see today are good substantive 
amendments that will not kill this bill, but will make this bill 
acceptable.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2356, the Shays-
Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill.
  First, I congratulate our colleagues from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their diligence and persistence on this 
issue over the years. I remind my colleagues that legislation very 
similar to the bill under consideration today has passed the House 
twice before.
  I also applaud the courage of the 218 Members, particularly our 20 
Republican friends, who signed the discharge petition that finally 
allows the House to work its will on campaign finance reform. It is an 
unusual procedure, but was necessary in this case.
  The 2000 elections were the most expensive ever, coming in at almost 
$3 billion. This is appalling. The system is broken. The American 
people are justified in lacking confidence that their priorities are 
considered as seriously as those of the big donors.
  The influence of money in American politics is a problem as old as 
the Nation. It is discouraging to remember that the broken campaign 
finance system that Shays-Meehan would replace was itself once seen as 
a reform, designed to limit undue influence by large unregulated and 
undisclosed campaign contributions, but that big money soon found its 
way around the reforms through soft money and ``independent'' 
advertising.
  The principles behind any meaningful reform are clear:
  National parties, congressional committees, and Federal candidates 
must get along without soliciting or spending soft money. Under the 
Shays-Meehan bill, limited soft money will remain available to state 
and local parties for necessary voter registration and get-out-the-vote 
activities, but not to support Federal candidates.
  Campaign advertisements masquerading as issue advocacy must be 
regulated. Shays-Meehan will require that broadcast communications that 
mention a Federal candidate must be paid for with hard money--which 
includes corporate and union PAC funds--within 60 days of a general or 
30 days of a primary election.
  There are other important provisions, including enhanced disclosure 
of the financial sponsorship of electioneering communications, new FEC 
rules for coordinated communications, and limiting the cost of 
broadcast advertising by candidates to reduce the onerous cost of 
running for Federal office today.
  But basically, Mr. Chairman, the Shays-Meehan bill will replace a 
badly broken system with one that will limit the influence of soft 
money and ``issue'' advertising in Federal campaigns and begin to 
restore the faith of the American people in our campaign system.
  Under the rule, several ``poison pill'' amendments will be offered to 
defeat the Shays-Meehan bill, either by gutting it or by sending it to 
near certain death in conference. One of the most alarming is the 
amendment to ban campaign contributions by legal permanent residents of 
the United States. These are people who live, work, and pay taxes in 
this country, and making contributions to candidates and parties is 
they only way they can influence the makeup of the government and 
public policy until they achieve citizenship and the vote. They are 
committed to America and should not be silenced.
  Shays-Meehan is a reform that is long overdue. I urge my colleagues 
to reject the ``poison pills'' and to vote for Bipartisan Campaign 
Finance Reform.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2356, the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 
2001. This legislation provides desperately needed reform to our 
current campaign system. As a proud cosponsor, and one of the 218 
Members to sign the discharge petition needed to force a vote on this 
bill, I believe we can finally remedy many of the ongoing concerns 
associated with hard and soft money in our political system.
  In the past, proposed election law revisions raised First Amendment 
objections, created new loopholes in the current law, or negatively 
affected get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts and voter registration. I 
believe H.R. 2356 overcomes these concerns and gets at the heart of 
election reform--special interests in Washington. This legislation bans 
soft money to national parties, reins in campaign attack ads that 
masquerade as issue ads, and addresses

[[Page H348]]

GOTV concerns. A strong consensus of my constituents on Long Island 
have consistently voiced their support for this important piece of 
legislation. Their disenchantment with the current system results in 
fewer Americans exercising their right to vote. Congress has the 
opportunity to address the concerns over the corrupting influence of 
money in politics and public policy and pass real campaign finance 
reform.
  Shays-Meehan is the real campaign finance reform bill that closes 
loopholes in our current system. It's time to pass this legislation and 
reform a political system that is awash in money. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important measure.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns 
with the campaign finance legislation introduced by Representatives 
Shays and Meehan. This legislation is derived from the same mindset 
that produced our current campaign finance laws that so-called 
reformers object to: money is bad, all politicians are corrupt, and the 
American people are not capable of hearing several points of view and 
making a rational decision.
  The supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill would have you think that 
those of us with other ideas for reform do not really support reform. 
This claim is ridiculous. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, I support real 
reform with no loopholes and full disclosure--not just lip service to 
reform.
  Attempting to avoid a conference with the Senate is not the path to 
true reform. A conference would provide the opportunity to work out the 
imperfections in this bill and ensure that the reforms are truly 
effective and constitutional.
  While I respect and share the intentions of the sponsors of this 
bill, today's legislation suffers from numerous defects, not the least 
of which is that several parts are patently unconstitutional. And what 
happened with the 1970s-era campaign finance reform will happen with 
this bill--parts will be stricken by the courts, opening new loopholes 
and creating a greater mess.
  This bill fails to effectively ban soft money as supporters claim by 
allowing up to $60 million in soft money per donor nationwide via the 
states. Plus, it is conveniently scheduled to go into effect the day 
after the November 2002 elections.
  Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to protect union employees 
who do not want their dues used to support political causes they 
personally oppose.
  I also have serious concerns that this bill restricts political 
speech at the time that voters are listening just before elections. It 
transfers the constitutional right to discuss issues from the people to 
the media. The media will decide who and what will be heard and who 
will hear it and when. It empowers the media and special interests to 
use independent expenditures to influence campaign while limiting 
average Americans.
  When citizens send their resources to an issue-advocacy organization 
to promote a cause they believe in, they and the organization they are 
supporting are exercising both their right to free association and 
their right to free speech. Shays-Meehan seeks to curtail those right 
by imposing these harsh restrictions on grassroots issue discussion. It 
is essential that all Americans, not only rich individuals and PACs 
have the right to advocate positions.
  Mr. Chairman, let's pass real campaign finance reform that holds 
federal lawmakers accountable to their constituents by requiring full 
and frequent disclosure, decreasing the role of soft money, removing 
unrealistic contribution limits, and opening our political process to 
the many voices that exist in this country.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2356, the 
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Concerns over the corrupting 
influence of money on politics have long been an issue of national 
debate, centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and 
reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. I believe rising 
election costs have led to uncontrolled spending, with too much time 
spent raising funds and the appearance that elections and public policy 
are bought and sold. Debate has also focused on the role of interest 
groups in campaign funding, especially through political action 
committees. I believe one way to fix our campaign finance system is 
through more regulation with spending limits.
  I have been pushing campaign finance reform since coming to Congress 
and introduced my own legislation H.R. 462, the Campaign Finance System 
Reform Act, during the 105th Congress. This legislation set voluntary 
spending limits at $600,000 per election cycle, banned public financing 
of campaigns through the use of matching funds, and required that 100 
percent of funds raised must come from the congressional district in 
which the candidate is running.
  In July 2001, the House Republican leadership initially scheduled a 
debate on campaign finance reform. However, the rule crafted was unfair 
because it broke the Shays-Meehan bill into 14 separate parts to be 
voted on individually. Following the defeat of this rule, the 
Republican leadership announced it would not bring the bill back to the 
floor for consideration. A discharge petition was circulated, forcing 
the bill back to the House floor for debate.
  The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act is the only legislation 
before the House which effectively deals with the dual problems of soft 
money and sham issue advertisements. This bill would ban the massive 
use of soft money contributions to political parties, thus closing the 
soft money loophole and restoring public confidence in our system. 
These donations totaled nearly $500 million in the last election. Much 
of this money was used to fund negative commercials, called issue ads, 
that evade spending limits that apply to each candidate's official 
campaign.
  Some opponents say this bill will inhibit voter participation. 
However, this bill seeks to increase voter turnout by allowing state 
parties to collect limited amounts of soft money to be used for voter 
participation and get-out-the-vote activities. Under the bill, state 
and local parties would have sufficient funds for get-out-the vote 
activities, but could not divert this soft money into sham issue ads.
  The Ney-Wynn substitute is an honest but not sufficient attempt at 
reform and is at this point solely a way for the Republican leadership 
to kill the Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold reform bills. This 
substitute does nothing to curb wealthy special interests on the 
political process by allowing unlimited soft money contributions to 
state and local parties creating a huge loophole that undermines 
reform. Furthermore, Ney-Wynn does nothing to halt issue ads.
  Mr. Chairman, I have pushed for a fair vote on this important issue 
and have put forth legislation which will truly reform the system. I 
acknowledge this legislation is not perfect. However, this legislation 
is an opportunity to enact reforms that are critical at this time. For 
these reasons, I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of meaningful 
campaign finance reform.
  I strongly support serious reform of the campaign finance system. We 
must eliminate the corrupting influence of special interest money from 
our political system and restore the faith of the American people in 
our public institutions. Neither party can claim total innocence of 
Washington misdeeds, and I believe the people of North Carolina sent me 
to Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to serve the public 
interest. That is what I try to do every day as a United States 
Representative.
  At the beginning of the105th Congress, my freshman class agreed that 
we would work on a bipartisan basis to reform the way that campaigns 
for public office are funded in this country. Since then 5 years have 
passed and we have yet to see any campaign finance reform signed into 
law.
  Today we have a chance to pass legislation sponsored by 
Representatives Shays and Meehan that is almost identical to Senate-
passed legislation sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold. If we are 
able to pass this legislation without too much change we can send this 
legislation directly to President Bush who has promised to sign it. I 
sincerely regret that the Republican Leadership is working to alter, 
weaken and undermine the responsible campaign finance reform 
legislation sponsored by my colleagues Representatives Shays and Meehan 
in order to send it to a Conference where it is sure to die yet again. 
The people of this country are discouraged by this type of cynical 
behavior from this Congress and will not be fooled by this attempt to 
bury campaign finance reform legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve a campaign election system 
with integrity. I sincerely hope that meaningful campaign finance 
reform will be signed into law before the end of the 107th Congress.
  Mr. STARK Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2356, 
the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. Campaign 
Finance reform is long overdue and I am very pleased, after such a long 
struggle with those who oppose reform, to see this bill on the floor 
today.
  Money has become far too important to our campaigns and reform is 
certainly necessary. In my opinion, we should do away with our private 
campaign financing system altogether and publicly fund political 
campaigns. This would level the playing field so that anyone could 
participate in the political process.
  Though the Shays-Meehan bill doesn't go that far, it certainly makes 
dramatic improvements. This bill has several important provisions to 
improve our campaign finance laws: it bans soft money from national 
parties; it reins in campaign advertisements which claim to be ``issue 
advocacy'' ads; it enhances disclosure of political expenses; and it 
provides the Federal Election Commission with stronger tools to enforce 
campaign finance laws.
  By passing this bill today, we as leaders can finally recognize what 
the American public has

[[Page H349]]

known for years: there is too much money in politics. In the last 
election, the average winning House candidate raised $919,649 toward 
his or her election. The average winning Senate candidate raised 
$7,345,468. With this much money in politics, it is virtually 
impossible for elected officials to remain unaffected by the 
disproportionate influence of those who wield tremendous wealth. If 
only we were raising these millions of dollars to provide health 
insurance for our nation's children. Now that would be a worthy 
expenditure of funds.
  If our government is truly to remain ``of, by and for the people,'' 
then we must ensure that the people, not corporate donors, are 
responsible for electing their leaders. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform 
Act of 2001 will go a long way toward ensuring this goal. I will vote 
for this very important bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Shays-Meehan substitute. This is historic legislation, one of the most 
important reform bills in a generation.
  I also wish to thank Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan for their hard work and 
dedication to ensuring that we have a fair process and the opportunity 
to make meaningful reforms to our campaign finance laws this year. I 
also congratulate Mr. turner and the Blue Dogs on a successful 
discharge petition.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican and Democratic parties raised nearly 
half a billion dollars in soft money during the 1999-2000 election 
cycle. Of this amount, over 473 million was given by 147 individuals in 
amounts of $500,000 or more. This influx of unregulated soft money, no 
matter where it comes from, taints us all individually, and 
collectively works to increase the public's cynicism and destroy faith 
in Congress.
  Today we have the opportunity to pass a complete ban on federal soft 
money and reign in sham issue ads. Shays-Meehan is the only bill before 
us today that will accomplish these goals. It is important to note that 
this bill also protects the ability of state and local parties to 
promote voter registration and get out the vote activities on election 
day, and assure the fullest possible participation in our democracy. I 
urge all Members to support Shays-Meehan and vote down all poison pill 
amendments.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act and urge my colleagues to vote 
against all ``poison pill'' amendments that will be offered today. I am 
proud to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation, which represents the 
best, real opportunity to reform our broken campaign finance system.
  The issue of campaign finance reform cuts to the essence of 
democracy. Our unique American political system will not survive 
without the participation of the average American citizen. 
Unfortunately, more and more Americans are dropping out--with each 
election, fewer Americans are voting. They are doing so because they no 
longer believe that their vote matters. As they see more and more money 
pouring into campaigns, they believe that their voice is being drowned 
out by wealthy special interests.
  Despite the cynicism of the American public, Congress has failed to 
enact significant campaign finance reform legislation since 1974. In 
that year, in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, Congress imposed tough 
spending limits on direct, ``hard money'' contributions to candidates. 
Unfortunately, no at that time forsaw how two loopholes in the law 
would lead to a gross corruption of our political system.
  The first loophole is ``soft'' money--the unregulated and unlimited 
contributions to the political parties from corporations, labor unions, 
or wealthy individuals. ``Soft'' money allows wealthy special interests 
to skirt around ``hard'' money limits and dump unlimited sums of money 
into a campaign.
  The unfolding Enron scandal provides a clear example of the 
pernicious influence of soft money. In the 2000 election cycle, Enron 
executives contributed $1.7 million--70 percent of which came in the 
form of soft money. Most Americans see a clear link between these 
contributions and Enron's quest for special treatment by Congress. 
Clearly, the Enron scandal has eroded the public's confidence in their 
government.
  Soft money is used to finance the second loophole in campaign finance 
law: sham issue advertisements. This loophole allows special interests 
to spend huge sums of money on campaign ads advocating either the 
defeat or election of a candidate. As long as these ads do not use the 
magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' they are deemed ``issue 
advocacy'' under current law and therefore not subject to campaign 
spending limits or disclosure requirements.
  During the 2000 elections, the television and radio airwaves were 
flooded with these sham issue ads--many of which were negative attack 
ads. Americans who see or hear these ads have no idea who pays for them 
because no disclosure is required. They drown out the voice of the 
average American citizen, and even sometimes of the candidates 
themselves. Without reform, we can certainly expect a huge increase in 
these sham issue ads.
  The Shays-Meehan bill begins to restore public confidence in our 
electoral system by closing these two egregious loopholes. The bill 
bans all contributions of soft money to federal campaigns. 
Specifically, it bans national party committees from soliciting, 
receiving, directing or spending soft money.
  Shays-Meehan also closes the ``issue advocacy'' loophole. It broadens 
the presently absurd definition of electioneering activity, or 
``express'' advocacy, to include any communication that refers, in 
support or opposition, to a candidate. This would not prevent public 
organizations from running advertisements, but would ensure that ads 
clearly designed to influence an election are regulated under federal 
law. We have laws clearly designed to regulate and disclose campaign 
donations and expenditures, and no one should be allowed to evade them. 
Shays-Meehan would ensure that everyone involved in influencing 
elections plays by the same rules.
  Opponents have argued that the Shays-Meehan bill undermines the First 
Amendment right of free speech. However, the Supreme Court has ruled 
that Congress has a broad ability to protect the political process from 
corruption and the appearance of corruption. It has upheld as 
constitutional the ability to limit contributions by individuals and 
political committees to candidates. The Supreme Court has also clearly 
permitted Congress to distinguish between issue advocacy on the one 
hand, and electioneering or ``express advocacy'' on the other.
  The Meehan-Shays proposal will not cure our campaign finance system 
of all it evils--and I certainly support more far reaching restrictions 
on campaign contributions and expenditures. However, the bill will take 
a modest but significant first step toward restoring integrity in our 
political system. It will limit the influence of wealthy special 
interests and help to restore the voice of average American citizens in 
our political process. In short, enactment of this legislation is 
essential to the survival of American democracy.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Enron bankruptcy and the subsequent 
revelations regarding Enron's political influence have once again 
brought campaign finance to the forefront of the congressional agenda. 
Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of campaign finance reform 
are among those who receive the largest donations from special 
interests seeking state favors. In fact, some legislators who were 
involved in the government-created savings and loan scandal of the late 
eighties and early nineties today pose as born again advocates of 
``good government'' via campaign finance reform!
  Mr. Chairman, this so-called ``reform'' legislation is clearly 
unconstitutional. Many have pointed out that the First amendment 
unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and 
unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as 
they choose. Campaign reform legislation blows a huge hole in these 
First amendment protections by criminalizing criticism of elected 
officials. Thus, passage of this bill will import into American law the 
totalitarian concept that government officials should be able to use 
their power to silence their critics.
  The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of 
America's leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign-
Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis: ``At the heart of the 
guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law 
designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that 
the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious 
libel laws protecting the reputation of the government 
unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign-
finance reform laws.''
  The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a 
sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus 
demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to 
oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the 
power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes 
the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring.
  This legislation thus represents an attempt by Congress to fix a 
problem created by excessive government intervention in the economy 
with another infringement on the people's constitutional liberties. The 
real problem is not that government lacks power to control campaign 
financing, but that the federal government has excessive power over our 
economy and lives.
  It is the power of the welfare-regulatory state which creates a 
tremendous incentive to protect one's own interests by ``investing'' in 
politicians. Since the problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules 
regulating campaign spending, more laws won't help. We hardly suffer 
from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem 
with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the 
principles of liberty and private property ownership.

[[Page H350]]

  Attempts to address the problems of special interest influence 
through new unconstitutional rules and regulations address only the 
symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the problem. Tough 
enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence 
underground, since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by 
exerting influence over government-legally or not. The more open and 
legal campaign expenditures are, the easier it is for voters to know 
who's buying influence from whom.
  There is a tremendous incentive for every special interest group to 
influence government. Every individual, bank, or corporation that does 
business with government invests plenty in influencing government. 
Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to 
influence Congress. Taxpayer dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats 
in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. 
Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial 
markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, 
and grants. Corporations and others are ``forced'' to participate in 
the process out of greed as well as self-defense--since that's the way 
the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power--such as 
between labor and business--is a common practice. As long as this 
system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
  Many reformers recognize this, and either like the system or believe 
that it's futile to bring about changes. They argue that curtailing 
influence is the only option left, even if it involves compromising 
freedom of political speech by regulating political money.
  It's naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If 
members of Congress resisted the temptation to support unconstitutional 
legislation to benefit special interests, this whole discussion would 
be unnecessary. Because members do yield to the pressure, the reformers 
believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the 
problem.
  The reformers argue that it's only the fault of those trying to 
influence government and not the fault of the members of Congress who 
yield to the pressure, or the system that generates the abuse. This 
allows members to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts, and 
instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress 
through the political process--which is a basic right bestowed on all 
Americans. The reformer's argument is ``Stop us before we succumb to 
the special interest groups.''
  Politicans unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system 
that diminishes the need for them to persuade individuals and groups to 
donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse 
coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.
  This only changes the special interest groups that control government 
policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with 
their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political 
campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats 
gain influence over elections, other nondeserving people will benefit. 
Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign 
spending--a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
  Mr. Chairman, the freedoms of the American people should not be 
restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. We need 
to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important 
in politics. Campaign finance laws, such as those before us today, will 
not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for 
average Americans to influence Washington. The case against this bill 
was eloquently made by Herb Titus in the paper referenced above: 
``Campaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing. 
Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising 
competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters 
corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to 
America's original constitutional principles of limited and 
decentralized government power, thereby preserving the power of the 
people.''
  I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this 
unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to 
reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity 
to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional 
limits.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, big money is a cancer on our political 
system that must be removed or we risk devolving into an oligarchy like 
so many other republics before us. It is the constant money chase and 
submission to the special interests that corrupts our system and makes 
our constituents lose faith in their government. It's why there is such 
disinterest in politics back home and such low voter turnout. Our 
constituents don't think we care about them. They think we only care 
about raising money. They believe that their participation, their 
voices, cannot count against the power of big money, and recent 
experience says they are right.
  Once upon a time, when someone wanted to run for office, the first 
question we used to ask was what kind of political support can you 
generate. Now the first question we ask is how much money can you 
raise. Better yet, we find a rich candidate who'll finance his or her 
own campaign. It's impossible to run on good ideas alone anymore, you 
need millions of dollars to go with them. With this system we risk 
electing candidates less attuned to their communities than to their big 
contributors.
  This is not a perfect bill, but it is a good first step. If we do not 
take this 1st step today, the history books may eventually say that 
like the Roman Republic, the United States had a good 200 to 250-year 
run at democracy, and then it degenerated into an oligarchy like all 
the rest. Don't let that happen. Pass Shays-Meehan and begin to restore 
integrity to our political process.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, today we are being asked to vote for a 
campaign finance reform bill. And, like most in this body, I see that 
we are currently at a place where special interest money is threatening 
our democracy. Votes should not and cannot be influenced by money. But 
in our fervor to achieve reform, let us not blindly support any piece 
of legislation that dons a reform mask. Rather, we owe it to our 
constituents to strip away the disguises and pass legislation that will 
actually accomplish the ends that it claims to achieve.
  While I applaud the ends of the Shays-Meehan legislation--to get 
special interest money out of politics--I cannot support the means. 
What good is closing one loophole only to create 50 more in the 
process? Today, I implore my colleagues to look at the facts and take a 
moment to understand what this legislation does. Please, look past the 
smoke and mirrors and understand the many problems with the Shays-
Meehan bill.
  Good intentions do not equal good legislation and passing bad 
legislation does not fix a problem--it merely creates more problems. 
Americans deserve better than the pretense of reform and I would hate 
to see this bill pass the House today, only to revisit the issue next 
year after we wake up to realize the monster we have created.
  The Shays-Meehan legislation does not remove soft money from 
politics. Rather, it bans this contribution at the federal level, only 
to allow a union or a corporation to give up to $10,000 at the county 
and state level. This means that a single union or corporation will be 
able to give more than $30 million per election. In my estimation, not 
only does this not help the problem, it actually makes it worse. 
Instead of having a single national party collecting soft money, we 
will have 50 state parties collecting it. Their offices will line the 
streets of DC with union and corporate lobbyists throwing a parade with 
$10,000 checks raining down like tickertape for every state party. Is 
this closing a loophole or making a mockery of our system?
  Accountability is the key to reform. The problem with soft money is 
that it is hard to know where it is spent. When voters cannot discern 
where elected officials are getting the money to finance their campaign 
efforts, there is no accountability. By restricting the way that unions 
and corporations can participate in the political process openly, these 
interest groups will resort to issue advocacy and independent 
expenditures, activities that do not fall under any laws. Unlimited and 
unregulated resources can be devoted to these types of expenditures. 
With the passage of Shays-Meehan, accountability is out the window. We 
will push campaign-related activities made on behalf of candidates by 
outside groups into an abyss of unregulated anonymous money.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that is 
going to put more loopholes in a campaign finance system that has 
enough problems on its own. We need good legislation that still allows 
for political participation and that demands accountability. it is for 
this reason that I support the Ney-Wynn substitute. This legislation 
does not prohibit participation or force disclosure into oblivion. 
Rather, it sets reasonable caps on soft money contributions to national 
parties. Ney-Wynn allows national parties to perform one of their key 
functions of get-out-the-vote efforts and voter registration drives. 
These are efforts that are financed by soft money. Ney-Wynn allows soft 
money to national parties, but only to be used for these purposes. 
Furthermore, it regulates the types of independent expenditures that 
can be made by unions and corporations, specifically limiting 
television ads for longer than the mere 60 days as mandated under 
Shays-Meehan.
  Ney-Wynn reforms our system of financing campaigns without loopholes 
but with sound policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to closely 
examine these two pieces of legislation. Bad legislation with a nice 
name is still bad legislation. The Ney-Wynn substitute contains real 
reform and real reform is what we need.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, since taking office, I have been a dedicated 
supporter of campaign finance reform, and I commend my

[[Page H351]]

friends--Representatives Shays and Meehan--for their persistence on 
this issue. During my first term, every day the House was in session, I 
gave a statement on the floor in support of campaign finance reform. I 
hope that the House will have the courage to pass true reform measures 
today.
  Without question, there is too much money in our current political 
system. Running for office has become increasingly expensive, forcing 
candidates to spend unacceptable amounts of time fundraising, and 
discouraging qualified challengers from running for office because they 
cannot afford the price of admission. What should be a competition of 
ideas has become a battle of wealth.
  In 2000, the national party committees raised $495 million in 
unregulated soft money, almost twice the amount raised in 1996. At this 
rate, it will not be long before billion dollar campaigns are 
commonplace. Though opponents of reform say the public does not care 
about this issue, the residents of Wisconsin's Third District tell me 
otherwise. They see where our system is headed and demand reform from 
Congress, Shays-Meehan heeds their mandate by banning soft money 
donations to the national parties, and imposing tight limits on the 
collection and use of soft money by State and local parties.
  Unfortunately, those of us that would like to see genuine changes in 
the campaign finance system must contend with the false reform 
legislation supported by the House leadership. This legislation does 
not truly change the current system and does nothing to stem the rising 
tide of soft money that circumvents and erodes it. For example, under 
the Ney-Wynn substitute, Enron and its executives would still have been 
able to give 76 percent of the money they gave in 2000 to national 
parties.
  Right now we stand on the brink of historic reform. Reform that will 
put the power of democracy back in the hands of ordinary Americans. 
Reform that will force politicians and political parties to get back to 
the grassroots level. Mr. Chairman, the American people have waited 
long enough. Now is the time for positive bipartisan action on this 
bill.
  This bill is not the panacea to what ails our political system; it is 
not perfect, but it is a significant step in the right direction by 
banning the largest political contributions that ordinary citizens 
cannot give. A vote for Shays-Meehan today is a vote to better empower 
the American people and to begin to level the playing field of access 
in our political system.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise today in the strongest 
possible support of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill to 
ban ``soft money.''
  Individual rights are the hallmark of our country.
  As nations across the globe struggle to end oppressive dictatorships, 
our political system shines as a beacon of equality. Every person, 
regardless of race, income, or religion is afforded a vote and every 
vote is equal.
  Unfortunately, the bedrock of our democracy is compromised by the 
constant assault of financial contributions to the political system. 
Instead of one person, one vote, campaign contributions are taking our 
system towards a one dollar, one vote system.
  Every aspect of our life is impacted by the influence big 
contributions are having over elected officials.
  Enron is a case study in how huge corporate contributions undermine 
the public's confidence in our democracy.
  The shadow of doubt grows each day that Vice President Cheney refuses 
to release meeting records related to the development of the Bush 
administration's energy policy. We need to reform campaign finance law 
to ensure that corporations and special interest groups are not able to 
purchase political influence, turning Congress and the Presidency into 
a ``cash and carry'' operation.
  A recent article in the Washington Post tells a story which should 
send a chill down the spine of every American who cherishes our 
democratic system. According to the February 10, 2002, Washington Post 
article, ``Hard Money, Strong Arms and `Matrix': How Enron Dealt with 
Congress, Bureaucracy,'' Enron turned campaign finance contributions 
into a science. According to the article,

       With each proposed change in federal regulations, lobbyists 
     punch details into a computer, allowing Enron economists in 
     Houston to calculate just how much a rule change would cost. 
     If the final figure was too high, executives used it as the 
     cue to stoke their vast influence machine, mobilizing 
     lobbyists and dialing up politicians who had accepted some of 
     Enron's million in campaign contributions.
       To raise campaign cash, Enron relied not just on individual 
     contribution but also on a well-funded political action 
     committee that distributed money to candidates of both 
     parties . . . Since 1990, Enron's political committees have 
     given federal candidates and parties more than $1 million.

  Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform comes down to just one, very 
important thing--protecting our democracy.
  Because of large, unregulated contributions, known as ``soft money,'' 
special interests and corporations often get special representation by 
elected officials, special representation that often is in conflict 
with the larger public interest.
  Critical issues in our society are directly affected by the undo 
influence of narrow special interests, particularly when there is money 
at stake. Energy companies, for example, can negotiate a $30 billion 
tax cut while the Bush Administration submits a budget to Congress that 
actually cuts the total level of funding for the historic education 
reforms that just one month ago he signed into law.
  Pick any issue that you care about. Campaign finance reform is needed 
to allow those issues to have their day in Congress and the White 
House. Issues such as health care, making child care affordable and of 
high quality, protecting the environment, protecting Social Security or 
providing a real prescription drug benefit through Medicare and care 
for Seniors.
  Instead of a system that gives the greatest deference to those in 
greatest need, the voices of narrow special interests use large 
unregulated political contributions to drown out the voices of our 
average citizens. Things have got to change.
  Today, the House of Representatives will again take up legislation to 
significantly reform our campaign finance laws.
  Last year, the Republican leadership resorted to parliamentary tricks 
to water down bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation which had 
passed the Senate. However, supporters of clean campaigns were not 
deterred. It took 218 Members of the House, including me, to sign a 
``discharge petition'' that forced the Republican leadership to bring 
this important matter before the entire Congress again for a vote.
  While we are assured a vote today, opponents of reform, including the 
Republican leadership of this House, are working hard to once again use 
parliamentary tricks to block or weaken meaningful campaign finance 
reform.
  My hope is that the collapse of Enron is the straw that will break 
the back of opposition to real campaign finance reform. We need reform 
that will shine the light on the shadows of doubt left by the Enron 
scandal.
  We need to pass the Shays-Meehan soft money ban today so that 
tomorrow our children can have a brighter future.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a principal sponsor of the 
campaign finance legislation before the House. I want to explain what 
this legislation seeks to accomplish and why banning soft money is 
critical for our democracy. Last year, the Senate courageously passed 
the McCain-Feingold bill. It is now time for this House to take a 
similar stand and finally put an end to the deluge of soft money 
contributions that weakens our democracy.
  Our system is awash in soft money, and everyone is degraded as a 
result. Not surprisingly, in poll after poll, voters express their 
cynicism about politics and their dismay with the current campaign 
finance system. Disgusted with the overriding influence of money in 
Washington, citizens, in ever-increasing numbers, are not exercising 
their precious right to vote in federal elections.
  Our flawed campaign finance system is also taking its toll on 
qualified and principled candidates for political office. Since soft 
money contributions are essentially limitless, we and other elected 
officials are under unrelenting pressure to raise more and more money, 
thus increasing the potential for actual and apparent corruption. In 
increasing numbers, good people decide not to run, or drop out of 
public life, because they cannot stomach the hunt for huge donations 
and all that comes with it. Those elected officials who stay spend far 
too much time fundraising and not enough time listening to their 
constituents and doing their jobs.
  The reform legislation we introduce today strengthens First Amendment 
values. It will ensure that elected officials are more responsive to 
the voices of their constituents and do not appear beholden only to big 
money. As your own constituents would surely tell you, stemming the 
tide of soft money would improve their access to government--and 
enhance their First Amendment rights--by allowing them to participate 
in the process. And it will keep good people interested in serving in 
Government. Neither the First Amendment nor or Nation is served by 
large soft money donations that drive citizens away from voting in 
elections and candidates away from running in them. So, this is not 
only a campaign finance reform bill, it is a democracy revitalization 
bill.
  Let's look at the growth of soft money in our campaigns. According to 
Common Cause, in 1988, the two parties raised a total of $45 million in 
soft money. In 1992, the figure rose dramatically to $84.4 million. In 
1996, soft money contributions ballooned to $235.9 million--almost a 
quarter of a billion dollars. In this past presidential election, the 
total amount of soft money raised by both parties climbed still further 
to a staggering $463.1 million--nearly double the soft money 
contributions of the previous presidential election and ten times the 
amount raised only a decade ago.

[[Page H352]]

  These vast amounts could not have been raised directly for a 
candidate's campaign under current law, which subjects individual 
contributions to an aggregate $25,000 annual limit and a $1,000 per 
candidate per election limit. Despite these clear caps on legal 
contributions, individuals are contributing up to $100,000 and 
$250,000. Moreover, unions and corporations--entities that are barred 
from giving directly to candidates from their general treasuries--are 
responsible for many of these contributions.
  Opponents of reform argue that this flood of soft money does not 
corrupt our politicians and does not even appear to corrupt the 
political process. They argue that soft money contributions are 
technically made to political parties, and not to candidates, and thus 
any exchange of favors for contributions is unlikely. Soft money may 
not be used to advocate expressly for a candidate, they argue, so there 
is less chance that soft money donors will actually influence 
candidates, or at least appear to influence them.
  That argument elevates form over the substance most Americans 
ruefully see. First, even though the money often goes to parties, it's 
the candidates themselves and their surrogates who solicit soft money. 
The candidates know who makes these huge contributions and what these 
contributors expect. Candidates not only solicit these funds 
themselves, they meet with big donors who have important issues pending 
before the government; and sometimes, the candidates' or the party's 
position appear to change after such meetings. Additionally, the soft 
money candidates raise for their political parties is often directed 
back into their campaigns. This creates the appearance of corruption 
that pervades politics today--on both sides of the aisle. Let me 
discuss some powerful reminders of this distressing fact about our 
democracy.

  Let's take the already infamous Enron story as an example: in the 
1999/2000 election cycle Enron contributed over $2 million in soft 
money to the national parties--$1.4 million to the Republicans, and 
$600,000 to the Democrats. These large soft money gifts have cost a 
pall of doubt over the many elected federal officials who raised or 
received Enron's money. The Enron example proves that the appearance of 
impropriety has the same corrosive effect as actual impropriety. 
Federal officeholders, knowing that their reputations are being tainted 
and their good character being questioned by receipt of Enron 
contributions are rushing headlong to return contributions they were 
only too willing to accept before the scandal broke. The actions and 
motives of government officials who did deal with, or could have dealt 
with Enron, are being called into question. For example, The New Yorker 
asks whether Administration officials, who might have taken actions 
that would have cushioned the impact of Enron's fall on employees and 
the economy, declined to act precisely because they were afraid the 
public would conclude their actions were motivated by the large soft 
money contributions Enron gave to the Republican Party. The Washington 
Post asks whether the policy views of a Senator as esteemed for probity 
as Senator Lieberman are subject to question because of his receipt of 
contributions. Even in the investigations into Enron do not yield 
convincing proof of a particular quid pro quo, the Enron contributions 
have brought leaders of both parties into disrepute in the eyes of the 
public.
  Let's also recall the Hudson Casino story. A few years ago, three 
bands of Wisconsin Indian tribes wanted to open a casino in Hudson, WI, 
near the Minnesota border. A neighboring set of Minnesota tribes 
opposed the plan, because the Wisconsin casino would compete with their 
profitable casino. These Minnesota tribes gave large sums of soft money 
to the Democratic National Committee. This gave them instant access to 
the Chairman of the DNC, who promised to get the Administration to 
help. He immediately called a high-ranking White House official, who in 
turn contacted the Department of the Interior--immediately after the 
Minnesota tribes had made substantial contributions to the DNC. This 
chain of events, and Interior's rejection of the Wisconsin application, 
created the strong appearance of impropriety even though Interior 
career staff had decided the case on the merits. This led to an 
independent counsel investigation and two debilitating congressional 
investigations into whether the government was for sale.
  The tobacco industry provides another example. As the Thompson 
Committee Minority Report makes clear, in the 1996 election cycle, the 
tobacco industry gave roughly $10.1 million in political contributions, 
of which $6.8 million was soft money. In previous election cycles, the 
industry divided its campaign contributions equally between the 
parties, but in 1996 over 80 percent went to the Republicans. The GOP 
collected $5.8 million in soft money from tobacco interests and tobacco 
PACs. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association noted that ``House members receiving the most tobacco money 
were 14.4 times as likely to vote with the industry as members 
receiving the least; in the Senate the number was 42.2. In the 104th 
Congress, the Republican majority defeated legislation that would have 
raised taxes on tobacco and preserved millions of dollars in subsidies 
for the industry. Again the appearance of improper influence is 
overwhelming.
  Finally, we have Roger Tamraz. He served as a Republican Eagle in the 
1980s during Republican Administrations and a Democratic Trustee in the 
1990s during a Democratic Administration. In 1996, Tamraz has already 
contributed $200,000 to the Democratic National Committee, and made it 
clear he was considering donating an additional $400,000. These 
promises enabled him to hold six private meetings with the President to 
discuss Mr. Tamraz's proposed oil pipeline project in the Caucasus. 
Although the National Security Council, which strong opposed this plan, 
ultimately prevailed, a series of calls were made to employees of the 
Department of Energy and the National Security Council making it very 
clear that a change in policy would mean ``a lot of money for the 
DNC.'' Tamraz unabashedly explained why he gave--to gain access to 
officials in power. At the Thompson Committee hearings Tamraz spoke 
plainly--``I think next time I'll give $600,000. . . . [Y]ou set the 
rules, and we are following the rules. . . . This is politics as usual. 
What is new?''

  Sadly, there are other blockbuster stories like these. But, as 
Representative Eric Fingerhut wisely reminded us a few years ago, 
people often focus just on ``the grand-slam example of the influence of 
these interests. But you can [also] find a million singles . . . 
regulator change, banking committee legislation . . . a change in when 
you get audited. . . . Think of the committee and you can think of the 
interest group or the company that will have an interest. . . .'' Let's 
all be honest with ourselves: we have all been in situations where we 
would rather fit in an appointment with a contributor than risk losing 
his or her donation. When, as a result of a Member's efforts, someone 
makes a significant donation to the party, and then the donor calls the 
Member a month later and wants to meet, it's very difficult to say no, 
and few of us do say no.
  A majority of the Supreme Court correctly observed in its Colorado 
Republican II decision, which upheld limits on the coordinated 
expenditures of political parties, that the parties ``act as agents for 
spending on behalf of those who seek to produce obligated 
officeholders.'' The Supreme Court quoted former Senator Paul Simon, 
who explained: ``I believe people contribute to party committees on 
both sides of the aisle for the same reason that Federal Express [and 
other industries do], because they want favors.'' The former Senator 
also recounted a debate over a bill favored by Federal Express during 
which a colleague exclaimed ``we've got to pay attention to who is 
buttering our bread.'' The Supreme Court concluded in Colorado 
Republican II that it would be myopic to refuse ``to see how the power 
of money actually works in the political structure.''
  Mr. Chairman, the massive soft money loophole that has eviscerated 
the campaign finance laws is having an insidious effect on the health 
of our democracy. Our democracy is dependent for its vitality on 
citizen participation and engagement--citizens who care, citizens who 
vote, citizens who run for and serve in office. But look what is 
happening.
  The current system has turned voters off--they are increasingly 
cynical about politics and politicians, and fewer are exercising their 
right to vote. In poll after poll, voters express their cynicism about 
politics and the campaign finance system. A recent Time magazine poll 
found that in 1961, 76 percent of Americans said they trusted the 
government; in 2001, only 19 percent expressed the same trust. A 1997 
New York Times poll found that 89 percent of Americans believe the 
country's campaign finance system is in need of fundamental changes, 75 
percent polled believe that their public officials make or change 
policy decisions as a result of money received from major contributors. 
A Fox News poll from May 2001 found that over 80 percent of the public 
believes that big companies and PACs have too much control in 
Washington.
  As former Senator George Mitchell has said: ``The public has come to 
believe that members of Congress are not responsive to their 
constituents, but rather are responsive to those who contribute the 
funds that help members of Congress get elected. It is a corrupting 
view, in that it corrupts the trust and confidence that people must 
have in a democratic society. . . .'' Former Senator Wyche Fowler 
echoed these views: ``The public has now lost confidence in [Congress]. 
Because the public now thinks that it is money--and only money--that 
makes the decisions.''
  This general distrust has discouraged our future leaders--the young 
generation--from going to the polls. In 1972, the first time 18-year-
olds could vote, 50 percent of 18-24 year-olds cast a vote. By 1996, 
that number

[[Page H353]]

had fallen to 32 percent. There is much evidence--and our own 
experience with our constituents confirms--that one of the major 
reasons citizens increasingly fail to vote is their perception that 
their vote makes no difference because of the role of money in politics 
and the influence of special interest groups. In one survey asking 
young people why they do not vote, a plurality said ``they don't think 
their vote makes a difference''; 64 percent agreed that ``government is 
run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, not for the 
benefit of all.'' In another recent poll, 57 percent expressed 
dissatisfaction with the political system. Many emphasized that 
politicians can't be trusted, that money plays too large a role in 
politics, and that special interest groups disproportionately influence 
policy.

  It is vital to the continued health of our democracy that the 
citizenry remain alert and involved and participate by, among other 
things, voting in federal elections. The need to reverse the lack of 
confidence voters feel in their elected officials and their resulting 
lack of engagement in the political process is a compelling 
justification for banning soft money contributions. The Supreme Court 
would seem to agree. In its recent Shrink Missouri decision it said: 
``[l]eave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical 
assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the 
willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.'' Our 
Supreme Court has consistently held that view for over 25 years. In 
Buckley, the Court observed that even where the influence of money does 
not rise to the level of bribery, it can work subtly to erode public 
confidence in the system to the detriment of our democracy.
  It is also important to the health of our democracy that qualified 
people come forward to run in elections and to serve as elected 
representatives. Having the best candidates is good not only in and of 
itself for obvious reasons but will increase citizen participation in 
elections. Unfortunately, in recent years, some of our finest 
legislators across the nation--such as Senator Nunn--have left public 
service, bemoaning our system of financing campaigns. The average 
senator has to raise $11,600 every week during his or her six years in 
office in order to be reelected. Former Senator DeConcini of Arizona 
put it: ``You walk around on eggshells. One of the reasons I got out of 
the race was that I didn't want to raise the money.'' As Thomas Mann of 
the Brookings Institution has explained: ``The threat to the health of 
the American democracy stems rather from what candidates and their 
supporters must do to raise the sums needed to complete successfully. 
The cost of mounting a major campaign is a huge disincentive to 
candidacy for people of ordinary means who lack the stomach for nonstop 
fund raising.''
  The soft-money ban that forms the core of this legislation aims to 
restore public faith in our democracy. By enacting this legislation, we 
will, in Senator McCain's words, ``change the public's widespread 
belief that politicians have no greater purpose than [their] own 
reelection.'' We have a historic opportunity here not only to end the 
appearance of corruption, but to reinvigorate our democracy by making 
individual citizens' votes count, and by encouraging the most qualified 
candidates to run for election.
  Mr. Chairman, since the 1971 passage of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act and the Buckley decision, there have been strict limits on 
contributions given by individuals and political action committees to 
federal candidates. But, as many have recognized, the soft-money 
loophole undermines these curbs. As the Washington Post put it: ``The 
national party organizations are used to raise and spend on behalf of 
their candidates funds that the candidates are forbidden to raise and 
spend themselves. It's a fictional distinction.'' Although FECA 
provides clear contribution limits, candidates and parties easily 
circumvent FECA's hard money restrictions by raising soft money. In its 
most recent decision on campaign finance, the Supreme Court observed 
that our political parties are ``in a position to be used to circumvent 
contribution limits that apply to individuals and PACs, and thereby to 
exacerbate the threat of corruption and apparent corruption that those 
contribution limits are aimed at reducing.'' In a recent memorandum of 
Soft Money Rulemaking, the Federal Election Commission's General 
Counsel found that ``national party committees rely in large part on 
the access they can provide to federal officials, or on the more direct 
influence of federal officeholders and candidates, to solicit large 
sums from corporations, labor unions, and other donors that provide 
most of their soft money.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is vital for our democracy that we act today to ban 
soft money. Soft money has reintroduced into the Federal campaign 
finance system the very kinds of contributions that the federal laws 
intended to exclude--namely donations from corporations, unions, as 
well as large individual contributions. Soft money is not just a 
loophole, it is the loophole that ate the law. Let's send a clear 
message today that our democracy--and our integrity--is not for sale.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this evening's legislation is near and 
dear to my heart. I began my political career in college working on 
election reform. Two years later, I was the author of Oregon's 
legislation establishing campaign spending limits. It was my proposal 
that prohibited the insidious practice of holding legislation hostage 
until individuals and interest groups in effect paid ``ransom'' to 
legislative barons. So, in recent years, I have been saddened that 
narrow and, I think inappropriate, readings of the Oregon and U.S. 
Constitution have restricted the ability of the political process to 
police itself.
  Our current campaign financing system is doubly troubling for me 
because it symbolizes not only what is wrong with campaigns but also 
what is wrong with the decision-making process in Congress. It is 
appalling the lengths to which the political process has been twisted 
and the huge sums of money that are spent opposing reasonable 
legislation and moderate candidates. The extreme, hard-edged and too-
often hidden opponents of the public interest which are financed by 
soft money and anonymous contributions create a situation where the 
sheer volume of expenditure drowns out rational discourse.
  A campaign finance system where large contributors and special 
interest groups have the loudest voice threatens the foundation of our 
democracy. It calls into question the integrity of our elections and of 
our government. We have a responsibility to strengthen our democracy by 
eliminating the influence of soft money. Large soft-money donations and 
anonymous political attack ads have a corrosive influence on the 
political process. Soft money is bad for the people who give it, bad 
for the people who receive it and bad for the American people.
  I have supported the Shays-Meehan legislation since I came to 
Congress. We need to reduce the amount of time that is taken away from 
legislative business in order to pursue the mad chase for campaign 
dollars. The legislation before us is the best way to start. Keeping an 
open and accountable campaign finance system in this country is an 
ongoing struggle which too seldom commands the attention of either the 
Congress or the public in ways that it should. Today we've broken 
through that barrier.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, for ten years, I have supported every 
meaningful bill on campaign finance reform. Today, the House has a 
chance to make history by passing a bill that can become law.
  Many say this bill does not go far enough--and they are right. But it 
is a bill the Senate has passed--and passing it today avoids a 
conference, which could well become a graveyard.
  I say, let's take this important step.
  I have experienced the impact of soft money ads designed to distort 
my record. Approximately $4 million worth of these ads targeted me in 
the 2000 election cycle. This practice drives good people out of 
politics and discourages voters. Indeed, the whole point is to depress 
voting.
  I say enough.
  Shays-Meehan can pass today. The time has come.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2356, 
the bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform legislation. It is 
time that we take the soft money out of our political system.
  In fact, not only do I support eliminating soft money, but I support 
full public financing for campaigns. I am hopeful that once Shays-
Meehan passes and is signed into law that we can focus our efforts on 
passing legislation to provide for public financing.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of Shays-Meehan and a signer of the 
discharge petition to bring this important legislation to the floor 
today. I want to thank the sponsors of this legislation especially for 
committing to voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities, which 
are essential for the election of minority candidates.
  The Enron scandal has shown us once again the importance of passing 
meaningful campaign finance reform. While Enron and Arthur Andersen 
executives and the corporations donated over $11 million to political 
campaigns since 1989, workers at Enron lost their jobs and their life 
savings. This is an outrage and once again shows the need for corporate 
responsibility and of course for passage of Shays-Meehan.
  Let's get the money out of politics. That's what campaign finance 
reform is all about. That means banning soft money and certainly not 
increasing hard money. Let's defeat these amendments that take us in 
the wrong direction, those that take us away from real reform.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for a clean Shays-Meehan bill and to 
defeat all poison pill amendments.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act as presented by my distinguished colleagues Mr. 
Meehan and Mr. Shays. This bill

[[Page H354]]

represents a watershed in our democracy. Today, we can remove from 
campaigns the shadow of special interests and move toward an electoral 
system in which every American will have an equal voice in our 
democratic process.
  For too long, our nation's campaigns have been tainted by soft money 
sleight-of-hand, campaigns in which large amounts of money are 
solicited from a few contributors and mysteriously distributed.
  For too long, we have winked as soft money came in by the truckload 
for ``party-enhancing activities'' when it was common knowledge that it 
really was used for ``issue ads'' that came uncomfortably close to 
supporting candidates.
  Many took advantage of the soft money loophole to gain inordinate 
access to our country's leaders and lowered our nation's political 
parties to little more than middlemen for moving soft money for 
corporations and wealthy individuals.
  In the past few weeks, in my capacity on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have had 
the opportunity to observe how some corporations have attempted to 
escape scrutiny in part by taking advantage of the loopholes in our 
campaign system. I have seen how the company's dealings have raised 
questions in the minds of Americans about how soft money can be used to 
gain access, influence, and power.
  Our democracy cannot operate at its best without openness. This 
legislation will shine light onto the campaign finance process, 
bringing disclosure, structure, and accountability. This legislation 
disarms both political parties, limiting soft money from both 
corporations and unions. It increases the amount of hard money that can 
be contributed and allows adequate funds for our state parties to 
conduct vital get out the vote activities.
  I would like to commend my colleagues for their persistence and 
perseverance in their effort to get their bill passed. They have 
compromised on important measures in order to gain bi-partisan support. 
Their efforts to move this legislation forward are a tribute to those 
who have fought and died for a free and just nation, to those who have 
struggled for an open and honest political system. I urge my colleagues 
to not let this moment pass us by, to vote for the Shays/Meehan bill 
and for a reformed campaign finance system that will clean up our 
campaigns and give our political process back to the people.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, as one who has consistently supported the 
Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform bill (H.R. 2356) and who signed 
its discharge petition, I rise in strong support of this critical 
reform legislation. I also would like to recognize the leadership of 
Chris Shays and Marty Meehan, as well as my Texas colleague, Jim 
Turner, on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, our campaign finance laws must be reformed to reduce 
the influence of money in politics and restore the balance originally 
achieved by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 (FECA). Since 
coming to Congress in 1995, I have come to believe that our political 
process faces the very real risk of being hijacked by the prevalence of 
``soft money'' contributions. In the last election cycle alone, the two 
major parties took in nearly $500 million in soft money. Certainly, 
such huge, unregulated ``soft money'' contributions to political 
parties threaten to corrupt the integrity of our political process. Mr. 
Chairman, Shays-Meehan represents an extraordinary opportunity to give 
voice to citizens whose individual voices are increasingly being 
drowned out by unregulated issue ads that purport to provide voter 
education but are actually not-so-veiled efforts at influencing the 
public's views of a certain political candidate.
  H.R. 2356 strikes a critical balance between the need to protect our 
rights to free speech, guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, and the 
need to make meaningful reforms to our political system. Shays-Meehan 
would ban the raising of soft money by national parties and federal 
candidates that is currently outside the restrictions and prohibitions 
of the federal regulatory framework. H.R. 2356 would, however, allow 
State and local parties to accept annual donations of $10,000 per 
individual for get-out-the-vote and voter-registration efforts in 
federal elections, so long as such efforts do not mention a federal 
candidate. Additionally, Shays-Meehan places new limits on aggregate 
individual contributions to national political parties and candidates 
for president and Congress at $95,000. Of that, no more than $57,500 of 
that could be given to party organizations, and $37,500 to candidates. 
I am also pleased that H.R. 2356 requires greater FEC disclosure 
requirements for independent expenditures of more than $1,000 made 
within 20 days of an election. I do not believe disclosure, in and of 
itself, stifles Free Speech.
  Though I support Shays-Meehan, I recognize that it is not perfect. 
One troubling aspect is how it raises the hard money limit on 
contributions to Senate candidates to $2,000 but maintains the $1,000 
for hard money limit contributions to House candidates. The last time 
we were slated to consider Shays-Meehan in the House, I submitted an 
amendment to the House Rules Committee to maintain the hard money limit 
of $1,000 for all candidates for Federal elective offices. Though I 
strongly believe that my amendment would have enhanced Shays-Meehan, it 
was blocked by the Republican leadership. Alternatively, the 
Republicans will propose raising the level of hard dollars that House 
candidates can raise to $2,000 per cycle. While I strongly oppose the 
disparity between the House and Senate, I do not support raising hard 
money limits to $2,000, as proposed in the Wamp amendment. I cannot see 
how injecting more hard money into our political system advances the 
goals of the underlying bill, Mr. Chairman, be assured that once Shays-
Meehan clears the House, I will continue to work at having the 
disparity in hard money limits to be fully addressed.

  Additionally, I would note that I have some concerns over how the 
measure restricts independent advertisements within 60 days of an 
election by unions, corporations and nonprofits but allows political 
action committees (PACs) associated with unions and corporations to 
donate soft money for such ads so long as the ads do not expressly 
advocate support or opposition for a candidate. Though I believe that a 
blanket prohibition on direct expenditures by unions, corporations and 
nonprofits may raise some constitutional questions, I support this 
provision because it will create greater transparency in the crucial 
days before an election.
  Finally, in recent days, I have heard from a number of local Texas 
broadcasters who voiced serious concerns about how Shays-Meehan's 
lowest unit charge (LUC) provision will impact their abilities to sell 
broadcast ads. Under Shays-Meehan, stations would be compelled to sell 
air time to Federal candidates at the best advertising rate of last 180 
days. Having campaigned in a major media market, I appreciate the goal 
of this provision--to ensure that candidates are not priced out of 
television, a powerful medium to reach voters. That being said, I am 
concerned that extending special treatment exclusively to federal 
candidates would result in state and local candidates, and for that 
matter local small businesses, becoming priced out of the market. For 
this reason, I am supporting an amendment offered by my colleague, Gene 
Green, to maintain the current LUC rules which qualify political 
candidates to the same rate as the broadcaster's most favored 
commercial advertiser.
  Mr. Chairman, despite my concerns about individual provisions, the 
train has left the station on this issue, leaving members with two 
choices. They can hop aboard or get out of the way. Mr. Chairman, at 
this time it is critical that this body beat back the efforts of those 
among us who would try to derail the process, by offering amendments 
that are sure to divide the fragile coalition for reform. While Shays-
Meehan may not be perfect, it does represent our best chance at 
instituting the broadest reform of our Nation's campaign finance laws 
in a quarter century. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
get behind this effort and approve Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely support H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan 
Campaign Finance Reform Act.
  Our current campaign finance system contributes now to a culture of 
cynicism. It hurts our institutions, it hurts our government, and it is 
an attack on the integrity of our political process.
  Our Congress must be unbought and unbossed.
  That's why I want to stop the flood of unregulated and unreported 
money in campaigns. I want to eliminate the undue influence of special 
interests in elections. I want to encourage strong grassroots 
participation. And I would like to return power to where it belongs--
with the people.
  The Shays-Meehan bill does this: It bans soft money raised by 
national parties and by candidates for Federal office. It ends issue 
ads, which are really attack ads under the guide of ``issues.'' And, it 
clarifies what election activities non-profits can do on behalf of our 
candidates for Federal office.
  We must ban soft money. It is nothing more than a backdoor way to 
avoid the contribution limits that are now placed on candidates. Soft 
money is influencing our process almost as much as direct contributions 
to candidates do. In fact, Republicans and Democrats raised over $460 
million in 2000 in soft money. And let's face it, special interest 
groups that contribute large sums of this soft money have an influence 
on the political process.
  This is why we need to pass Shays-Meehan.
  In 2000, we spent $3 billion on election activities. That is too much 
time and too much money spent on fundraising when it could be spent on 
doing what is important--passing legislation to improve our health 
care, our education system, and our economic stability.

[[Page H355]]

  We must do more to address the fact that the largest voting block in 
America is the no-shows. Campaign Finance Reform can deal with this 
cynicism.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest way to pass Shays-Meehan. It 
will be one of the best things we can do for democracy.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill. We must take action now 
to clean our political financing system, eliminate corrupting special 
interests, and enhance accountability. As we have seen in years past, 
the role of soft money on our campaign system extends far beyond our 
nation's borders. Not only are corporations and unions able to pump 
exorbitant amounts of soft money into Federal campaigns under current 
law, but so too are foreign nationals across the globe.
  In the last ten years, China has stood out as the most infamous 
contributor of soft money funds, particularly during the 1996 election 
cycle. Beginning in 1995, reports indicate that Chinese officials 
planned on channeling more than $2 million in to U.S. presidential and 
congressional campaigns. By supporting Shays-Meehan, we have a genuine 
opportunity to shut down this source of funds that has become 
synonymous with the 1996 Presidential election. Foreign nationals in 
China took advantage of the massive soft money loophole to funnel 
illegal funds into Federal political campaigns through campaign 
committees, and as current law states, nothing will stop them from 
repeating these practices. Because there are no current disclosure 
requirements for the funding sources of issue ads, foreign governments 
could finance advertising efforts with complete anonymity.
  We must pass comprehensive legislation that eliminates this soft 
money loophole and the growing potential influence of nations such as 
China. The Shays-Meehan bill will completely ban soft money fund-
raising for national parties. If the Shays-Meehan bill had been in 
effect in 1996, China's negative role in influencing campaigns could 
have been avoided.
  In the wake of September 11, global security is one of the highest 
priorities for the United States. We must not undermine our nation's 
federal election process by leaving a gaping loophole for foreign 
nationals to exert their potentially harmful influence. The sooner we 
pass the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill, the sooner we will be able 
to eliminate the negative influence of governments on our nation's 
democratic process.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this will be one of the most 
important votes of the year--in fact, it likely will be one of the most 
important for years to come.
  The legislation before us addresses one of the most serious threats 
to the continued health of our democracy--the perception that the 
national government is for sale to the highest bidder.
  I say perception, because I think all of us are motivated by a 
sincere desire to make decisions that are in the best interests of our 
country and that are based on the best information available. I know 
that my judgment is not for sale, and I am confident that goes for 
every one of our colleagues as well.
  But I also understand why many people think otherwise.
  They know that since 1988 both parties have increasingly used funds 
that are supposed to go for party-building--so-called ``soft money''--
to instead support or oppose candidates through the unsubtle subterfuge 
of so-called ``issue ads'' and similar devices. And they know that past 
attempts to stop that subterfuge have been stopped by a veto or by 
obstruction
  So, it is not surprising that many people think that money talks so 
loudly that they cannot be heard.
  All too often, that is the perception--and as we all know, when it 
comes to public opinion perception is reality. I want to change that 
perception by changing its cause--the ``soft money'' loopholes in 
current law. I believe we need to get rid of unlimited ``soft money'' 
contributions and act to open the election process to all.
  This is not a new position for me. Starting with my first year as a 
Member of Congress, I have been a cosponsor of the Shays-Meehan 
campaign finance legislation. I have consistently voted in support of 
similar legislation since 1999. I signed the discharge petition that 
has brought the bill to the floor today.
  And I supported the Shays-Meehan substitute and opposed amendments to 
it because I want the House to pass a bill as similar as possible to 
the McCain-Feingold bill that has already passed the Senate. I think 
that was essential because otherwise there would have been too great a 
risk that the bill will die in conference.
  I am well aware that this legislation is not perfect. But no 
legislation is perfect, and this bill makes crucial improvements in 
campaign-finance laws. It deserves and needs to be enacted.
  And so now, as we come to the time for a final decision, I urge all 
our colleagues to join me in voting for passage of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2356 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2356

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan 
     Campaign Reform Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for State committees of 
              political parties and aggregate contribution limit for 
              individuals.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.

              TITLE II--NONCANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

Sec. 201. Disclosure of electioneering communications.
Sec. 202. Coordinated communications as contributions.
Sec. 203. Prohibition of corporate and labor disbursements for 
              electioneering communications.
Sec. 204. Rules relating to certain targeted electioneering 
              communications.

          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

Sec. 211. Definition of independent expenditure.
Sec. 212. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 213. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 214. Coordination with candidates or political parties.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 301. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 303. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 304. Modification of individual contribution limits in response to 
              expenditures from personal funds.
Sec. 305. Television media rates.
Sec. 306. Limitation on availability of lowest unit charge for Federal 
              candidates attacking opposition.
Sec. 307. Software for filing reports and prompt disclosure of 
              contributions.
Sec. 308. Modification of contribution limits.
Sec. 309. Donations to Presidential inaugural committee.
Sec. 310. Prohibition on fraudulent solicitation of funds.
Sec. 311. Study and report on Clean Money Clean Elections laws.
Sec. 312. Clarity standards for identification of sponsors of election-
              related advertising.
Sec. 313. Increase in penalties.
Sec. 314. Statute of limitations.
Sec. 315. Sentencing guidelines.
Sec. 316. Increase in penalties imposed for violations of conduit 
              contribution ban.
Sec. 317. Restriction on increased contribution limits by taking into 
              account candidate's available funds.
Sec. 318. Clarification of right of nationals of the United States to 
              make political contributions.
Sec. 319. Prohibition of contributions by minors.
Sec. 320. Definition of contributions made through intermediary or 
              conduit for purposes of applying contribution limits.
Sec. 321. Prohibiting authorized committees from forming joint 
              fundraising committees with political party committees.
Sec. 322. Regulations to prohibit efforts to evade requirements.

                 TITLE IV--SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 401. Severability.
Sec. 402. Effective date.
Sec. 403. Judicial review.

               TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Internet access to records.
Sec. 502. Maintenance of website of election reports.
Sec. 503. Additional monthly and quarterly disclosure reports.
Sec. 504. Public access to broadcasting records.

            TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

     SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.

       ``(a) National Committees.--

[[Page H356]]

       ``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political 
     party (including a national congressional campaign committee 
     of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to 
     another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds 
     or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.-- The prohibition established by 
     paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of such a national 
     committee, and any entity that is directly or indirectly 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such a 
     national committee.
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     amount that is expended or disbursed for Federal election 
     activity by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party (including an entity that is directly or 
     indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     and an officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity), or by an association or similar group of candidates 
     for State or local office or individuals holding State or 
     local office, shall be made from funds subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Applicability.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding clause (i) or (ii) of 
     section 301(20)(A), and subject to subparagraph (B), 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any amount expended or 
     disbursed  by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party in existence as of the date of the 
     enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 
     for an activity described in either such clause to the 
     extent the amounts expended or disbursed for such activity 
     are allocated under regulations prescribed by the 
     Commission which require not less than 50 percent of the 
     amounts expended or disbursed be paid from a Federal 
     allocation account consisting solely of contributions 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act (not including funds specifically 
     authorized to be spent under subparagraph (B)(iii)).
       ``(B) Conditions.--Subparagraph (A) shall only apply if--
       ``(i) the activity does not refer to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office;
       ``(ii) the amounts expended or disbursed are not for the 
     costs of any broadcasting, cable, or satellite communication, 
     other than a communication which refers solely to a clearly 
     identified candidate for State or local office;
       ``(iii) the amounts expended or disbursed which are not 
     from a Federal allocation account described in subparagraph 
     (A) are paid from amounts which are donated in accordance 
     with State law and which meet the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C), except that no person (including any person 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such 
     person) may donate more than $10,000 to a State, district, or 
     local committee of a political party in a calendar year for 
     such expenditures or disbursements; and
       ``(iv) the amounts expended or disbursed are made solely 
     from funds raised by the State, local, or district committee 
     which makes such expenditure or disbursement, and do not 
     include any funds provided to such committee from--

       ``(I) any other State, local, or district committee of any 
     State party,
       ``(II) the national committee of a political party 
     (including a national congressional campaign committee of a 
     political party),
       ``(III) any officer or agent acting on behalf of any 
     committee described in subclause (I) or (II), or
       ``(IV) any entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any committee 
     described in subclause (I) or (II).

       ``(C) Prohibiting involvement of national parties, federal 
     candidates and officeholders, and state parties acting 
     jointly.--Notwithstanding subsection (e) (other than 
     subsection (e)(3)), amounts specifically authorized to be 
     spent under subparagraph (B)(iii) meet the requirements of 
     this subparagraph only if the amounts--
       ``(i) are not solicited, received, directed, transferred, 
     or spent by or in the name of any person described in 
     subsection (a) or (e); and
       ``(ii) are not solicited, received, or directed through 
     fundraising activities conducted jointly by 2 or more State, 
     local, or district committees of any political party or their 
     agents, or by a State, local, or district committee of a 
     political party on behalf of the State, local, or district 
     committee of a political party or its agent in one or more 
     other States.
       ``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a person 
     described in subsection (a) or (b) to raise funds that are 
     used, in whole or in part, for expenditures and disbursements 
     for a Federal election activity shall be made from funds 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act.
       ``(d) Tax-Exempt Organizations.--A national, State, 
     district, or local committee of a political party (including 
     a national congressional campaign committee of a political 
     party), an entity that is directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national, 
     State, district, or local committee or its agent, and an 
     officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee 
     or entity, shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct 
     any donations to--
       ``(1) an organization that is described in section 501(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 
     under section 501(a) of such Code (or has submitted an 
     application for determination of tax exempt status under such 
     section) and that makes expenditures or disbursements in 
     connection with an election for Federal office (including 
     expenditures or disbursements for Federal election activity); 
     or
       ``(2) an organization described in section 527 of such Code 
     (other than a political committee, a State, district, or 
     local committee of a political party, or the authorized 
     campaign committee of a candidate for State or local office).
       ``(e) Federal Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal 
     office, agent of a candidate or an individual holding Federal 
     office, or an entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of 
     1 or more candidates or individuals holding Federal office, 
     shall not--
       ``(A) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with an election for Federal office, including 
     funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act; or
       ``(B) solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 
     connection with any election other than an election for 
     Federal office or disburse funds in connection with such an 
     election unless the funds--
       ``(i) are not in excess of the amounts permitted with 
     respect to contributions to candidates and political 
     committees under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     315(a); and
       ``(ii) are not from sources prohibited by this Act from 
     making contributions in connection with an election for 
     Federal office.
       ``(2) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the 
     solicitation, receipt, or spending of funds by an individual 
     described in such paragraph who is also a candidate for a 
     State or local office solely in connection with such election 
     for State or local office if the solicitation, receipt, or 
     spending of funds is permitted under State law and refers 
     only to such State or local candidate, or to any other 
     candidate for the State or local office sought by such 
     candidate, or both.
       ``(3) Fundraising events.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or 
     subsection (b)(2)(C), a candidate or an individual holding 
     Federal office may attend, speak, or be a featured guest at a 
     fundraising event  for a State, district, or local committee 
     of a political party.
       ``(4) Limitation applicable for purposes of solicitation of 
     donations by individuals to certain organizations.--In the 
     case of the solicitation of funds by any person described in 
     paragraph (1) on behalf of any entity described in subsection 
     (d) which is made specifically for funds to be used for 
     activities described in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 
     301(20)(A), or made for any such entity which engages 
     primarily in activities described in such clauses, the 
     limitation applicable for purposes of a donation of funds by 
     an individual shall be the limitation set forth in section 
     315(a)(1)(D).
       ``(5) Treatment of amounts used to influence or challenge 
     state reapportionment.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     prevent or limit an individual described in paragraph (1) 
     from soliciting or spending funds to be used exclusively for 
     the purpose of influencing the reapportionment decisions of a 
     State or the financing of litigation which relates 
     exclusively to the reapportionment decisions made by a State.
       ``(f) State Candidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--A candidate for State or local office, 
     individual holding State or local office, or an agent of such 
     a candidate or individual may not spend any funds for a 
     communication described in section 301(20)(A)(iii) unless the 
     funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and 
     reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(2) Exception for certain communications.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to an individual described in such paragraph 
     if the communication involved is in connection with an 
     election for such State or local office and refers only to 
     such individual or to any other candidate for the State or 
     local office held or sought by such individual, or both.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at 
     the end thereof the following:
       ``(20) Federal election activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity' 
     means--
       ``(i) voter registration activity during the period that 
     begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a 
     regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the 
     date of the election;
       ``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or 
     generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an 
     election in which a candidate for Federal office appears on 
     the ballot (regardless of whether a candidate for State or 
     local office also appears on the ballot);
       ``(iii) a public communication that refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of 
     whether a candidate for State or local office is also 
     mentioned or identified) and that promotes or supports a 
     candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate 
     for that office (regardless

[[Page H357]]

     of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for 
     or against a candidate); or
       ``(iv) services provided during any month by an employee of 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     who spends more than 25 percent of that individual's 
     compensated time during that month on activities in 
     connection with a Federal election.
       ``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election 
     activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by 
     a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     for--
       ``(i) a public communication that refers solely to a 
     clearly identified candidate for State or local office, if 
     the communication is not a Federal election activity 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii);
       ``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local 
     office, provided the contribution is not designated or used 
     to pay for a Federal election activity described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political 
     convention;
       ``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials, 
     including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name 
     or depict only a candidate for State or local office; and
       ``(v) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office 
     facility or equipment for a State, district, or local 
     committee.
       ``(21) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic 
     campaign activity' means a campaign activity that promotes a 
     political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
     Federal candidate.
       ``(22) Public communication.--The term `public 
     communication' means a communication by means of any 
     broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, 
     magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or 
     telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of 
     general public political advertising.
       ``(23) Mass mailing.--The term `mass mailing' means a 
     mailing by United States mail or facsimile of more than 500 
     pieces of mail matter of an identical or substantially 
     similar nature within any 30-day period.
       ``(24) Telephone bank.--The term `telephone bank' means 
     more than 500 telephone calls of an identical or 
     substantially similar nature within any 30-day period.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES 
                   OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION 
                   LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political 
     Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in 
     subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to a political committee established and maintained 
     by a State committee of a political party in any calendar 
     year which, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000.''.
       (b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Political Committees.--
       ``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The 
     national committee of a political party, any national 
     congressional campaign committee of a political party, and 
     any subordinate committee of either, shall report all 
     receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
       ``(2) Other political committees to which section 323 
     applies.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to any other reporting 
     requirements applicable under this Act, a political committee 
     (not described in paragraph (1)) to which section 323(b)(1) 
     applies shall report all receipts and disbursements made for 
     activities described in section 301(20)(A).
       ``(B) Specific disclosure by state and local parties of 
     certain nonfederal amounts permitted to be spent on federal 
     election activity.--Each report by a political committee 
     under subparagraph (A) of receipts and disbursements made for 
     activities described in section 301(20)(A) shall include a 
     disclosure of all receipts and disbursements made section 
     323(b)(2)(A) and (B).
       ``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts 
     or disbursements to which this subsection applies from or to 
     any person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar 
     year, the political committee shall separately itemize its 
     reporting for such person in the same manner as required in 
     paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
       ``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed 
     under this subsection shall be filed for the same time 
     periods required for political committees under subsection 
     (a)(4)(B).''.
       (b) Building Fund Exception to the Definition of 
     Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (viii); and
       (2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xv) as clauses 
     (viii) through (xiv), respectively.

              TITLE II--NONCANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

     SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as amended by section 
     103, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Disclosure of Electioneering Communications.--
       ``(1) Statement required.--Every person who makes a 
     disbursement for the direct costs of producing and airing 
     electioneering communications in an aggregate amount in 
     excess of $10,000 during any calendar year shall, within 24 
     hours of each disclosure date, file with the Commission a 
     statement containing the information described in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be 
     filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of 
     perjury and shall contain the following information:
       ``(A) The identification of the person making the 
     disbursement, of any person sharing or exercising direction 
     or control over the activities of such person, and of the 
     custodian of the books and accounts of the person making the 
     disbursement.
       ``(B) The principal place of business of the person making 
     the disbursement, if not an individual.
       ``(C) The amount of each disbursement of more than $200 
     during the period covered by the statement and the 
     identification of the person to whom the disbursement was 
     made.
       ``(D) The elections to which the electioneering 
     communications pertain and the names (if known) of the 
     candidates identified or to be identified.
       ``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated 
     bank account which consists of funds contributed solely by 
     individuals who are United States citizens or nationals or 
     lawfully admitted for permanent residence as defined in 
     section 1101(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(2)) directly to this account for 
     electioneering communications, the names and addresses of all 
     contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 
     or more to that account during the period beginning on the 
     first day of the preceding calendar year and ending on the 
     disclosure date. Nothing in this subparagraph is to be 
     construed as a prohibition on the use of funds in such a 
     segregated account for a purpose other than electioneering 
     communications.
       ``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not 
     described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all 
     contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $1,000 or 
     more to the person making the disbursement during the period 
     beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar year and 
     ending on the disclosure date.
       ``(3) Electioneering communication.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--(i) The term `electioneering 
     communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication which--
       ``(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
     office;
       ``(II) is made within--

       ``(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff 
     election for the office sought by the candidate; or
       ``(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or 
     a convention or caucus of a political party that has 
     authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by 
     the candidate; and

       ``(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a 
     candidate for an office other than President or Vice 
     President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
       ``(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally 
     insufficient by final judicial decision to support the 
     regulation provided herein, then the term `electioneering 
     communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication which promotes or supports a candidate for that 
     office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office 
     (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates 
     a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is 
     suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation 
     to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation 
     or application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The term `electioneering communication' 
     does not include--
       ``(i) a communication appearing in a news story, 
     commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities 
     of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned 
     or controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate;
       ``(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or 
     an independent expenditure under this Act;
       ``(iii) a communication which constitutes a candidate 
     debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by 
     the Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or 
     forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring 
     the debate or forum; or
       ``(iv) any other communication exempted under such 
     regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with 
     the requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the

[[Page H358]]

     appropriate implementation of this paragraph, except that 
     under any such regulation a communication may not be exempted 
     if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is 
     described in section 301(20)(A)(iii).
       ``(C) Targeting to relevant electorate.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, a communication which refers to a clearly 
     identified candidate for Federal office is `targeted to the 
     relevant electorate' if the communication can be received by 
     50,000 or more persons--
       ``(i) in the district the candidate seeks to represent, in 
     the case of a candidate for Representative in, or Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress; or
       ``(ii) in the State the candidate seeks to represent, in 
     the case of a candidate for Senator.
       ``(4) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `disclosure date' means--
       ``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for the direct costs of 
     producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating 
     in excess of $10,000; and
       ``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a 
     person has made disbursements for the direct costs of 
     producing or airing electioneering communications aggregating 
     in excess of $10,000 since the most recent disclosure date 
     for such calendar year.
       ``(5) Contracts to disburse.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has executed a contract to make 
     the disbursement.
       ``(6) Coordination with other requirements.--Any 
     requirement to report under this subsection shall be in 
     addition to any other reporting requirement under this Act.
       ``(7) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in 
     this subsection may be construed to establish, modify, or 
     otherwise affect the definition of political activities or 
     electioneering activities (including the definition of 
     participating in, intervening in, or influencing or 
     attempting to influence a political campaign on behalf of or 
     in opposition to any candidate for public office) for 
     purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Responsibilities of Federal Communications 
     Commission.--The Federal Communications Commission shall 
     compile and maintain any information the Federal Election 
     Commission may require to carry out section 304(f) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by subsection 
     (a)), and shall make such information available to the public 
     on the Federal Communication Commission's website.

     SEC. 202. COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS AS CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 315(a)(7) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) if--
       ``(i) any person makes, or contracts to make, any 
     disbursement for any electioneering communication (within the 
     meaning of section 304(f)(3)); and
       ``(ii) such disbursement is coordinated with a candidate or 
     an authorized committee of such candidate, a Federal, State, 
     or local political party or committee thereof, or an agent or 
     official of any such candidate, party, or committee;

     such disbursement or contracting shall be treated as a 
     contribution to the candidate supported by the electioneering 
     communication or that candidate's party and as an expenditure 
     by that candidate or that candidate's party; and''.

     SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS 
                   FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or for any applicable electioneering 
     communication'' before ``, but shall not include''.
       (b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316 
     of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
       ``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `applicable electioneering 
     communication' means an electioneering communication (within 
     the meaning of section 304(f)(3)) which is made by any entity 
     described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other 
     person using funds donated by an entity described in 
     subsection (a) of this section.
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term 
     `applicable electioneering communication' does not include a 
     communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a 
     political organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of 
     such Code) made under section 304(f)(2)(E) or (F) of this Act 
     if the communication is paid for exclusively by funds 
     provided directly by individuals who are United States 
     citizens or nationals or lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence as defined in section 1101(a)(2) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(2)). For purposes of 
     the preceding sentence, the term `provided directly by 
     individuals' does not include funds the source of which is an 
     entity described in subsection (a) of this section.
       ``(3) Special operating rules.--
       ``(A) Definition under paragraph (1).--An electioneering 
     communication shall be treated as made by an entity described 
     in subsection (a) if an entity described in subsection (a) 
     directly or indirectly disburses any amount for any of the 
     costs of the communication.
       ``(B) Exception under paragraph (2).--A section 501(c)(4) 
     organization that derives amounts from business activities or 
     receives funds from any entity described in subsection (a) 
     shall be considered to have paid for any communication out of 
     such amounts unless such organization paid for the 
     communication out of a segregated account to which only 
     individuals can contribute, as described in section 
     304(f)(2)(E).
       ``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization' means--
       ``(i) an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under 
     section 501(a) of such Code; or
       ``(ii) an organization which has submitted an application 
     to the Internal Revenue Service for determination of its 
     status as an organization described in clause (i); and
       ``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a 
     disbursement if the person has executed a contract to make 
     the disbursement.
       ``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to authorize an 
     organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out any activity which 
     is prohibited under such Code.''.

     SEC. 204. RULES RELATING TO CERTAIN TARGETED ELECTIONEERING 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 316(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441b), as added by section 203, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Special rules for targeted communications.--
       ``(A) Exception does not apply.--Paragraph (2) shall not 
     apply in the case of a targeted communication that is made by 
     an organization described in such paragraph.
       ``(B) Targeted communication.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `targeted communication' means an 
     electioneering communication (as defined in section 
     304(f)(3)) that is distributed from a television or 
     radio broadcast station or provider of cable or satellite 
     television service and, in the case of a communication 
     which refers to a candidate for an office other than 
     President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant 
     electorate.
       ``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     communication is `targeted to the relevant electorate' if it 
     meets the requirements described in section 304(f)(3)(C).''.

          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

     SEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.

       Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 
     431) is amended by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(17) Independent expenditure.--The term `independent 
     expenditure' means an expenditure by a person--
       ``(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a 
     clearly identified candidate; and
       ``(B) that is not made in concert or cooperation with, at 
     the request or suggestion of, or pursuant to any general or 
     particular understanding with, such candidate, the 
     candidate's authorized political committee, or their agents, 
     or a political party committee or its agents.''.

     SEC. 212. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 
     201) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the undesignated 
     matter after subparagraph (C); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
       ``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day, 
     but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election shall 
     file a report describing the expenditures within 24 hours.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 24 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $1,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
       ``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political 
     committee) that makes or contracts to make independent 
     expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to 
     and including the 20th day before the date of an election 
     shall file a report describing the expenditures within 48 
     hours.
       ``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report 
     under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional 
     report within 48 hours after each time the person makes or 
     contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an 
     additional $10,000 with respect to the same election as that 
     to which the initial report relates.
       ``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
       ``(B) shall contain the information required by subsection 
     (b)(6)(B)(iii), including the

[[Page H359]]

     name of each candidate whom an expenditure is intended to 
     support or oppose.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(5)) is amended by striking ``, or the second 
     sentence of subsection (c)(2)''.

     SEC. 213. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY 
                   PARTY.

       Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting 
     ``, (3), and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Independent versus coordinated expenditures by 
     party.--
       ``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a 
     political party nominates a candidate, a committee of the 
     political party shall not make both expenditures under this 
     subsection and independent expenditures (as defined in 
     section 301(17)) with respect to the candidate during the 
     election cycle.
       ``(B) Certification.--Before making a coordinated 
     expenditure under this subsection with respect to a 
     candidate, a committee of a political party shall file with 
     the Commission a certification, signed by the treasurer of 
     the committee, that the committee, on or after the date 
     described in subparagraph (A), has not and shall not make any 
     independent expenditure with respect to the candidate during 
     the same election cycle.
       ``(C) Application.--For purposes of this paragraph, all 
     political committees established and maintained by a national 
     political party (including all congressional campaign 
     committees) and all political committees established and 
     maintained by a State political party (including any 
     subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be 
     considered to be a single political committee.
       ``(D) Transfers.--A committee of a political party that 
     submits a certification under subparagraph (B) with respect 
     to a candidate shall not, during an election cycle, transfer 
     any funds to, assign authority to make coordinated 
     expenditures under this subsection to, or receive a transfer 
     of funds from, a committee of the political party that has 
     made or intends to make an independent expenditure with 
     respect to the candidate.''.

     SEC. 214. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES OR POLITICAL PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Coordinated expenditure or disbursement treated as 
     contribution.--Section 301(8) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A)(i);
       (B) by striking ``purpose.'' in subparagraph (A)(ii) and 
     inserting ``purpose;''; and
       (C) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(iii) any coordinated expenditure or other disbursement 
     made by any person in connection with a candidate's election, 
     regardless of whether the expenditure or disbursement is for 
     a communication that contains express advocacy; or
       ``(iv) any coordinated expenditure or other disbursement 
     made in coordination with a national committee, State 
     committee, or other political committee of a political party 
     by a person (other than a candidate or a candidate's 
     authorized committee) in connection with an election, 
     regardless of whether the expenditure or disbursement is for 
     a communication that contains express advocacy.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 315(a)(7) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)) is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) a coordinated expenditure or disbursement described 
     in--
       ``(i) section 301(8)(A)(iii) shall be considered to be a 
     contribution to the candidate and an expenditure by the 
     candidate; and
       ``(ii) section 301(8)(A)(iv) shall be considered to be a 
     contribution to, and an expenditure by, the political party 
     committee; and''.
       (b) Definition of Coordination.--Section 301(8) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii) and (iv), the 
     term `coordinated expenditure or other disbursement' means a 
     payment made in concert or cooperation with, at the request 
     or suggestion of, or pursuant to any general or particular 
     understanding with, such candidate, the candidate's 
     authorized political committee, or their agents, or a 
     political party committee or its agents.''.
       (c) Regulations by the Federal Election Commission.--(1) 
     Within 90 days of the effective date of this Act, the Federal 
     Election Commission shall promulgate new regulations to 
     enforce the statutory standard set by section 301(8)(C) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by 
     subsection (b)) and section 301(17)(B) of such Act (as 
     amended by section 211). The regulations shall not require 
     collaboration or agreement to establish coordination. In 
     addition to any subject determined by the Commission, the 
     regulations shall address--
       (A) payments for the republication of campaign materials;
       (B) payments for the use of a common vendor;
       (C) payments for communications directed or made by persons 
     who previously served as an employee of a candidate or a 
     political party; and
       (D) payments for communications made by a person after 
     substantial discussion about the communication with a 
     candidate or a political party.
       (2) The regulations on coordination adopted by the Federal 
     Election Commission and published in the Federal Register at 
     page 76138 of volume 65, Federal Register, on December 6, 
     2000, are repealed as of 90 days after the effective date of 
     this Act.
       (d) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes 
     of Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall include'' and inserting ``includes a 
     contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in 
     section 301, and also includes''.

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a 
     candidate, and any other donation received by an individual 
     as support for activities of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual--
       ``(1) for otherwise authorized expenditures in connection 
     with the campaign for Federal office of the candidate or 
     individual;
       ``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in 
     connection with duties of the individual as a holder of 
     Federal office;
       ``(3) for contributions to an organization described in 
     section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
       ``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party.
       ``(b) Prohibited Use.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contribution or donation described in 
     subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to 
     personal use.
       ``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a 
     contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted 
     to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to 
     fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person 
     that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election 
     campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal 
     office, including--
       ``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
       ``(B) a clothing purchase;
       ``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
       ``(D) a country club membership;
       ``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
       ``(F) a household food item;
       ``(G) a tuition payment;
       ``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or 
     other form of entertainment not associated with an election 
     campaign; and
       ``(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or 
     recreational facility.''.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of 
     value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election 
     from a person who is located in a room or building occupied 
     in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee 
     of the United States. It shall be unlawful for an individual 
     who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     including the President, Vice President, and Members of 
     Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other 
     thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local 
     election, while in any room or building occupied in the 
     discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the 
     United States, from any person.
       ``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be 
     fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or 
     both.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or Executive Office 
     of the President'' after ``Congress'' .

     SEC. 303. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
       (1) by striking the heading and inserting the following: 
     ``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
       ``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
       ``(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of 
     value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a 
     contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, 
     State, or local election;
       ``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a 
     political party; or
       ``(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or 
     disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the 
     meaning of section 304(f)(3)); or
       ``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a 
     contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) 
     of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.''.

     SEC. 304. MODIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS IN 
                   RESPONSE TO EXPENDITURES FROM PERSONAL FUNDS.

       (a) Increased Limits for Individuals.--

[[Page H360]]

       (1) In general.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``No person'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (i), no 
     person''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Increased Limit To Allow Response to Expenditures 
     From Personal Funds.--
       ``(1) Increase.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the 
     opposition personal funds amount with respect to a candidate 
     for election to the office of Senator exceeds the threshold 
     amount, the limit under subsection (a)(1)(A) (in this 
     subsection referred to as the `applicable limit') with 
     respect to that candidate shall be the increased limit.
       ``(B) Threshold amount.--
       ``(i) State-by-state competitive and fair campaign 
     formula.--In this subsection, the threshold amount with 
     respect to an election cycle of a candidate described in 
     subparagraph (A) is an amount equal to the sum of--

       ``(I) $150,000; and
       ``(II) $0.04 multiplied by the voting age population.

       ``(ii) Voting age population.--In this subparagraph, the 
     term `voting age population' means in the case of a candidate 
     for the office of Senator, the voting age population of the 
     State of the candidate (as certified under section 315(e)).
       ``(C) Increased limit.--Except as provided in clause (ii), 
     for purposes of subparagraph (A), if the opposition personal 
     funds amount is over--
       ``(i) 2 times the threshold amount, but not over 4 times 
     that amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 3 times the applicable 
     limit; and
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of subparagraph (A) during a period in which the 
     candidate may accept such a contribution;

       ``(ii) 4 times the threshold amount, but not over 10 times 
     that amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 6 times the applicable 
     limit; and
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of  subparagraph (A) during a period in which the 
     candidate may accept such a contribution; and
       ``(iii) 10 times the threshold amount--

       ``(I) the increased limit shall be 6 times the applicable 
     limit;
       ``(II) the limit under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply 
     with respect to any contribution made with respect to a 
     candidate if such contribution is made under the increased 
     limit of subparagraph (A) during a period in which the 
     candidate may accept such a contribution; and
       ``(III) the limits under subsection (d) with respect to any 
     expenditure by a State or national committee of a political 
     party shall not apply.

       ``(D) Opposition personal funds amount.--The opposition 
     personal funds amount is an amount equal to the excess (if 
     any) of--
       ``(i) the greatest aggregate amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds (as defined in section 304(a)(6)(B)) that an 
     opposing candidate in the same election makes; over
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds made by the candidate with respect to the election.
       ``(2) Time to accept contributions under increased limit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a candidate 
     and the candidate's authorized committee shall not accept any 
     contribution, and a party committee shall not make any 
     expenditure, under the increased limit under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) until the candidate has received notification of the 
     opposition personal funds amount under section 304(a)(6)(B); 
     and
       ``(ii) to the extent that such contribution, when added to 
     the aggregate amount of contributions previously accepted and 
     party expenditures previously made under the increased limits 
     under this subsection for the election cycle, exceeds 110 
     percent of the opposition personal funds amount.
       ``(B) Effect of withdrawal of an opposing candidate.--A 
     candidate and a candidate's authorized committee shall not 
     accept any contribution and a party shall not make any 
     expenditure under the increased limit after the date on which 
     an opposing candidate ceases to be a candidate to the extent 
     that the amount of such increased limit is attributable to 
     such an opposing candidate.
       ``(3) Disposal of excess contributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of contributions 
     accepted by a candidate or a candidate's authorized committee 
     under the increased limit under paragraph (1) and not 
     otherwise expended in connection with the election with 
     respect to which such contributions relate shall, not later 
     than 50 days after the date of such election, be used in the 
     manner described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Return to contributors.--A candidate or a candidate's 
     authorized committee shall return the excess contribution to 
     the person who made the contribution.
       ``(j) Limitation on Repayment of Personal Loans.--Any 
     candidate who incurs personal loans made after the date of 
     enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 in 
     connection with the candidate's campaign for election shall 
     not repay (directly or indirectly), to the extent such loans 
     exceed $250,000, such loans from any contributions made to 
     such candidate or any authorized committee of such candidate 
     after the date of such election.''.
       (b) Notification of Expenditures From Personal Funds.--
     Section 304(a)(6) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (E); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Notification of expenditure from personal funds.--
       ``(i) Definition of expenditure from personal funds.--In 
     this subparagraph, the term `expenditure from personal funds' 
     means--
       ``(I) an expenditure made by a candidate using personal 
     funds; and
       ``(II) a contribution or loan made by a candidate using 
     personal funds or a loan secured using such funds to the 
     candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(ii) Declaration of intent.--Not later than the date that 
     is 15 days after the date on which an individual becomes a 
     candidate for the office of Senator, the candidate shall file 
     a declaration stating the total amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds that the candidate intends to make, or to 
     obligate to make, with respect to the election that will 
     exceed the State-by-State competitive and fair campaign 
     formula with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
       ``(iii) Initial notification.--Not later than 24 hours 
     after a candidate described in clause (ii) makes or obligates 
     to make an aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds in excess of 2 times the threshold amount in connection 
     with any election, the candidate shall file a notification 
     with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
       ``(iv) Additional notification.--After a candidate files an 
     initial notification under clause (iii), the candidate shall 
     file an additional notification each time expenditures from 
     personal funds are  made or obligated to be made in an 
     aggregate amount that exceed $10,000 with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
     Such notification shall be filed not later than 24 hours 
     after the expenditure is made.
       ``(v) Contents.--A notification under clause (iii) or (iv) 
     shall include--
       ``(I) the name of the candidate and the office sought by 
     the candidate;
       ``(II) the date and amount of each expenditure; and
       ``(III) the total amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds that the candidate has made, or obligated to make, with 
     respect to an election as of the date of the expenditure that 
     is the subject of the notification.
       ``(C) Notification of disposal of excess contributions.--In 
     the next regularly scheduled report after the date of the 
     election for which a candidate seeks nomination for election 
     to, or election to, Federal office, the candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized committee shall submit to the 
     Commission a report indicating the source and amount of any 
     excess contributions (as determined under paragraph (1) of 
     section 315(i)) and the manner in which the candidate or the 
     candidate's authorized committee used such funds.
       ``(D) Enforcement.--For provisions providing for the 
     enforcement of the reporting requirements under this 
     paragraph, see section 309.''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431), as amended by section 
     101(a), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(25) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means the 
     period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent 
     election for the specific office or seat that a candidate is 
     seeking and ending on the date of the next election for that 
     office or seat. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a 
     primary election and a general election shall be considered 
     to be separate elections.
       ``(26) Personal funds.--The term `personal funds' means an 
     amount that is derived from--
       ``(A) any asset that, under applicable State law, at the 
     time the individual became a candidate, the candidate had 
     legal right of access to or control over, and with respect to 
     which the candidate had--
       ``(i) legal and rightful title; or
       ``(ii) an equitable interest;
       ``(B) income received during the current election cycle of 
     the candidate, including--
       ``(i) a salary and other earned income from bona fide 
     employment;
       ``(ii) dividends and proceeds from the sale of the 
     candidate's stocks or other investments;
       ``(iii) bequests to the candidate;
       ``(iv) income from trusts established before the beginning 
     of the election cycle;
       ``(v) income from trusts established by bequest after the 
     beginning of the election cycle of which the candidate is the 
     beneficiary;
       ``(vi) gifts of a personal nature that had been customarily 
     received by the candidate prior to the beginning of the 
     election cycle; and
       ``(vii) proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of 
     chance; and
       ``(C) a portion of assets that are jointly owned by the 
     candidate and the candidate's spouse equal to the candidate's 
     share of the asset under the instrument of conveyance or

[[Page H361]]

     ownership, but if no specific share is indicated by an 
     instrument of conveyance or ownership, the value of \1/2\ of 
     the property.''.

     SEC. 305. TELEVISION MEDIA RATES.

       (a) Lowest Unit Charge.--Subsection (b) of section 315 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The charges'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Charges.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     charges'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Television.--The charges made for the use of any 
     television broadcast station, or by a provider of cable or 
     satellite television service, to any person who is a legally 
     qualified candidate for any public office in connection with 
     the campaign of such candidate for nomination for election, 
     or election, to such office shall not exceed, during the 
     periods referred to in paragraph (1)(A), the lowest charge of 
     the station (at any time during the 180-day period preceding 
     the date of the use) for the same amount of time for the same 
     period.''.
       (b) Rate Available for National Parties.--Section 315(b)(2) 
     of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315(b)(2), as added by subsection 
     (a)(3), is amended by inserting ``, or to a national 
     committee of a political party making expenditures under 
     section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     on behalf of such candidate in connection with such 
     campaign,'' after ``such office''.
       (c) Preemption.--Section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Preemption.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     licensee shall not preempt the use of a television broadcast 
     station, or a provider of cable or satellite television 
     service, by an eligible candidate or political committee of a 
     political party who has purchased and paid for such use 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       ``(2) Circumstances beyond control of licensee.--If a 
     program to be broadcast by a television broadcast station, or 
     a provider of cable or satellite television service, is 
     preempted because of circumstances beyond the control of the 
     station, any candidate or party advertising spot scheduled to 
     be  broadcast during that program may also be preempted.''.
       (d) Random Audits.--Section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 
     315), as amended by subsection (c), is amended by inserting 
     after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Random Audits.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 45-day period preceding a 
     primary election and the 60-day period preceding a general 
     election, the Commission shall conduct random audits of 
     designated market areas to ensure that each television 
     broadcast station, and provider of cable or satellite 
     television service, in those markets is allocating television 
     broadcast advertising time in accordance with this section 
     and section 312.
       ``(2) Markets.--The random audits conducted under paragraph 
     (1) shall cover the following markets:
       ``(A) At least 6 of the top 50 largest designated market 
     areas (as defined in section 122(j)(2)(C) of title 17, United 
     States Code).
       ``(B) At least 3 of the 51-100 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(C) At least 3 of the 101-150 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(D) At least 3 of the 151-210 largest designated market 
     areas (as so defined).
       ``(3) Broadcast stations.--Each random audit shall include 
     each of the 3 largest television broadcast networks, 1 
     independent network, and 1 cable network.''.
       (e) Definition of Broadcasting Station.--Subsection (e) of 
     section 315 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 315(e)), as redesignated 
     by subsection (c)(1) of this section, is amended by inserting 
     ``, a television broadcast station, and a provider of cable 
     or satellite television service'' before the semicolon.
       (f) Stylistic Amendments.--Section 315 of such Act (47 
     U.S.C. 315) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``In General.--'' 
     before ``If any'';
       (2) in subsection (e), as redesignated by subsection (c)(1) 
     of this section, by inserting ``Definitions.--'' before ``For 
     purposes''; and
       (3) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``Regulations.--'' before ``The Commission''.

     SEC. 306. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF LOWEST UNIT CHARGE 
                   FOR FEDERAL CANDIDATES ATTACKING OPPOSITION.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(b) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Content of broadcasts.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a candidate for Federal 
     office, such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the 
     rate under paragraph (1)(A) or (2) for the use of any 
     broadcasting station unless the candidate provides written 
     certification to the broadcast station that the candidate 
     (and any authorized committee of the candidate) shall not 
     make any direct reference to another candidate for the same 
     office, in any broadcast using the rights and conditions of 
     access under this Act, unless such reference meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (C) or (D).
       ``(B) Limitation on charges.--If a candidate for Federal 
     office (or any authorized committee of such candidate) makes 
     a reference described in subparagraph (A) in any broadcast 
     that does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (C) or 
     (D), such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the rate 
     under paragraph (1)(A) or (2) for such broadcast or any other 
     broadcast during any portion of the 45-day and 60-day periods 
     described in paragraph (1)(A), that occur on or after the 
     date of such broadcast, for election to such office.
       ``(C) Television broadcasts.--A candidate meets the 
     requirements of this subparagraph if, in the case of a 
     television broadcast, at the end of such broadcast there 
     appears simultaneously, for a period no less than 4 seconds--
       ``(i) a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image 
     of the candidate; and
       ``(ii) a clearly readable printed statement, identifying 
     the candidate and stating that the candidate has approved the 
     broadcast and that the candidate's authorized committee paid 
     for the broadcast.
       ``(D) Radio broadcasts.--A candidate meets the requirements 
     of this subparagraph if, in the case of a radio broadcast, 
     the broadcast includes a personal audio statement by the 
     candidate that identifies the candidate, the office the 
     candidate is seeking, and indicates that the candidate has 
     approved the broadcast.
       ``(E) Certification.--Certifications under this section 
     shall be provided and certified as accurate by the candidate 
     (or any authorized committee of the candidate) at the time of 
     purchase.
       ``(F) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     terms `authorized committee' and `Federal office' have the 
     meanings given such terms by section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 315(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)(1)(A)), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (3),'' before ``during the forty-five days''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to broadcasts made after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 307. SOFTWARE FOR FILING REPORTS AND PROMPT DISCLOSURE 
                   OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 304(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Software for filing of reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall--
       ``(i) promulgate standards to be used by vendors to develop 
     software that--

       ``(I) permits candidates to easily record information 
     concerning receipts and disbursements required to be reported 
     under this Act at the time of the receipt or disbursement;
       ``(II) allows the information recorded under subclause (I) 
     to be transmitted immediately to the Commission; and
       ``(III) allows the Commission to post the information on 
     the Internet immediately upon receipt; and

       ``(ii) make a copy of software that meets the standards 
     promulgated under clause (i) available to each person 
     required to file a designation, statement, or report in 
     electronic form under this Act.
       ``(B) Additional information.--To the extent feasible, the 
     Commission shall require vendors to include in the software 
     developed under the standards under subparagraph (A) the 
     ability for any person to file any designation, statement, or 
     report required under this Act in electronic form.
       ``(C) Required use.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act relating to times for filing reports, each candidate for 
     Federal office (or that candidate's authorized committee) 
     shall use software that meets the standards promulgated under 
     this paragraph once such software is made available to such 
     candidate.
       ``(D) Required posting.--The Commission shall, as soon as 
     practicable, post on the Internet any information received 
     under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 308. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       (a) Increase in Individual Limits for Certain 
     Contributions.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting the following: ``$2,000 (or, in the case of a 
     candidate for Representative in or Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress, $1,000)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$20,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000''.
       (b) Increase in Aggregate Individual Limit.--Section 
     315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)), as amended by section 102(b), is amended 
     by striking ``$30,000'' and inserting ``$37,500''.
       (c) Increase in Senatorial Campaign Committee Limit.--
     Section 315(h) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441a(h)) is amended by striking ``$17,500'' and 
     inserting ``$35,000''.
       (d) Indexing of Contribution Limits.--Section 315(c) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the second and third sentences;

[[Page H362]]

       (B) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``At the beginning''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), in any 
     calendar year after 2002--
       ``(i) a limitation established by subsections (a)(1)(A), 
     (a)(1)(B), (a)(3), (b), (d), or (h) shall be increased by the 
     percent difference determined under subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(iii) if any amount after adjustment under clause (i) is 
     not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.
       ``(C) In the case of limitations under subsections 
     (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), (a)(3), and (h), increases shall only 
     be made in odd-numbered years and such increases shall remain 
     in effect for the 2-year period beginning on the first day 
     following the date of the last general election in the year 
     preceding the year in which the amount is increased and 
     ending on the date of the next general election.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974'' and inserting ``means--
       ``(i) for purposes of subsections (b) and (d), calendar 
     year 1974; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of subsections (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), 
     (a)(3), and (h) calendar year 2001''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 309. DONATIONS TO PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 36, United States Code, 
     is amended by--
       (1) redesignating section 510 as section 511; and
       (2) inserting after section 509 the following:

     ``Sec. 510. Disclosure of and prohibition on certain 
       donations.

       ``(a) In general.--A committee shall not be considered to 
     be the Inaugural Committee for purposes of this chapter 
     unless the committee agrees to, and meets, the requirements 
     of subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(b) Disclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than the date that is 90 days 
     after the date of the Presidential inaugural ceremony, the 
     committee shall file a report with the Federal Election 
     Commission disclosing any donation of money or anything of 
     value made to the committee in an aggregate amount equal to 
     or greater than $200.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--A report filed under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) the amount of the donation;
       ``(B) the date the donation is received; and
       ``(C) the name and address of the person making the 
     donation.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The committee shall not accept any 
     donation from a foreign national (as defined in section 
     319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441e(b))).''.
       (b) Reports Made Available by FEC.--Section 304 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as 
     amended by sections 103, 201, and 212 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(h) Reports From Inaugural Committees.--The Federal 
     Election Commission shall make any report filed by an 
     Inaugural Committee under section 510 of title 36, United 
     States Code, accessible to the public at the offices of the 
     Commission and on the Internet not later than 48 hours after 
     the report is received by the Commission.''.

     SEC. 310. PROHIBITION ON FRAUDULENT SOLICITATION OF FUNDS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``No 
     person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds.--No person shall--
       ``(1) fraudulently misrepresent the person as speaking, 
     writing, or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any 
     candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof for 
     the purpose of soliciting contributions or donations; or
       ``(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to 
     participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 311. STUDY AND REPORT ON CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS 
                   LAWS.

       (a) Clean Money Clean Elections Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``clean money clean elections'' means funds received 
     under State laws that provide in whole or in part for the 
     public financing of election campaigns.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study of the clean money clean elections of Arizona and 
     Maine.
       (2) Matters studied.--
       (A) Statistics on clean money clean elections candidates.--
     The Comptroller General shall determine--
       (i) the number of candidates who have chosen to run for 
     public office with clean money clean elections including--

       (I) the office for which they were candidates;
       (II) whether the candidate was an incumbent or a 
     challenger; and
       (III) whether the candidate was successful in the 
     candidate's bid for public office; and

       (ii) the number of races in which at least one candidate 
     ran an election with clean money clean elections.
       (B) Effects of clean money clean elections.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall describe the 
     effects of public financing under the clean money clean 
     elections laws on the 2000 elections in Arizona and Maine.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to the Congress detailing the 
     results of the study conducted under subsection (b).

     SEC. 312. CLARITY STANDARDS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SPONSORS OF 
                   ELECTION-RELATED ADVERTISING.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever'';
       (ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a 
     disbursement''; and
       (iii) by striking ``direct''; and
       (iv) by inserting ``or makes a disbursement for an 
     electioneering communication (as defined in section 
     304(f)(3))'' after ``public political advertising''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street 
     address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address'' after 
     ``name''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Specification.--Any printed communication described 
     in subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by 
     the recipient of the communication;
       ``(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the 
     other contents of the communication; and
       ``(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       ``(d) Additional Requirements.--
       ``(1) Audio statement.--
       ``(A) Candidate.--Any communication described in paragraphs 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through 
     radio or television shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of that paragraph, an audio statement by the 
     candidate that identifies the candidate and states that the 
     candidate has approved the communication.
       ``(B) Other persons.--Any communication described in 
     paragraph (3) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through 
     radio or television shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of that paragraph, in a clearly spoken  manner, 
     the following statement: `__________ is responsible for 
     the content of this advertising.' (with the blank to be 
     filled in with the name of the political committee or 
     other person paying for the communication and the name of 
     any connected organization of the payor). If transmitted 
     through television, the statement shall also appear in a 
     clearly readable manner with a reasonable degree of color 
     contrast between the background and the printed statement, 
     for a period of at least 4 seconds.
       ``(2) Television.--If a communication described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) is transmitted through television, the 
     communication shall include, in addition to the audio 
     statement under paragraph (1), a written statement that--
       ``(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.''.

     SEC. 313. INCREASE IN PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 309(d)(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(d)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of any provision of this Act which involves the 
     making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, 
     donation, or expenditure--
       ``(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year 
     shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or 
     imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
       ``(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) 
     during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 314. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 406(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 455(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``3'' and inserting ``5''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 315. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       (a) In General.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall--
       (1) promulgate a guideline, or amend an existing guideline 
     under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), for penalties for violations 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related 
     election laws; and
       (2) submit to Congress an explanation of any guidelines 
     promulgated under paragraph (1) and any legislative or 
     administrative recommendations regarding enforcement of the

[[Page H363]]

     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related election 
     laws.
       (b) Considerations.--The Commission shall provide 
     guidelines under subsection (a) taking into account the 
     following considerations:
       (1) Ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy 
     statements reflect the serious nature of such violations and 
     the need for aggressive and appropriate law enforcement 
     action to prevent such violations.
       (2) Provide a sentencing enhancement for any person 
     convicted of such violation if such violation involves--
       (A) a contribution, donation, or expenditure from a foreign 
     source;
       (B) a large number of illegal transactions;
       (C) a large aggregate amount of illegal contributions, 
     donations, or expenditures;
       (D) the receipt or disbursement of governmental funds; and
       (E) an intent to achieve a benefit from the Federal 
     Government.
       (3) Provide a sentencing enhancement for any violation by a 
     person who is a candidate or a high-ranking campaign official 
     for such candidate.
       (4) Assure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and guidelines of the Commission.
       (5) Account for aggravating or mitigating circumstances 
     that might justify exceptions, including circumstances for 
     which the sentencing guidelines currently provide sentencing 
     enhancements.
       (6) Assure the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of 
     sentencing under section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Effective Date; Emergency Authority To Promulgate 
     Guidelines.--
       (1) Effective date.--Notwithstanding section 402, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
     guidelines under this section not later than the later of--
       (A) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) 90 days after the date on which at least a majority of 
     the members of the Commission are appointed and holding 
     office.
       (2) Emergency authority to promulgate guidelines.--The 
     Commission shall promulgate guidelines under this section in 
     accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of 
     the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987, as though the authority 
     under such Act has not expired.

     SEC. 316. INCREASE IN PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR VIOLATIONS OF 
                   CONDUIT CONTRIBUTION BAN.

       (a) Increase in Civil Money Penalty for Knowing and Willful 
     Violations.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``(or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 320, which is not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and is not more than the greater of 
     $50,000 or 1000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6)(C), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``(or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 320, which is not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and is not more than the greater of 
     $50,000 or 1000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation)''.
       (b) Increase in Criminal Penalty.--Section 309(d)(1) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of section 320 involving an amount aggregating more 
     than $10,000 during a calendar year shall be--
       ``(i) imprisoned for not more than 2 years if the amount is 
     less than $25,000 (and subject to imprisonment under 
     subparagraph (A) if the amount is $25,000 or more);
       ``(ii) fined not less than 300 percent of the amount 
     involved in the violation and not more than the greater of--
       ``(I) $50,000; or
       ``(II) 1,000 percent of the amount involved in the 
     violation; or
       ``(iii) both imprisoned under clause (i) and fined under 
     clause (ii).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 317. RESTRICTION ON INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS BY 
                   TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CANDIDATE'S AVAILABLE 
                   FUNDS.

       Section 315(i)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(1)), as added by this Act, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Special rule for candidate's campaign funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of determining the 
     aggregate amount of expenditures from personal funds under 
     subparagraph (D)(ii), such amount shall include the gross 
     receipts advantage of the candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(ii) Gross receipts advantage.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), the term `gross receipts advantage' means the excess, if 
     any, of--

       ``(I) the aggregate amount of 50 percent of gross receipts 
     of a candidate's authorized committee during any election 
     cycle (not including contributions from personal funds of the 
     candidate) that may be expended in connection with the 
     election, as determined on June 30 and December 31 of the 
     year preceding the year in which a general election is held, 
     over
       ``(II) the aggregate amount of 50 percent of gross receipts 
     of the opposing candidate's authorized committee during any 
     election cycle (not including contributions from personal 
     funds of the candidate) that may be expended in connection 
     with the election, as determined on June 30 and December 31 
     of the year preceding the year in which a general election is 
     held.

     SEC. 318. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT OF NATIONALS OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES TO MAKE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 319(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(d)(2)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``United States'' the following: ``or a national of the 
     United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act)''.

     SEC. 319. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:


                ``prohibition of contributions by minors

       ``Sec. 324. An individual who is 17 years old or younger 
     shall not make a contribution to a candidate or a 
     contribution or donation to a committee of a political 
     party.''.

     SEC. 320. DEFINITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE THROUGH 
                   INTERMEDIARY OR CONDUIT FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   APPLYING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       The first sentence of section 315(a)(8) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(8)) is 
     amended by striking ``including contributions which are in 
     any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an 
     intermediary or conduit to such candidate,'' and inserting 
     the following: ``including contributions which are in any way 
     earmarked or otherwise arranged or directed through an 
     intermediary or conduit to such candidate, or solicited by 
     such candidate to support the candidate's election and 
     arranged or suggested by the candidate to be spent by or 
     through an intermediary to support or assist the candidate's 
     election,''.

     SEC. 321. PROHIBITING AUTHORIZED COMMITTEES FROM FORMING 
                   JOINT FUNDRAISING COMMITTEES WITH POLITICAL 
                   PARTY COMMITTEES.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) No authorized committee of a candidate for Federal 
     office may form a joint fundraising committee with any 
     political committee of a political party.''.

     SEC. 322. REGULATIONS TO PROHIBIT EFFORTS TO EVADE 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections 101 and 319, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


        ``regulations to prohibit efforts to evade requirements

       ``Sec. 325. The Commission shall promulgate regulations to 
     prohibit efforts to evade or circumvent the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.''.

                 TITLE IV--SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 401. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment  to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any 
     person or circumstance, shall not be affected by the 
     holding.

     SEC. 402. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 30 days after the date of its enactment.
       (b) Transition Rule for Spending of Funds by National 
     Parties.--If a national committee of a political party 
     described in section 323(a)(1) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by section 101(a)), including 
     any person who is subject to such section, has received funds 
     described in such section prior to the effective date 
     described in subsection (a), the following rules shall apply 
     with respect to the spending of such funds by such committee:
       (1) During the period which begins on such effective date 
     and ends 90 days thereafter or December 31, 2001 (whichever 
     occurs later), the committee may spend such funds for any 
     activity permitted for the use of such funds prior to such 
     effective date.
       (2) During the period which begins on such effective date 
     and ends March 31, 2001, the committee may transfer such 
     funds without limit to any committee of a State or local 
     political party, any organization described in section 501(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation 
     under section 501(a) of such Code, or any organization 
     described in section 527 of such Code. Nothing in this 
     paragraph may be construed to permit any committee or 
     organization to which such funds are transferred to use such 
     funds in a manner inconsistent with any of the applicable 
     provisions of this Act or the amendments made by this Act.
       (3) At any time after such effective date, the committee 
     may spend such funds for activities which are solely to 
     defray the costs of the construction or purchase of any 
     office building or facility.

     SEC. 403. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Special Rules For Certain Actions Brought on 
     Constitutional Grounds.--If any person who is aggrieved by 
     any of the provisions of this Act or any amendment made by 
     this Act (or who would be aggrieved by any such provision or 
     amendment when

[[Page H364]]

     the provision or amendment becomes effective) brings an 
     action which names the United States as the defendant for 
     declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge the 
     constitutionality of the provision or amendment within the 
     90-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the following rules shall apply:
       (1) The action shall be filed in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
     judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary 
     of the Senate.
       (3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only 
     by appeal directly to the United States Supreme Court. Such 
     appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal 
     within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional statement 
     within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
       (4) It shall be the duty of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
     the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action 
     and appeal.
       (b) Intervention by Members of Congress.--In any action in 
     which the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or 
     any amendment made by this Act is raised (including but not 
     limited to an action described in subsection (a)), any member 
     of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate shall have 
     the right to intervene either in support of or opposition to 
     the position of a party to the case regarding the 
     constitutionality of the provision or amendment. To avoid 
     duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the 
     parties to the action, the court in any such action may make 
     such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to 
     require intervenors taking similar positions to file joint 
     papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral 
     argument.

               TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. INTERNET ACCESS TO RECORDS.

       Section 304(a)(11)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed with the Commission 
     under this Act available for inspection by the public in the 
     offices of the Commission and accessible to the public on the 
     Internet not later than 48 hours (or not later than 24 hours 
     in the case of a designation, statement, report, or 
     notification filed electronically) after receipt by the 
     Commission.''.

     SEC. 502. MAINTENANCE OF WEBSITE OF ELECTION REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Election Commission shall 
     maintain a central site on the Internet to make accessible to 
     the public all publicly available election-related reports 
     and information.
       (b) Election-Related Report.--In this section, the term 
     ``election-related report'' means any report, designation, or 
     statement required to be filed under the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971.
       (c) Coordination With Other Agencies.--Any Federal 
     executive agency receiving election-related information which 
     that agency is required by law to publicly disclose shall 
     cooperate and coordinate with the Federal Election Commission 
     to make such report available through, or for posting on, the 
     site of the Federal Election Commission in a timely manner.

     SEC. 503. ADDITIONAL MONTHLY AND QUARTERLY DISCLOSURE 
                   REPORTS.

       (a) Principal Campaign Committees.--
       (1) Monthly reports.--Section 304(a)(2)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking clause (iii) and inserting the following:
       ``(iii) additional monthly reports, which shall be filed 
     not later than the 20th day after  the last day of the month 
     and shall be complete as of the last day of the month, 
     except that monthly reports shall not be required under 
     this clause in November and December and a year end report 
     shall be filed not later than January 31 of the following 
     calendar year.''.
       (2) Quarterly reports.--Section 304(a)(2)(B) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``the following reports'' and all that 
     follows through the period and inserting ``the treasurer 
     shall file quarterly reports, which shall be filed not later 
     than the 15th day after the last day of each calendar 
     quarter, and which shall be complete as of the last day of 
     each calendar quarter, except that the report for the quarter 
     ending December 31 shall be filed not later than January 31 
     of the following calendar year.''.
       (b) National Committee of a Political Party.--Section 
     304(a)(4) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 434(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following flush sentence: ``Notwithstanding the preceding 
     sentence, a national committee of a political party shall 
     file the reports required under subparagraph (B).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 304.--Section 304(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by striking ``quarterly 
     reports'' and inserting ``monthly reports''; and
       (B) in paragraph (8), by striking ``quarterly report under 
     paragraph (2)(A)(iii) or paragraph (4)(A)(i)'' and inserting 
     ``monthly report under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) or paragraph 
     (4)(A)''.
       (2) Section 309.--Section 309(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``calendar quarter'' and inserting ``month''.

     SEC. 504. PUBLIC ACCESS TO BROADCASTING RECORDS.

       Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     315), as amended by this Act, is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), 
     respectively, and inserting after subsection (d) the 
     following:
       ``(e) Political Record.--
       ``(1) In general.--A licensee shall maintain, and make 
     available for public inspection, a complete record of a 
     request to purchase broadcast time that--
       ``(A) is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified 
     candidate for public office; or
       ``(B) communicates a message relating to any political 
     matter of national importance, including--
       ``(i) a legally qualified candidate;
       ``(ii) any election to Federal office; or
       ``(iii) a national legislative issue of public importance.
       ``(2) Contents of record.--A record maintained under 
     paragraph (1) shall contain information regarding--
       ``(A) whether the request to purchase broadcast time is 
     accepted or rejected by the licensee;
       ``(B) the rate charged for the broadcast time;
       ``(C) the date and time on which the communication is 
     aired;
       ``(D) the class of time that is purchased;
       ``(E) the name of the candidate to which the communication 
     refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking 
     election, the election to which the communication refers, or 
     the issue to which the communication refers (as applicable);
       ``(F) in the case of a request made by, or on behalf of, a 
     candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized 
     committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such 
     committee; and
       ``(G) in the case of any other request, the name of the 
     person purchasing the time, the name, address, and phone 
     number of a contact person for such person, and a list of the 
     chief executive officers or members of the executive 
     committee or of the board of directors of such person.
       ``(3) Time to maintain file.--The information required 
     under this subsection shall be placed in a political file as 
     soon as possible and shall be retained by the licensee for a 
     period of not less than 2 years.''.


     

                          ____________________