[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 14 (Thursday, February 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S796-S797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to state that since the 
House of Representatives, at 3 in the morning, passed the campaign 
finance reform bill, I want to cast out some markers as the Senate will 
consider this legislation and no doubt will pass this legislation, my 
vote included. However, we have to be concerned about the flow of money 
in politics.
  Campaign finance reform is an attempt to try to get soft money out of 
politics, but this campaign finance reform bill does not totally do 
that. It comes close.
  Soft money, for those who would like a refresher, is campaign 
donations that are other than personal donations from individuals or 
from political action committees. For example, a corporate check would 
be an example of a soft money contribution to a candidate. Under the 
current law, soft money contributions can flow through the parties. 
That is where we have seen a great deal of abuse.
  The campaign finance reform bill intends to constrict the use of that 
soft money. It does so by saying that it can't flow through the 
parties. It can't be coordinated by the campaigns or the campaign 
committees, such as our Democrat and Republican Senate campaign 
committees, but it can flow through independent groups with a message 
or with an issue advertisement which we know becomes just as effective 
for or against a candidate, almost, as a direct campaign ad that says 
vote for or vote against candidate A, B, or C.
  However, there was an important limitation in this bill I supported 
vigorously. That was that soft money could not flow through independent 
groups for purposes of affecting an election through an issue ad 60 
days

[[Page S797]]

prior to a general election and 30 days prior to a primary election. 
That is an important reform.
  The caveat is that we created a severability clause that says that if 
the courts strike any provision of the bill as unconstitutional, the 
whole bill does not fall. It leaves us with the possibility that the 
courts could strike the 60-day provision on independent groups.
  I hope and pray that the courts will not, that they will see that 
this is delicately balanced to meet the constitutional test the courts 
have raised. But if they do, then what we are going to have is 
unlimited soft money in the future that is going to flow, not through 
the parties, as we presently have had under current law, but a 
proliferation of independent groups are going to arise, and campaign 
soft money affecting elections through the guise of issue ads is going 
to flow through those independent groups. And I continue to think many 
of us intend that to be the case. That is the caveat about which we 
must be concerned. Ultimately, what we should do is try to figure out 
how to lower the cost of elections.

  The House of Representatives, unfortunately, struck the provision 
that the Senate had included, which said that television time for 
candidates has to be given at the lowest commercial rate--what is 
current law but which has not been obeyed. This was to enforce that 
provision. That was stricken last night as the House of Representatives 
considered campaign finance reform. That bill is going to be coming to 
us shortly. No doubt we are going to pass it.
  I wanted to lay out these markers and these caveats as we look to a 
future of trying to clean up campaign finance with new campaign finance 
reform law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Florida, who 
has had a longstanding interest in the subject matter. He brings a 
wealth of knowledge about the intricacies of these laws. As the person 
who managed the campaign finance reform bill here on the floor of this 
body, along with the help of my colleague from Nevada, there is a sense 
of parochial pride in the House action last evening in that the major 
cosponsor of the legislation, Chris Shays, is a longstanding friend of 
mine, a member of the Connecticut delegation, a House member for some 
15 years. He has been a dogged advocate of campaign finance reform. So 
there is a sense in those of us and the overwhelming majority of my 
constituents in Connecticut, as across the country, who support the 
notion of trying to get a handle on the issue of campaign financing, a 
sense of pride in the work of Chris Shays and the job he did on behalf 
of the entire country, not just Connecticut.
  As was said by others, this is not an end-all, a piece of legislation 
that will solve all the problems. I express my regret that what I 
thought may have been one of the most effective pieces of legislation, 
dealing with the cost of media, was struck from the bill last evening. 
For those of us in this Chamber who have to go out and raise money to 
engage in a campaign, the one single item that absolutely drives the 
cost of a campaign is the cost of media. About 80 cents on the dollar 
goes to TV and radio advertising, but most of it is TV advertising. 
There have been literally pioneers and visionaries in the media 
industry at a local level who have found it in their own business 
practices to open up their media outlets for an open debate and 
discussion.
  I think, particularly, of a gentleman who owns TV stations in 
Minnesota, who is a very effective leader in the television industry 
but has, for years, made it possible for statewide candidates in that 
State to have some time around the news to express themselves on why 
they would like to be elected to the office they are seeking. My hope 
is that we would adopt provisions that would make it possible for 
candidates to have access.
  The airwaves are public property. Maybe I am old school, but I was 
always raised to believe that. It was a privilege that we extended to 
people to use the public airwaves. So the idea that the public ought 
not to have the opportunity to listen to people who are going to 
represent them, whether a Governor, Congressman, or Senator, is 
something I find disturbing, that they would object to the notion of 
having opportunities. I am sorry that was stricken. It is a very good 
bill over all, and I commend the other body for their leadership, and 
particularly my friend from Connecticut. Congratulations to my 
colleague from Wisconsin as well.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the hour of 10:15 having arrived, we are now 
to proceed to S. 565.

                          ____________________