[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 31 (Monday, March 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1991-S1997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2356) to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today with the opening of this debate,
we take the first step toward passing the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan
bill in the Senate and take one of the final steps toward banning soft
money.
I am grateful for all the hard work that has brought us to this
moment--of course, the work done by the reform community, the work done
by the outstanding leaders in the other body to pass this bill last
month, and, most of all, the work done by my colleagues here in the
Senate, under the leadership of Senator McCain of Arizona.
A year ago, we had an excellent debate about campaign finance reform
here on this floor. In fact, it began almost exactly a year ago, on
March 19. We had an outstanding exchange of ideas, we held numerous
votes, and we worked hard on both sides of the issue. I believe that
that debate enriched this body, and that it enriched the McCain-
Feingold bill.
In the end, the will of the Senate was done, and we passed the bill
in a strong bipartisan vote of 59-41. A year later, we are here again
on the floor working to pass reform. But this time it is different.
This time, we already know where the Senate stands. And we know that
all that stands between this bill and the President's desk is the
Senate's final consideration of the bill this week.
With the strong vote for McCain-Feingold last year, the Senate
recognized the importance of our responsibility as representatives of
the people and as stewards of democracy. As long as we allow soft money
to exist, we risk damaging our credibility when we make the decisions
about the issues that the people elected us to make.
The people sent us here to wrestle with some very tough issues. They
have vested us with the power to make decisions that have a profound
impact on their lives. That is a responsibility that we take very
seriously. But today, when we weigh the pros and cons of legislation,
many people think we also weigh the size of the contributions we got
from interests on both sides of the issue. And when those contributions
can be a million dollars, or even more, it seems obvious to most people
that we would reward, or at least listen especially carefully to, our
biggest donors.
So a year ago we voted to change the system. And now, both bodies
have fully and fairly debated the issues and discussed the merits of
this bill. We have given this important issue the time and
consideration it deserves. Now, very simply, it is time to get the job
done. It is time to get this bill to the President.
I believe the Senate is ready to repair a broken system. And make no
mistake about it, the way the soft money and issue ad loopholes are
being abused today has devastated the campaign finance system. More
than that, these loopholes have weakened the effectiveness of this body
and cast doubt on the work we do. They have weakened the public's trust
in government; in a very real sense, they have weakened our democracy.
I know many of us here are tired of seeing headlines that imply that
legislative outcomes here are not a result of our own will or good
judgment, but a result of our desire to please wealthy donors. We are
tired of those headlines, and so are the American people. The people
know that the system can function better when soft money doesn't render
our hard money limits meaningless, and when phony issue ads don't make
a joke of our election laws. And they also know that this is our best
chance in years to do something to effect real change.
This week we can show them, just as we did a year ago in this Senate,
that we are ready for change, and that we are going to make that change
happen.
As we embark on this discussion about campaign finance reform on the
floor today, it is remarkable how much has changed since the Senator
from Arizona and I introduced this bill in September of 1995, and even
since we stood here a year ago. Both sides of Capitol Hill have finally
acknowledged the demand of the American people that we ban soft money
contributions, after years of soft money scandals and embarrassments
that have chipped away at the integrity of this body.
As many commentators have noted, the collapse of Enron gave the
campaign finance reform issue momentum prior to the House vote in
February. But I would note that our effort has been given momentum by
many other campaign finance scandals that have occurred just in the
last few years. I think they are actually more than we care to
remember.
Soft money has had an increasingly prominent role in party
fundraising over the last 12 years. In 1988 the parties began raising
$100,000 contributions for the Bush and Dukakis campaigns--an amount
unheard of before the 1988 race. By the 1992 election, the year I was
elected to this body, soft money fundraising by the major parties had
doubled, rising to $86 million. In successive election cycles the
amount of soft money raised by the parties has simply skyrocketed. In
2000 soft money totals were more than five times what they were in
1992. It was already a lot in 1992. In 2000, it was five times already
what it had been 8 years earlier.
And along with the money, came the scandals--soft money and scandals
have gone hand in hand for more than a decade now. First, the mere fact
that soft money was being raised in such enormous amounts was a scandal
in the early 1990s. But then we had the Lincoln Bedroom, and the White
House
[[Page S1992]]
Coffees, and Charlie Trie and John Huang and Johnny Chung. And then, of
course, the Presidential pardons coming under suspicion at the
conclusion of the Clinton administration. We faced questions in this
body as we considered bills regulating tobacco and telecommunications
and the Patients' Bill of Rights, while at the same time we raised soft
money from the industries and interest groups that had a huge stake in
those bills. The public watched with increasing skepticism as we
appeared to act--or fail to act--on legislation based on the demands of
wealthy soft money donors. With the enormous influx of soft money being
raised by both parties, with every vote we cast the public wondered,
and had reason to wonder, was it the money?
Of course of late we have seen yet another scandal take shape--the
Enron debacle. As the Enron story unfolded, I think many of us were
reminded why the Supreme Court, in its famous 1976 Buckley versus Valeo
decision, said that the appearance of corruption, not just corruption
itself, justifies congressional action to place some limits on our
campaign finance system.
In the Buckley case, the Supreme Court understood that public
mistrust of government is destructive to democracy. From a
constitutional point of view, it hardly matters whether that mistrust
is based on actual misconduct or simply its appearance.
In the case of Enron's collapse, the need to address public mistrust
has been paramount for Congress and the administration as they have
investigated the company's alleged wrongdoing. When a corporation such
as Enron leaves devastated employees and fleeced shareholders in its
wake, the public depends on us--on Congress and the administration--to
determine what went wrong and defend the public interest. But the
potential for a conflict of interest in a case such as this is clear:
Many of the elected officials who were asked to sit in judgment of
Enron, including Members of Congress, the Attorney General, and the
President of the United States, have been accepting, and even asking
for, campaign contributions from Enron for years. And the political
parties have pocketed more than $3.5 million in unregulated, unlimited
soft money from Enron since 1991.
Congress has moved forward with the investigations into Enron's
conduct, despite the potential conflict of interest the political
contributions might pose. The reality is that this is all too familiar
territory for Congress. Every day Members of Congress accept huge
campaign contributions with one hand and vote on issues affecting their
contributors with the other. And, every day the public naturally
questions whether their Representatives are giving special treatment to
the wealthy interests that fund their campaigns and bankroll their
political parties.
The Enron scandal, and all the soft money scandals that have come
before, illustrate the permanent conflict of interest--the permanent
conflict of interest--that unlimited soft money contributions to the
parties have created for elected officials in the Capitol and at the
White House. Both parties have gladly accepted Enron's soft money
contributions over the years, and now those contributions are
compromising our ability to address the Enron collapse, and countless
other issues that come before the Congress. More than that--more than
that--they compromise the public's confidence in our ability, and our
will, to do anything about it.
While eliminating soft money will not cure the campaign finance
system of every ill, it will, in fact, end a system of unlimited
donations that has blatantly put political access and influence up for
sale. Enron is just one in a long line of corporations, unions, and
wealthy individuals that has exploited the soft money loophole to buy
influence with Congress and the executive branch at the very highest
levels. So banning soft money will help to untangle the web of money
and influence that has made Congress and the White House so vulnerable
to the appearance of corruption for far too long.
In the coming days we will face the final test of this long
legislative battle and take our final steps toward enacting these hard-
fought reforms into law. Passing campaign finance reform is within our
grasp, and so, finally, is a renewed integrity for our democratic
process.
Of course, while the soft money ban is central to the bill, and is
the most important feature of the bill, this bill contains reforms on a
variety of other issues.
I say to the Presiding Officer, of course, you were one of the
principal authors of very important provisions relating to so-called
phony issue ads that make the bill even stronger.
A number of amendments were added on the Senate floor last year that
improved and strengthened the bill. Almost all of them are in the bill
now before us that we hope, by the end of the week, will be sent to the
President.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, the debate is finally here. Our bipartisan coalition
is strong and resolute. And the moment for reform has arrived.
After 6\1/2\ years of work on this bill, and more than a decade of
scandals that have threatened the integrity of our legislative process,
I do believe this body is ready to get the job done for the American
people. I believe the American people have waited long enough.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit No. 1
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002--Section by Section Analysis
TITLE I: REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE
Sec. 101(a). Soft Money of Political Parties. Creates new
Section 323 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to
prohibit soft money in federal elections.
Sec. 323(a). National Committees. Prohibits national party
committees and entities controlled by the parties from
raising, spending, or transferring money that is not subject
to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements
of the FECA (i.e., soft money).
Sec. 323(b). State, District and Local Committees. Subject
to the Levin amendment, requires any money spent on ``Federal
election activities'' by state or local parties, and entities
controlled or acting on behalf of those parties or an
association of state or local candidates to be subject to the
limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the
FECA (i.e., hard money.) This will close the state party
loophole. ``Federal election activities'' are defined in
Section 101(b) of the bill.
Under the Levin amendment, the section permits state or
local parties to spend soft money on voter registration and
get out the vote activity that does not mention a federal
candidate as long as no single soft money donor gives more
than $10,000 per year to any state or local party
organization for such purposes, the money is not spent on
broadcast advertising other than ads that solely mention
state or local candidates, the money is not raised by federal
candidates, national parties, or party committees acting
jointly. The spending of this money will require an
allocation of hard money to soft money. The state or local
party organization must raise the hard and soft money for
this allocation on its own, and money to be spent under this
provision may not be transferred between party organizations.
Sec. 323(c). Fundraising Costs. Requires national, state,
and local parties to use hard money to raise money that will
be used on Federal election activities, as defined by the
bill.
Sec. 323(d). Tax-Exempt Organizations. Prohibits national,
state, and local parties or entities controlled by such
parties from making contributions to or soliciting donations
for 501(c) organizations which spend money in connection with
federal elections or 527 organizations (other than entities
that are political committees under the FECA, state/district/
local party committees, or state or local candidates'
campaign committees). This provision will prevent the parties
from collecting soft money and laundering it through other
organizations engaged in federal electioneering.
Sec. 323(e). Federal Candidates. Prohibits federal
candidates or individuals holding federal office and any
entities established, financed, controlled, or acting on
behalf of such candidates or officeholders from raising or
spending soft money in connection with federal elections. The
restrictions of this section do not apply to federal
officeholders who are running for state office and spending
non-Federal money on their own elections, so long as they do
not mention other federal candidates who are on the ballot in
the same election and are not their opponents for state
office. The restrictions also do not prevent a federal
candidate or officeholder from attending, speaking at, or
appearing as a featured guest at a fundraising event for a
state or local political party.
Candidates are permitted to solicit up to $20,000 from an
individual per year specifically for voter registration and
get out of
[[Page S1993]]
the vote activities carried out by 501(c) organizations. The
provision also clarifies that candidates may solicit
unlimited funds for 501(c) organizations where the
solicitation does not specify the use of the money, and the
organization's principal purpose is not voter registration or
get out the vote activities.
Sec. 323(f). State Candidates. Prohibits candidates for
state or local office from spending soft money on public
communications that promote or attack a clearly identified
candidate for Federal office. Exempts communications which
refer to a federal candidate who is also a candidate for
state or local office.
Taken together, these soft money provisions are designed to
shut down the soft money loophole as comprehensively as
possible. By including entities established, maintained,
controlled, or acting on behalf of federal and state
officeholders and candidates, they also prohibit so-called
``leadership PACs'' or ``candidate PACs'' from raising or
spending soft money in connection with Federal elections and
are designed to prevent the evasion of the law by federal or
state candidates or officeholders using 501(c)(4) or 527
organizations.
Sec. 101(b). Definitions. Provides definitions for certain
terms used in the soft money ban.
Federal election activity means voter registration
activities within 120 days before a federal election, get out
the vote activity and generic campaign activity in connection
with an election in which federal candidates are on the
ballot (even if state candidates are also on the ballot), and
public communications that refer to a clearly identified
federal candidate and support or oppose a candidate for that
office (regardless of whether those communications expressly
advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.) These are
the activities that state parties must pay for with hard
money (except as specifically provided under the bill).
Generic campaign activity means campaign activities like
general party advertising that promote a political party but
not a candidate.
Public communication means a communication to the general
public by means of broadcast, cable, satellite, newspaper,
magazine, outdoor advertising, mass mailing, telephone bank,
or any other general public political advertising.
Mass mailing is a mailing of more than 500 identical or
substantially similar pieces within any 30 day period.
Telephone bank means more than 500 calls of an identical or
substantially similar nature within a 30 day period.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for state
committees of political parties. Increases the amount that
individuals can give to state parties from $5,000 to $10,000.
See Section 307 for additional increases in contribution
limits.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements. Requires national
political party committees, including congressional campaign
committees to report all receipts and disbursements and state
party committees to report all receipts and disbursements and
state party committees to report all receipts and
disbursements for Federal election activities and receipts
and disbursements for activities permitted by the Levin
amendment (i.e., spending of capped soft money donations on
certain forms of voter registration and get-out-the-vote).
Requires itemized reporting of receipts or disbursements of
over $200. Eliminates the building fund exception to the
FECA's definition of contribution. Accounts to raise money
for office buildings were one of the original soft money
accounts before the loopholes exploded in the 1996 election
with the use of soft money for political advertising.
TITLE II: NON-CANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES
Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications
Section 201-203 have come to be known as the ``Snowe-
Jeffords amendment.''
Sec. 201. Disclosure of Electioneering Communications.
Requires anyone who spends over $10,000 in a calendar year on
electioneering communications to file a disclosure statement
within 24 hours after reaching that amount of spending and
again within 24 hours of each additional $10,000 of spending.
Electioneering communications are defined as broadcast, cable
or satellite communications that mention the name or show the
likeness of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office
within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary
election, convention, or caucus, and which is targeted to the
candidate's state/district. Electioneering communications do
not include news broadcasts, communications that constitute
independent expenditures because they contain express
advocacy, or candidate debates and advertisements for
candidate debates. The FEC may promulgate additional
exceptions for advertisements that do not attack, oppose,
promote or support a clearly identified Federal candidate.
The disclosure statement must identify the person or entity
making the disbursement, the principal place of business of
that person if it is not an individual, the amount of each
disbursement of over $200 and the identify of the person
receiving the disbursement, and the election to which the
communication pertains and the candidate or candidates who
are identified. If the disbursement is made from a segregated
account to which only individuals can contribute, the
disclosure statement must also reveal the names and addresses
of the contributors of $1,000 or more to that account. If the
disbursement is not made from such a segregated account then
all donors of $1,000 to the organization making the
expenditure must be disclosed. Money in the segregated
account can be used for purposes other than electioneering
communications, and the spending on other activities need not
be disclosed, but all contributors to the account must be
informed that their money might be used for electioneering
communications.
Sec. 202. Coordinated Communications As Contributions.
Makes clear that electioneering communications that are
coordinated with candidates or with political parties are
deemed to be contributions to the candidate supported by the
communication. Because contributions to candidates are
limited in the case of individuals, or prohibited in the case
of groups (other than through a PAC), this provision
essentially prohibits electioneering communications from
being coordinated with candidates or parties.
Sec. 203. Prohibition of Corporate and Labor Disbursements
for Electioneering Communications. Bars the use of corporate
and union treasury money for electioneering communications.
Corporations and unions are prohibited from spending their
treasury money on electioneering communications, and groups
and individuals may not use corporate or union treasury money
for such ads (corporations and unions could finance such
advertisements through their political action committees).
The provision includes a number of special operating rules
designed to prevent evasion of this prohibition through pass-
throughs, laundering, or contribution swaps. 501(c)(4) and
527 organizations, which are technically corporations, are
permitted to make electioneering communications as long as
they use individual money contributed by U.S. citizens, U.S.
nationals, or permanent legal residents and make the
disclosures required by Section 201 (but see Section 204). If
they derive income from business activities or accept
contributions from corporations or unions, they must pay for
electioneering communications from a separate account to
which only individuals can contribute.
Sec. 204. Rules Relating to Certain Targeted Electioneering
Communications. Withdraws Section 203's exemption for
501(c)(4) or 527 organizations that run electioneering
communications targeted to the electorate of the candidate
mentioned in the communications. The net effect of this
provision is to apply the Snowe-Jeffords prohibition on
running sham issue ads paid for with corporate or union
treasury funds to non profit advocacy groups (501(c)(4)'s)
and political organizations (527's). Should this provision be
struck down as unconstitutional, the prohibition on the use
of union or for-profit corporation treasury money for
electioneering communications would remain intact, as would
the disclosure requirements.
Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures
Sec. 211. Definition of Independent Expenditure. Clarifies
the statutory definition of independent expenditure to mean
an expenditure expressly advocating the election or defeat of
a clearly defined candidate that is not made in coordination
with a candidate.
Sec. 212. Reporting Requirements for Certain Independent
Expenditures. Requires any person, including a political
committee, who makes independent expenditures totaling
$10,000 or more until the 20th day before the election to
file a report with the FEC within 48 hours. An additional
report must be filed within 48 hours of any additional
independent expenditures of $10,000 or more. In the last 20
days before the election, a report must be filed within 24
hours of each independent expenditure totaling more than
$1,000.
Sec. 213. Independent Versus Coordinated Expenditures by
Party. Requires political parties to choose in each election
between making the limited expenditures permitted to be
coordinated with a candidate under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441a(d) and
making unlimited independent expenditures. Parties would make
that choice with their first expenditure with respect to a
particular election after their nominee has been chosen. If a
party makes an independent expenditure, it may not make a
coordinated expenditure with respect to that election. If it
makes a coordinated expenditure, it may not make an
independent expenditure. For purposes of this section, all
national and state party committees are considered to be one
entity so a national party cannot make an independent
expenditure if a state party has made a coordinated
expenditure with respect to a particular candidate.
Sec. 214. Coordination with Candidates or Political
Parties. Provides that an expenditure made by a person, other
than a candidate, in coordination with a political party will
be treated as a contribution to the party. In addition, the
FEC's current regulations on coordinated communications paid
for by persons other than candidates are repealed nine months
after enactment. The provision instructs the FEC to
promulgate new regulations on coordination between candidates
or parties and outside groups, addressing a number of
different situations where coordination might be found. It
provides that the new regulations shall not require formal
collaboration or agreement to establish coordination.
TITLE III: MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 301. Use of Contributed Amounts for Certain Purposes.
Codifies FEC regulations
[[Page S1994]]
relating to the personal use of campaign funds by candidates.
Contributions will be considered converted to personal use if
they are used for an expense that would exist irrespective of
the campaign or duties as an officeholder, including home
mortgage or rent, clothing, vacation expenses, tuition
payments, noncampaign-related automobile expenses, and a
variety of other items.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of Fundraising on Federal Property.
Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 607 to provide controlling legal
authority that it is unlawful to solicit or receive a
campaign contribution from a person who is located in a
federal room or building. It is also unlawful to solicit or
receive a campaign contribution while located in federal room
or building.
Sec. 303. Strengthening Foreign Money Ban. Prohibits
foreign nationals from making any contribution to a committee
of a political party or any contribution in connection with
federal, state or local elections, including any
electioneering communications. This clarifies that the ban on
contributions to foreign nationals applies to soft money
donations.
Section 304. Modification of Individual Contribution Limits
in Response to Expenditures From Personal Funds. Allows
Senate candidates who face opponents who spend large amounts
of their personal wealth to raise larger contributions from
individual donors. The provision sets up three different
``triggers'' that vary according to the size of the
candidate's state. When a wealthy candidate's personal
spending passes the first trigger amount, the individual
contribution limits are tripled. At the second trigger, the
opposing candidate can raise six times the limits from
individual donors. And at the third trigger, party
coordinated spending limits are lifted. The amount of
additional fundraising or spending at all trigger levels is
limited to 110% of the amount of personal wealth spent. The
provision also prohibits all candidates from raising
contributions to repay loans they make to their own campaigns
of over $250,000. Section 316 further limits the amount of
additional fundraising that can be done by Senate candidates
under this provision: See section 319 for a similar provision
applicable to House candidates.
Sec. 305. Limitation on Availability of Lowest Unit Charge
for Federal Candidates Attacking Opposition. Requires
candidates seeking to avail themselves of the lowest unit
charge for advertising available under Section 315(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 to provide written certification
that if they refer to another candidate in the advertisement
they will include in the advertisement a photo of themselves
and a clearly legible statement that they have approved and
paid for the ad. Both items must appear in the ad for no less
than four seconds.
Sec. 306. Software for Filing Reports and Prompt Disclosure
of Contributions. Requires the FEC to promulgate standards
for software vendors to develop software that will allow
political committees to report receipts and disbursements to
the FEC immediately, and allow the FEC to immediately post
the information on the Internet immediately. Once such
software is available, the FEC is required to make it
available to all persons required to file reports. Once
software provided to a person required to report, it shall be
used notwithstanding the current time periods for filing
reports.
Sec. 307. Modification of Contribution Limits. Provides for
increases in certain contribution limits. The maximum amount
that an individual can give to a federal candidate is
increased from $1,000 to $2,000 per election. These limits
will be indexed for inflation. The maximum amount that an
individual can give to a national committee of a political
party each year is increased from $20,000 to $25,000. The
maximum aggregate amount that an individual can give to
parties, PACs, and candidates combined per year is increased
from $25,000 per year (current law) to $95,000 per cycle,
including not more than $37,500 per cycle to candidates, and
reserving $20,000 per cycle for the national party
committees. The amount that a senatorial campaign committee
can contribute to a Senate candidate is increased from
$17,500 to $35,000. All of the limits increased in this
section are indexed for inflation beginning with a base year
of 2001, and the increased limits apply to contributions made
on or after January 1, 2003.
Sec. 308. Donations to Presidential Inaugural Committee.
Requires a Presidential Inaugural Committee to file a report
with FEC within 90 days of the inauguration disclosing all
donations of $200 or more. Foreign nationals (as defined in 2
U.S.C. Sec. 441e(2) are prohibited from making any donation
to an Inaugural Committee. The FEC is required to make public
and post on the Internet any Report filed under this section
within 48 hours of its receipt.
Sec. 309. Prohibition no Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds.
Prohibits a person from fraudulently misrepresenting that he
or she is speaking, writing, or otherwise acting on behalf of
a candidate or political party for the purpose of soliciting
campaign contributions.
Sec. 310. Study and Report on Clean Money Election Laws.
Requires the GAO to conduct a study of the clean money, clean
election systems in Arizona and Maine. The study shall
include a number of statistical determinations with respect
to the recent elections in those states and describe the
effect of public financing on the elections in those states.
The GAO shall report its findings to Congress within a year
of enactment.
Sec. 311. Clarity Standards for Identification of Sponsors
of Election-Related Advertising. Amends and supplements the
FECA's current requirements that the sponsors of political
advertising identify themselves in their ads. Additional
provisions include: (1) applies the requirements to any
disbursement for public political advertising, including
electioneering communications; (2) requires the address,
telephone number, and Internet address of persons other than
candidates who purchase public political advertising to
appear in the ad; (3) requires candidate radio ads to include
a statement by the candidate that he or she has approved the
communication; (4) requires a television ad to include the
same audio statement along with a picture of the candidate or
a full screen view of the candidate making the statement, and
a written version of that statement that appears for at least
4 seconds; and (5) requires persons other than candidates to
run ads to include a statement that that person ``is
responsible for the content of this advertising.''
Sec. 312. Increase in Penalties. Increases from one year to
five years the maximum term of imprisonment for knowing and
willful violations of the FECA involving the making,
receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or
expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar
year. Provides that criminal fines of up to $250,000 may also
be assessed for prohibited contributions or expenditures of
that amount, or of up to $100,000 for violations totaling
less than $25,000 in a year.
Sec. 313. Statute of Limitations. Extends the statute of
limitations for violations of the FECA from three to five
years.
Sec. 314. Sentencing Guidelines. Directs the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to: (1) within 90 days of the effective
date promulgate a guideline, or amend an existing guideline,
for penalties under FECA and related election laws; and (2)
submit to Congress an explanation of any such guidelines and
any legislative or administrative recommendations regarding
enforcement. Specifies considerations for such guidelines,
including that they reflect the serious nature of violations
of the FECA and the need to aggressive and appropriate law
enforcement action to prevent violations.
Sec. 315. Increase in Penalties Imposed for Violation of
Conduit Contribution Ban. Increases the maximum civil penalty
that can be assessed by the FEC for a violation of the
conduit contribution prohibition in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441f from
the greater of $10,000 or 200 percent of the contribution
involved to $50,000 or 1,000 percent of the amount involved.
Increases the maximum term of imprisonment for a criminal
violation of the conduit contribution ban involving amounts
of between $10,000 and $25,000 from one to two years, and
increases the maximum criminal penalty to the greater of
$50,000 or 1,000 percent of amount involved. The minimum
criminal penalty shall be 300 percent of the amount involved.
Sec. 316. Restriction on Increased Contribution Limits by
Taking into Account Candidate's Available Funds. Modifies the
amount of additional fundraising that a candidate who faces a
wealthy opponent can do under the increased contribution
limits set out in Section 304. If the non-wealthy candidate
has raised more money than the wealthy candidate, the amount
of fundraising under the increased contribution limits is
decreased by one half of the difference between the two
candidates fundraising (excluding the amount of personal
wealth that the wealthy candidate has contributed) as of June
30 and December 31 of the year before the election.
Sec. 317. Clarification of Right of Nationals of the United
States to Make Political Contributions. Clarifies U.S.
Nationals are allowed to make political contributions.
Sec. 318. Prohibition of Contributions by Minors. Prohibits
anyone 17 years of age or younger from making political
contributions.
Sec. 319. Modification of Individual Contribution Limits
for House Candidates in Response to Expenditures from
Personal Funds. Allows House candidates who face opponents
who spend large amounts of their personal wealth to raise
larger contributions from individual donors. When a wealthy
candidate's personal spending exceeds $350,000, the
individual contribution limits are tripled. In addition,
party coordinated spending limits are lifted. The total
amount of permitted additional fundraising and party
expenditures is limited to the ``opposition personal funds
amount.'' That amount is determined by taking the opponent's
personal wealth spending and subtracting the amount the
candidate spends of his or her own personal wealth and one-
half of the fundraising advantage, if any, that the candidate
may have over the opponent. Thus, the amount of additional
fundraising and party expenditures can never exceed the
amount of personal wealth devoted by the opponent.
TITLE IV: SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 401. Severability. Provides that if any provision of
the bill is held unconstitutional, the remainder of the bill
will not be affected.
Sec. 402. Effective Date. Provides that the Act will take
effect on November 6, 2002 (the day after the 2002 election),
except for the increased contributions limits contained in
section 307. After November 6, 2002, the parties may spend
any remaining soft money only for debts or obligations
incurred in connection with the 2002 election (including any
[[Page S1995]]
runoff or recount) or any previous election, but only for
expenses for which it would otherwise be permissible to spend
soft money. No soft money may be spent on office buildings or
facilities after the effective date.
Sec. 403. Judicial Review. Provides that any action for
declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge the
constitutionality of any provision of the Act or any
amendment made by it must be filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia where the
complaint will be heard by a three judge court. Appeal of an
order or judgment in such an action shall be reviewable only
by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Such appeal must be taken by notice of appeal filed within 10
days of the judgment and a jurisdictional statement must be
filed within 30 days of the entry of a final decision. The
District Court and the Supreme Court must expedite the case.
Allows a Member of Congress to intervene in support of or in
opposition to a party to the case. The Court may make orders
that similar positions be filed jointly or be represented by
a single attorney at oral arguments.
TITLE V: ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Internet Access to Records. Requires the FEC to
make all designations, reports, statements, and notifications
available on the Internet within 48 hours of receipt.
Sec. 502. Maintenance of Website of Election Reports.
Requires the FEC to maintain an Internet site to make all
publicly available election reports accessible to the public
and to coordinate with other agencies that receive election-
reports to allow such reports to be posted on the FEC's site
in a timely manner.
Sec. 503. Additional Monthly and Quarterly Disclosure
Reports. Requires candidates to file quarterly reports
instead of semi-annual reports in non-election years.
National parties are required to file monthly reports rather
than having a choice between monthly and quarterly reports.
Sec. 504. Public Access to Broadcasting Records. Requires
radio and television broadcasting stations to maintain
records of requests to purchase political advertising time,
including requests by candidates or by advertisers intending
to communicate a message relating to a political matter of
national importance. The records must be made available for
public inspection and must include the name and contact
information of person requesting to purchase the time, the
date and time that the advertisement was aired, and the rates
charged for the time.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I want to acknowledge my good friend,
colleague and ranking member on the Rules Committee, Senator Mitch
McConnell of Kentucky.
While he and I may be on opposite sides of this issue, we are on the
same side of another issue--the election reform legislation which is
now pending before the Senate. I would much prefer to be with him on an
issue rather than against him.
I think all my colleagues agree that he is a formidable advocate for
his position. Even if a resolution is clear on this legislation at the
end of the day, I suspect this will not be the end of Senator
McConnell's advocacy with regard to campaign finance reform issues.
I turn now to the matter at hand. I rise today to express my optimism
that Congress will enact real campaign finance reform this week.
We must not use this week to merely re-debate legislation already
fully debated and adopted by both chambers of Congress.
Only final passage is the proper tribute to the culmination of years
of extraordinary bicameral and bipartisan leadership provided by my
good friends and colleagues.
In the Senate, the leaders of campaign finance reform are Senator
John McCain of Arizona and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. In the
House, the leaders are Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut and
Congressman Martin Meehan of Massachusetts.
On February 14, 2002, the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance
Reform Bill, H.R. 2356, was adopted by a vote of 240-189 in the House.
On April 2, 2001, the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance
Reform bill, S. 27, was adopted by a vote of 59-41 in the Senate.
Interestingly, today is only one day short of being a full year from
when the Senate started debate on the McCain-Feingold measure--March
19, 2001.
Last year, I was honored to serve as floor manager for the Senate
debate on campaign finance reform legislation. I was equally as honored
to be counted as one of the 59 votes to adopt the McCain-Feingold bill.
I stand in the same shoes today. It is a high honor to serve as floor
manager of the Senate debate on the Shays-Meehan measure. I will be
equally as honored to be counted among the many Members who will vote
in a bipartisan manner to adopt this reform bill.
I congratulate my colleagues in both chambers for the hard-fought
success that this legislation reflects.
I especially wish to take this time to extend my sincere
congratulations to my good friend, Congressman Chris Shays.
It is with a sense of parochial pride in this House action that the
major co-sponsor of the legislation, who is a longstanding friend of
mine and a Member of the Connecticut delegation, has been a principled
advocate of campaign finance reform for years.
I want to express the tremendous sense of pride of all the people of
Connecticut to Chris Shays for his outstanding efforts to achieve real
campaign finance reform on behalf of all Americans.
Our Senate debate will only confirm that the House merely adopted
virtually the same bill as the Senate approved after a robust debate on
April 2, 2001.
In general, both bills would change the way political parties raise
and spend money, regulate issue advertising, increase contribution
limits, improve disclosure requirements, and make other changes to
campaign finance law.
Specifically, both bills would ban unrestricted ``soft money''
contributions to political parties by corporations, unions, and
individuals;
Both bills would restrict end-of-campaign advertising funded by
organizations that name a Federal candidate;
Both bills would increase the aggregate limits on contributions by
individuals to candidates, PACs, and parties; and
Both bills would improve disclosure of campaign finance activity.
Thee are a few minor differences between the House and Senate passed
bills. For example, there is a difference in the contribution limits
for an individual.
Under the House bill, an individual may contribute a total of $95,000
in 2 years to candidates, PACs, and parties. under the Senate bill, an
individual may contribute a total of $37,500 in 1 year to candidates,
PACs, and parties. Under both bills, an individual is nevertheless
limited to an annual maximum contribution of $37,500 to candidates.
Another difference between the two bills is that the House bill
eliminates Senator Torricelli's amendment requiring the lowest unit
rate for the purchase of broadcast advertisements.
Finally, the House bill extends to House candidates the
``millionaires amendment.''
These are all very minor differences that serve to make the two bills
substantially the same. As a result, the Senate would not benefit from
an extended debate on re-hashing the same issues in this version of the
Shays-Meehan legislation. Last year's open and full Senate debate on
these same issues in McCain-Feingold remains sufficient for our
purposes today, which is to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform.
It is my fervent hope that we pass this legislation with a minimum
amount of debate. This is not a ``mission impossible,'' given the fact
that the House bill is virtually a mirror image of the Senate-passed
bill.
The Senate already participated in weeks of full, open and
unrestricted debate on campaign finance reform. And the Senate already
voted on both the substance of the bill and all relevant amendments to
the bill.
Now the question becomes whether yet another extended Senate debate
will serve to ensure certain improvements in the bill or, to the
contrary, only serve to ensure further delay of the bill?
On balance, I believe the risk of delay far outweighs the potential
for legislative improvements. There is no perfect legislation.
Attempting to craft perfect legislation only serves to jeopardize the
Senate's ability to send this measure to the President for signature.
Instead of becoming law, the Shays-Meehan bill would be on yet
another journey. It would be a candidate for a Senate-House conference
or additional House debate. Either of these scenarios would kill any
real chance to enact campaign finance reform in the 107th Congress.
[[Page S1996]]
I urge my colleagues to consider this road well traveled for decades.
It is time to resist exploring new and substantive forks in the road.
As do many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I feel
strongly about the need for comprehensive campaign reform. Time and
again we have seen thoughtful, appropriate--and, I must emphasize,
bipartisan--efforts to stop the spiraling money chase that afflicts our
political system, only to see a minority of the Senate block further
consideration of the issue.
It is almost as if the opponents of reform are heeding the humorous
advice of Mark Twain, who once said, ``Do not put off until tomorrow
what can be put off till day-after-tomorrow just as well.''
It is now long past the day-after-tomorrow. We simply cannot afford
to wait any longer to do something about the tidal wave of special-
interest money that is drowning our system of government.
Oscar Wilde once observed that ``A cynic is a person who knows the
price of everything and the value of nothing.'' I fear that the
exploding dominance of money in politics has created a similar
atmosphere of cynicism in our political system--an environment where
the value of ideas, of debate, of people in general, is overwhelmed by
the price tag of free speech and political success.
The worst aspect of the current financing system is its affect on
eroding public confidence in the integrity of our political process.
The real concern is that the escalating amounts of money pouring into
our elections is having a corrupting influence on our political system.
The public perception of the problems of corruption and the appearance
of corruption is that large political contributions to candidates and
political parties provide those donors with preferred access and
influence over American public policy--and the average American has
neither the access nor influence in Washington.
The more money that is required to run for office, the more influence
that the donors--wealthy individuals, corporations, labor unions, and
special interest groups--have over elected officials and public policy.
The real harm to avoid is having the concerns of the average voters
completely usurped by the money and influence of these powerful
individuals, corporations, and interest groups.
It is this concern--the relationship of money to power--that is
casting a vote of ``no confidence'' in the integrity of our electoral
process. It is this devastating harm of corruption and the appearance
of corruption that campaign finance reform seeks to avoid. To date,
Congress has an unacceptable record since we have only sought to avoid
the remedy for the harm.
Unfortunately, not only does historical data tend to support this
pessimistic view--the current data sustains this view.
Take a cursory look at raising and spending soft money in the
November 2000 Presidential and congressional elections. It sends one
message--our financing system is in urgent need of repair.
According to the center for responsive politics, the total amount
spent on the 2000 Presidential and congressional campaigns was
approximately $3 billion. This price tag is up from $2.2 billion in
1996 and $1.8 billion in 1992.
According to the Federal Election Commission, the Democratic and
Republican parties raised $1.2 billion in 2000--a 36 percent increase
over the $881 million raised by the parties in 1996.
In that same period, democrats raised over $245 million in soft
money, while Republicans raised over $249 million in soft million. the
parties use soft money funds for so-called issue ads and other so-
called party building activities.
In that same period, Democrats raised over $275 million ion ``hard
money,'' while Republicans almost doubled that amount in fundraising
with over $465 million in hard money. The parties use hard money funds
for direct contributions to candidates and other activities to advocate
the election or defeat of candidates for Federal office.
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
conducted a study on television advertising in the 2000 Federal
elections. The Brennan Center found that the Presidential election was
the first election in history where the major national political
parties spent more on television ads than the candidates themselves
spent--the Democratic and Republican national committees together spent
over $80 million on TV ads, a lot more than the $67 million spent by
Vice-President Gore and Governor Bush.
The Brennan Center found that the vast amount of money spent by the
parties on TV ads was ``soft money,'' the unregulated and unlimited
party donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy
individuals.
The Brennan Center found that spending by groups in congressional
campaigns on so-called issue ads increased from $10 million in 1998 to
$32 million in 2000.
Finally, the Brennan Center also found that only a small percentage
of party soft money is spent for get-out-the-vote and voter
mobilization activities. Only 8.5 cents of every dollar goes to GOTV
and voter registration activities while 40 cents of every dollar goes
to purchase ads to support or defeat candidates for Federal office.
In contrast to all this financial participation in elections,
according to the Federal Election Commission report on the 2000 Federal
elections, just under 105.4 million Americans voted in the Presidential
election. That is 51 percent of the Census Bureau's estimated voting
age population of over 205.8 million Americans.
The voter turnout figure of 51 percent in 2000 was somewhat higher
than the 49 percent turnout for the 1996 Federal elections--the first
time in modern political history when less than half of the eligible
electorate turned out to vote for President.
This means that the voter turnout has declined sharply--from over 63
percent of the voting age population in 1952 to slightly over 51
percent of the voting age population in 2000.
Arguably, while there are no accurate national statistics, it is
sufficient to project that there is only a small percentage of
individual donors with average income who actually contribute to
political campaigns.
These statistics tell the story of a system in which a small
percentage of individual donors are making ever larger contributions,
while at the same time more and more voters have lost such confidence
in our elections that they do not even feel it is worthwhile to vote.
Do any of us really believe this is acceptable? Do any of us believe
that this is not a system in need of comprehensive reform?
If we are to break the grip that money currently holds on our
campaigns, we must enact legislation that will stop the flow of
unregulated money in the political system and limit the flow of
regulated money into Federal campaigns.
We must restore common sense by eliminating the opportunities for
legalisms and loopholes that mock the spirit of our campaign finance
laws. We must give those who enforce the law the resources they need to
ensure that the campaign financing system is lawful and fair.
I look forward to participating in the process of winding-down the
campaign finance debate. I also look forward to working with my
colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--and to adopting this moderate
legislation that restores the proper balance of money to politics and
restores the American people's confidence in our current financing
system.
I urge each of my colleagues to put aside any and all partisanship
and personal ambitions to join me in de-emphasizing the importance of
money in politics.
This is not a complicated task. We desperately need to ensure that
the average American is heard in Washington over the din of special
interest voices. We must ensure that the exercising of Americans' free
speech in the political process is not governed by the price tagon
contribution amounts that can be raised and spent on Federal elections.
As Supreme Court Justice Stevens wrote in the Nixon v. Shrink Missouri
Government PAC case, ``Money is property, money is not speech.''
This is why Congress has an obligation to enact comprehensive,
meaningful, and real campaign finance law and pass the law now.
The action we take today will signal to all Americans that exercising
their first amendment right to free speech
[[Page S1997]]
and association outside the beltway has now been heard inside the
beltway.
Americans have waited long enough. Congress has the first opportunity
in a generation to clean up a political system that most Americans
believe is polluted by campaign contributions, or the appearance of
such pollution. There is no room for wavering or using a philosophical,
legal or factual excuse for killing this legislation. This is a real
chance to curb the role of money in politics.
It has been decades since Congress took similar comprehensive action
with the enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The
one thing we cannot afford to do is wait any longer--now is the time to
enact the Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold legislation. The American people
have waited long enough!
I fully support this legislation as the best effort that Congress can
make to enact real campaign finance reform. I stand ready to do what I
can to make reform a reality in the 107th Congress.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________