[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25594-25638]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
return to consideration of S. 1593, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1593) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.

  Pending:

       Daschle amendment No. 2298, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 2299 (to amendment No. 2298), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before making my comments on the campaign 
finance reform measure before us, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for 
his splendid work on this issue. This has been an issue on which he has 
spent a good deal of time. An issue this complicated is very demanding. 
As so frequently is the custom of the Senator from Kentucky, he has put 
his heart and soul into this issue. Many of us appreciate his dedicated 
effort in trying

[[Page 25595]]

to deal with this issue in a very responsive manner. It is 
characteristic of the Senator from Kentucky to do this kind of work for 
the Senate. We all appreciate and respect him for it.
  The Denver Rocky Mountain News ran an editorial on September 21st in 
response to the passage of the Shays/Meehan bill, expressing the 
paper's belief that soft money campaign contributions are a form of 
political expression and, as such, are protected by the First 
Amendment.
  I don't bring this up now as a part of the Senate debate on campaign 
finance reform just because The News is a local paper. I am bringing 
this editorial up now because it is from a local paper with an 
exceedingly sound view.
  In the editorial they use an example of an average citizen who might 
decide to distribute leaflets against a city pot hole problem. If this 
hypothetical citizen is stopped from doing so by a city council, it 
would be a clear-cut violation of freedom of speech.
  The editorial then goes on, correctly, to explain that the difference 
between this simple form of election activity control and the kinds 
contained in the two main campaign finance measures considered on the 
Hill this year--Shays/Meehan and McCain/Feingold--is merely a 
difference of degrees, not type.
  Donors who want to give to the Republican National Committee or the 
Democrat National Committee are expressing their political views.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Rocky Mountain News editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      [From the Denver Rocky Mountain News, Tues., Sept. 21, 1999]

                        Free Speech vs. `Reform'

       Suppose that you were upset about potholes in a 
     neighborhood street. Imagine that you started cranking out 
     leaflets to win the support of fellow residents and maybe 
     even to get them to consider the issue in the next city 
     council election. And now suppose that the city government 
     told you to cut it out on the ground that the amount of money 
     you were spending on those leaflets was corrupting 
     politicians. You just might suspect someone was messing with 
     your freedom of speech, right?
       Your assessment would be correct. And it would be equally 
     correct to believe that a campaign finance bill passed 
     recently in the House of Representatives would abridge the 
     First Amendment guarantees of untethered political 
     expression. The bill is aimed principally at money that's 
     given to political parties for reasons other than directly 
     influencing a candidate's election or defeat at the polls. 
     The legislation would ban those kinds of unregulated 
     contributions, and the cheers have been deafening.
       But why is it that applauding throngs are so eager to quell 
     free speech? Can't they see that it's as much an abuse of 
     power to stop a rich donor from piling money at the door of 
     the Republicans or the Democrats as it would be to limit the 
     distribution of leaflets by a neighborhood activist? The 
     Senate sponsors of a similar bill reportedly plan to drop one 
     particularly obnoxious provision of the House legislation--
     regulating the content of issue advertisements that comment 
     on candidates--but the proposed law remains an anti-
     democratic restriction of political discussion.
       This so-called reform may be stopped this year by 
     filibuster. It ought to be stopped because members of 
     Congress recognize that the best cure the current system's 
     many ills is more complete disclosure of contributors and 
     even more freedom for direct campaign contributions, not less 
     liberty for all of us.

  Mr. ALLARD. As the Supreme Court has ruled, political spending equals 
political expression. Attempting to stop this political expression, 
however distasteful some might find soft money, is an attempt to stifle 
activities protected by the Constitution. And so it is our duty as 
legislators to find a better--a constitutional--way.
  ``Don't let perfect be the enemy of good'' is an expression we hear 
often on this matter. It's a slogan urging baby steps: small moves 
toward a distant goal.
  The thought is that a soft money ban is one part of a move towards an 
ideal campaign finance system, and is part of an incremental process of 
improvement.
  But alone, it is not good. It's not even merely average. Banning soft 
money will only give us different and arguably worse evils.
  Let's take a look at just a few of them:
  First, in some of my colleagues' minds it is a step towards taxpayer 
financed elections. This would be an absolute monstrosity with the 
bureaucracy calling the shots on campaigns. Our democratic process is 
voluntary and fiercely competitive.
  Mandating completely taxpayer financed campaigns would force citizens 
to support candidates they disagree with, it would place bureaucrats in 
the position of legitimizing political candidates, and it unjustly 
allows candidates influence beyond their natural appeal to voters.
  Let me explain also that I feel that a soft money ban is biased.
  It might just be coincidental that the Republican caucus is leading 
the opposition to this bill instead of the Democrat caucus, but it 
might also have something to do with the fact that a ban on party soft 
money will ultimately benefit Democrat candidates over Republican ones.
  If political parties are curbed, the Democrats already have a 
cohesive constituency ready and able to step up and assume party 
functions. Organized labor is just that--coordinated people ready to 
work. They are also ready to spend.
  Senators Snowe and Jeffords were kind enough to provide us all with a 
copy of the October 12th Washington Post article covering the 
announcement by the AFL-CIO that they were going to spend $46 million 
on the upcoming elections.
  I don't begrudge the Democrat National Committee this labor and 
funding base, but it is unbalanced and blatantly partisan to attempt to 
shield this type of spending while attacking its counterbalancing 
force, the areas where the RNC instead has the advantage.
  The natural constituencies of each party tend to balance each other 
out, but they do so in different ways.
  If you will excuse this minor diatribe, I want to digress here for a 
moment and lament what seems so obvious to everyone and that is 
organized labor is not a Republican constituency.
  I support the American worker. My party supports the American worker. 
We are the party of the individual worker, not a worker controlled by 
government.
  In a more perfect world--of course, meaning a world that runs more 
according to my beliefs--the Republican agenda would be passed and 
would aid American workers tremendously.
  The tax refund bill pushed by the Republican majority would have 
passed and returned money to taxpayers, also known as American workers.
  The legislation I offered last year to pay down the debt would have 
benefitted all American workers in myriad ways.
  The Social Security lock box would have passed and guaranteed this 
benefit for American workers.
  I am therefore a little perturbed that the leaders of organized labor 
are so adamant against goals which I feel will greatly benefit the 
workers of America.
  The nature or our political differences has resulted in the current 
situation where there is no other single entity willing to be so 
dedicated to a single party.
  The Republican Party counters this absence by seeking contributions 
from diverse sources. Once these individuals give to the candidates 
they support, because they have not been coerced into giving and are 
without the option of labor unions to further spread their general 
message, they give to the Republican National Committee. To try and 
``un-level'' the whole playing field by denying one side an outlet for 
political expression and clout, even if the objection is based an 
abhorrence of fund raising, is flagrant factionalism.
  It is also, as I have said, unconstitutional.
  The Supreme Court, in the case we are hearing about a lot this week, 
Buckley v. Valeo, said just that.
  The Supreme Court struck down spending levels, because, and I quote, 
``So long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express 
term advocate the election or defeat of clearly identified candidate, 
they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate 
and his views.''

[[Page 25596]]

  They allowed campaign donation limits, not because they did not 
interfere with First Amendment rights, but because the interference 
they impose can be grudgingly tolerated in light of the overriding 
interest in ensuring clean and fair elections.
  To further limit soft money donations, or to attempt a different way 
to cut campaign spending, both of which a ban on party soft money would 
do, there must first be shown the corresponding overwhelming corruption 
it brings.
  I feel compelled to respond to earlier discussion on this floor by 
pointing out that the mere lack of authorization for appropriations, 
while certainly unfortunate and unsound practice, is not by itself 
proof positive of corruption. We have not authorized the State 
Department in years. It is hardly pork barrel spending to fund the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, another unauthorized agency.
  Just because large amounts of money flow around elections does not 
mean that the elections automatically become corrupt.
  The Supreme Court has said that large gifts directly to a candidate 
could be corrupting. That is why the hard money limits are in place. I 
agree with these.
  If a candidate were to receive a huge--say, in the millions--donation 
from one donor and could run an entire campaign from it, it would be 
awfully hard to tell it apart from what is commonly called ``being 
bought.''
  But one donor making even a huge donation to a political party is not 
buying the party philosophy, they are supporting it. And we cannot tell 
people how and what to support politically.
  Many of the proponents of other campaign finance bills try to reduce 
the influence of ``special interests'' by suppressing their donations 
and thus their speech.
  First, I am not even sure suppressing special interests is an 
admirable goal, since ``special interests'' are citizens expressing a 
particular viewpoint, such as the Sierra Club, Chambers of Commerce, 
Common Cause and countless others.
  That's the point of politics: advocating your goal during the march 
towards a collective good. There needs to be more interests in 
politics, not less!
  I believe the absolute best way to ensure there are no undue special 
interest influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government.
  If the government rids itself of special interest funding and 
corporate subsidies, then there would be less of a perception of any 
attempts to buy influence through donations.
  A simplified tax code, state regulation flexibility, local education 
control--these are less government approaches to problems that would 
also lower the desperate need for access.
  Meddlesome outside influences--another horror of campaigning--are a 
function of the hard money limits, not soft money availability.
  Candidates lose control of their message when they lose the right to 
accept money people want to spend and will end up spending on their 
behalf.
  The simple fact that large sums of money are spent on elections does 
not mean those elections are corrupt.
  In my campaign for Senate, I was outspent by three-quarters of a 
million dollars. That money obviously did not buy the election. That 
money did not corrupt the election.
  Supporters say that the election system is drowning in soft money.
  They say that soft money has consumed the entire political process.
  Let me say this. Or, rather, allow me to share what the Supreme Court 
has to say:

       The First Amendment denies government the power to 
     determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
     wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained 
     by our Constitution it is not the government but the people--
     individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as 
     associations and political committees--who must retain 
     control over the quantity and range of debate on public 
     issues in a political campaign.

  The Supreme Court has been very clear in its rulings concerning 
campaign finance and the First Amendment.
  Since the post-Watergate changes to the campaign finance system 
began, twenty-four Congressional actions have been declared 
unconstitutional, with nine rejections based on the First Amendment.
  Out of those nine, four dealt directly with campaign finance reform 
laws. In each case, the Supreme Court has ruled that political 
spending--even if obviously excessive--is equal to political speech.
  Even today, the Supreme Court is addressing a case regarding Missouri 
contribution limits, showing their continued dedication to protecting 
the freedom of speech expressed through political support.
  Besides the constitutional question, there is the simple matter of 
plain reality. People with money and political views will not give up 
their desires to express themselves.
  Like water flowing downhill, politically active Americans who find 
themselves blocked will just find different outlets to reach their 
goal.
  Hard money was regulated, so soft money was invented. If soft money 
is banned, something else will take its place.
  The problem is that the regulations and laws that go further and 
further towards cutting money also go further and further towards 
unconstitutionality.
  Some in Congress have stated that freedom of speech and the desire 
for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy are in direct conflict, 
and that we can't have both.
  The only effective dam, they say, would be to change the First 
Amendment so as to allow the abridging of political speech.
  I don't support that belief. Fortunately for those of us who believe 
in the First Amendment rights of all American citizens, the founding 
fathers and the Supreme Court do not either.
  They believe, and I believe, that we can have free political speech 
and fair campaigns.
  Also, supporters of some of the campaign finance reform bills believe 
that if we stop the growth of campaign spending and force give-aways of 
public and private resources then we will be improving the campaign 
finance system.
  The Supreme Court again disagrees and is again very clear in its 
intent on campaign spending. The Buckley decision says,

       . . . the mere growth in the cost of federal election 
     campaigns in and of itself provides no basis for governmental 
     restrictions on the quantity of campaign spending. . . .

  Campaigns are about ideas and expressing those ideas, no matter how 
great or small the means.
  The ``distribution of the humblest handbill'' to the most ``expensive 
modes of communication'' are both indispensable instruments of 
effective political speech. We should not force one sector to freely 
distribute our political ideas just because it is more expensive than 
all the other sectors.
  So no matter how objectionable the cost of campaigns, the Supreme 
Court has stated that this is not reason enough to restrict the speech 
of candidates or any other groups involved in political speech.
  Despite my objections to this current legislation, I think I can 
agree with this bill's cosponsors that improvements can be made to 
today's system. I have some ideas on that. To that end I have 
introduced S. 1671, the Campaign Finance Integrity Act of 1999.
  My bill would: Require candidates to raise at least 50 percent of 
their contributions from individuals in the state or district in which 
they are running; equalize contributions from individuals and political 
action committees (PACs) by raising the individual limit from $1,000 to 
$2,500 and reducing the PAC limit from $5,000 to $2,500; index 
individual and PAC contribution limits for inflation; reduce the 
influence of a candidate's personal wealth by allowing political party 
committees to match dollar for dollar the personal contribution of a 
candidate above $5,000; require corporations and labor organizations to 
seek separate, voluntary authorization of the use of any dues, 
initiative fees or payment as a condition of employment for political 
activity, and requires annual full disclosure of those activities to 
members and shareholders; prohibit

[[Page 25597]]

depositing an individual contribution by a campaign unless the 
individual's profession and employer are reported; encourage the 
Federal Election Commission to allow filing of reports by computers and 
other emerging technologies and to make that information accessible to 
the public on the Internet less than 24 hours of receipt; ban the use 
of taxpayer financed mass mailings; enhance cuts on the use of federal 
property for fund raising, restrict use of White House and Air Force 
One for fund raising, and require non-office holders who use government 
vehicles for campaigns to reimburse for that usage.
  This is common sense campaign finance reform. It drives the candidate 
back into his district or state to raise money from individual 
contributions.
  It has some of the most open, full and timely disclosure requirements 
of any other campaign finance bill in either the Senate or the House of 
Representatives. I strongly believe that sunshine is the best 
disinfectant.
  The right of political parties, groups and individuals to say what 
they want in a political campaign is preserved but the right of the 
public to know how much they are spending and what they are saying is 
also recognized. I have great faith that the public can make its own 
decisions about campaign discourse if it is given full and timely 
information.
  Objecting to the popular quest of the moment is very difficult for 
any politician, but turning your back on the First Amendment is more 
difficult for me.
  I want campaign finance reform but not at the expense of the First 
Amendment. My legislation does this.
  As we deal with this issue, I will continue to listen and continue to 
fine-tune my belief on this matter. But I will not stray from a firm 
belief in the first amendment, a firm belief in fair campaign laws, and 
a firm belief that whatever we do here in this body must justly serve 
the democratic process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I shall take just a moment before the 
Senator from Colorado leaves the floor to thank him. This is his third 
year in the Senate. As he knows and as has been discussed, we seem to 
have this debate every year. He has participated every single year in 
the debate in an extraordinarily insightful way. His speech made a 
whole lot of sense. I listened to every word.
  I thank him for the important contribution he has made to this 
debate, not only this year but in the other years since he has been in 
the Senate. I thank the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I note that the Senator from Idaho is 
on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
engage in what has become an annual debate on campaign finance reform. 
But I am also here to honor Senator Mitch McConnell, who has chosen to 
be a leader on this issue for all the right reasons and, most 
importantly, the right principled reasons. To defend our Constitution 
and to defend free speech in this country is an admirable cause. I 
thank him for engaging in it.
  Along with that kind of leadership comes the risk of errors. I see 
that this weekend the New York Times, in its rather typical fashion, 
has decided to engage in this debate by simply calling names, 
suggesting that the Senate is a ``bordello'' and that Mitch McConnell 
is its ``madam.'' Shame on you, New York Times. I thought you were 
better than that. But then again, why should we think you are better 
than that on this issue, because you have chosen to take what you call 
high ground, which is in fact exclusive ground, that only you as 
journalists would have to speak out for America when no one else would 
have that opportunity.
  That is what this debate is all about. It is why I come to the floor, 
not only to support Mitch McConnell but to support these important 
principles that somehow the New York Times just flat stumbles over on 
its way to its version of the truth.
  There is another analogy I might use. It is similar to suggesting 
that this form of regulation is like a new architectural design for the 
Navy that gave us the Titanic. I suspect it is not new at all. In fact, 
it is not reform at all. And we have been up this creek one too many 
times.
  We are here today and we are engaged in a most serious way to debate 
what I think is an important issue. The Senate has held more than 100 
votes on campaign finance reform during the past dozen years. Although 
the definition of ``reform'' has fluctuated widely over that period of 
time, the essence of this legislation remains the same--to restrict and 
stifle political speech.
  The bill now before us would also federalize or nationalize vast 
parts of America's politics. For the average citizen listening in 
today, let me repeat that phrase. Do you want your Government to 
federalize or nationalize political free speech in this country, to 
shape it and control it, and to tell candidates and their supporters 
how to speak? Someday they might even suggest what to speak. That is 
really the importance of why we come to this floor today to debate this 
most important topic.
  Under the new plan offered by Senators McCain and Feingold, there 
would be once again an across-the-board ban on soft money for any 
Federal election activity.
  You have already heard the sponsors and the supporters of this bill 
talk on and on about how soft money is bad, about how President Clinton 
rented out the Lincoln Bedroom in exchange for huge soft money 
donations, or how foreign nationals paid tens of thousand of dollars 
during the President's 1996 election campaign. They say all soft money 
is bad. Or should we say that Bill Clinton misused it and so, 
therefore, it is bad? I believe that is the kind of connection they are 
using.
  Sorry, Senator McCain; sorry, Senator Feingold. Don't put me in the 
same category with Bill Clinton. Put me in another category. Put me in 
a category that recognizes the importance of free speech and that 
recognizes there are appropriate ways of handling it.
  As I have said in the past, and I say again, a total ban on soft 
money will have a significant negative effect on the lives of thousands 
of citizens who believe it is their American right to become engaged in 
the political process. In the end, you will hear no disagreement on 
this point from the sponsors or the supporters of the legislation.
  Let me take a few moments to explain how this proposal of a ban on 
soft money will affect thousands of citizens involved in America's 
politics.
  Here in Washington, the national party organizations receive money 
from donors. The donations can be from individuals, lobbying groups 
that represent their members, businesses, or unions. The political 
organizations receiving these donations include the Republican National 
Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the Republican Senatorial 
Committee, the Democrat Senatorial Committee, the Republican National 
Congressional Committee, and the Democratic National Congressional 
Committee.
  All of these political organizations receive donations from 
contributors. What happens next is--and it is very important that we 
follow this because this is supposed to be the negative side of 
politics; this is supposed to be the side that corrupts. And yet, so 
far, it is clearly outside the Halls of the Senate. The money flows to 
these national political organizations.
  What happens next? These political organizations distribute some of 
that money to their respective political parties in counties and 
localities all over the country. As you can imagine, there are 
thousands of State, county, and local political offices that receive 
this financial aid.
  Then, under certain conditions already defined by State and Federal 
law, the local parties use this money for activities such as purchasing 
campaign buttons, bumper stickers, posters, and yard signs to express 
an opinion, to express an idea. The money is

[[Page 25598]]

also used by voter registration activities on behalf of the partys' 
Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. The money is also used for 
multicandidate brochures and even sample ballots.
  Can you imagine corruption yet emerging out of this that somehow 
would affect the vote or influence the vote of an individual Senator on 
this floor? I know Halloween is close. I know Senators McCain and 
Feingold are searching for ghosts. And maybe in this scenario there is 
a ghost. But, fellow Senators, it is only a ghost because here is what 
happens next.
  Let me give you an example. Say it is an election day. You go down to 
your local polling site, whether it is at a school, a local church, a 
National Guard armory, or your American Legion hall. Sometimes there is 
a person there who will hand you what is called a sample ballot listing 
all of the candidates in your party running for office. It is a way of 
identifying people running for your office or running for office in 
your party. As most voters, you are more than likely to choose 
candidates of your party. However, under the McCain-Feingold proposal, 
it would be against the law to use soft money to pay for a sample 
ballot with the name of any candidate who is running for Congress on 
the same sample ballot with State and local candidates combined. 
Corruption? As I said earlier, it is close to Halloween.
  Under the McCain-Feingold legislation, it would be against the law to 
use soft money to pay for campaign buttons, posters, yard signs, or 
brochures that include the name or picture of a candidate for Federal 
office on the same item that has the name or picture of a State or 
local candidate. That is called Federal control. That causes the 
creation of a bureaucracy to examine every election process right down 
to the local county central committee. Imagine the size of the new 
building here in Washington. Imagine the Federal agents out on the 
ground. Imagine it; that is what ultimately we reduce ourselves to when 
we begin to micromanage, as is proposed in this legislation, the kind 
of political process that most Americans believe and have reason to 
believe is a fair and honest process.
  Under McCain-Feingold, it would be against the law to use soft money 
to conduct a local voter registration drive 120 days before the 
election. These get-out-the-vote drives have proven to be effective 
tools for increasing interest among people in the political process. 
Frankly, that is what we are all about, getting people interested in 
participating in their government. Not enough do now. With McCain-
Feingold, in the end we would probably even cause that to be 
restricted.
  In fact, in 1979 Congress supported revisions in the law pertaining 
to get-out-the-vote drives because they were concerned about important 
party-building activities and they promoted citizen participation in 
the election process. As we have heard on the Senate floor, the 
sponsors and supporters of this bill think this, and what I have just 
discussed, is corruption.
  Let's look at the reality of what this legislation creates. I will 
talk about a man I know by the name of Jack Hardy, the chairman of the 
Republican Party in Custer County, ID. Custer County is about as big as 
Delaware, New Hampshire, and New Jersey together with only about 4,000 
citizens living in that huge geographic area. Jack Hardy, chairman of 
the Republican Party in that county, works at a full time job as a 
carpenter. He also enjoys spending time with his family. Jack relies on 
financial aid from the State and national party organizations to run 
his Custer County Republican Party.
  There are thousands of Jack Hardys all over the country. Most are 
volunteers. They put in long hours supporting their party and their 
candidates hoping to make a difference because they believe as 
Americans they ought to be involved in the party process to get people 
elected who believe in and represent the ideals that the Jack Hardys of 
America hold. Jack Hardy is a hard-working man who wants to make a 
difference.
  McCain-Feingold is saying we will make it tougher, Jack. Here is how 
we will make it tougher. We are not going to allow you to use the kind 
of resources that come from the State and the Federal parties. You have 
to get out and hustle: forget your job. You have to get hard money from 
donations, local business money, and individuals to fund any 
activities.
  Jack already does some of this. He already solicits among individuals 
and businesses in his community. But never is there enough on an 
election day or before an election day to do the right kind of work. 
Jack Hardy relies on his State and Federal party to help him.
  People such as Jack Hardy will be forced to take more of their time 
off from what is a nonpaid voluntary job to help participate in 
American political activities. In other words, fundraising hard money 
will become a bigger concern for the State and local officials than 
ever before, and whoever raises the most money can fund more political 
activities. It is that simple.
  Essentially, what we have done is make money the most compelling 
factor in campaigns instead of part of what is necessary to run a good 
campaign organization.
  Frankly, this is silly stuff. Exactly what kind of campaign finance 
reform is this? What are we trying to accomplish? We just added more 
laws to a system that is already heavily burdened with rules and 
regulations, many of which can't even get enforced because the Federal 
Election Commission doesn't function too well. Again, it is a federal 
bureaucracy that has probably outserved its usefulness.
  We have just added more laws to a system that is already not working. 
We forced thousands of State and local party officials to raise more 
money from their constituents, to confuse the process that we think 
works pretty well now.
  If the point of McCain-Feingold is to reform the campaign finance 
system, then I think the last thing we want to do is ban soft money.
  I support the amendment offered by Senator McCain to require State 
and local officials to file immediate electronic disclosure of 
contributions. That is key to anything we do. Let the voters know 
firsthand about the money source coming into their politics. Voters are 
not dumb. They are talented, bright Americans who make their own 
judgments. And they should be based on the knowledge handed them, 
without having to create a monstrously large Federal bureaucracy.
  I am bothered by what has been left out of McCain-Feingold. For 
example, there is no protection in this bill against union workers. 
This issue has already been debated thoroughly on the floor. I noticed 
just this past week the AFL-CIO has endorsed Al Gore in his candidacy 
for the Presidency. Of course, this will bring in millions of dollars 
of reported and millions of dollars of unreported money. Why? In large 
part, we have exempted labor unions from certain levels of campaign 
requirements and we do not exempt other citizens of our country. Most 
importantly, we have said labor bosses can take the dues of their 
members and use them for political purposes that maybe even those union 
members don't want.
  The American political process ought to be a free process. We want it 
to be open. We want and must always have full disclosure. If union dues 
go to fund Al Gore's campaign, there will be a lot of union people in 
Idaho who will be very angry because they openly tell me they cannot 
support this candidate. Why? Because he put them out of work. His 
policy on public lands and public land resources and this 
administration's reaction has cost thousands of union men and women to 
be out of work in my State. If their dues go without their ability to 
say no, they have a right to be angry. Yet the provision I am talking 
about is not in McCain-Feingold. I am talking about a term we call 
``paycheck protection.'' This is a very important part of any kind of 
campaign finance reform any Member wants to see.
  During the 1996 elections, union leaders tacked on an extra surcharge 
on dues to their members in order to raise

[[Page 25599]]

$49.2 million to defeat Republican candidates around the country. There 
is no reason not to say it; that was their intent. They were open about 
it. The union bosses have announced they plan to spend much more in the 
2000 election. Yet nothing in this law says they can't do that. We 
shouldn't say, ``You can't do it.'' We should say there are rules about 
how to collect the money. The right of the citizen is to say yes or no 
to how his or her money is used for political purposes.
  There are others waiting to speak. This will be an issue we will 
debate into the week. It is an important issue, but it is one I think 
the American citizens understand quite well.
  When mom and dad come home at night and they sit at the dinner table 
and one spouse says to another, ``How was your day?'' my guess is they 
do not say, ``And, oh, what about those campaign finance laws that 
Senator Feingold is debating in the U.S. Senate? Those are really 
important to us.'' I doubt they say that. In fact, I doubt even few 
moms and dads have ever said that. I think what they will talk about, 
though, is the shooting that happened down the street too close to 
their school; or the economy that cost a brother or a sister their job; 
or the taxes they paid that denied them the ability to spend more on 
their children or put away more for their children's education. Yes, 
and they probably even, in a rather disgusted way, talk about some of 
the examples of moral decline in this country. My guess is that is what 
goes on around the dinner tables of America, not, ``Oh, and by the way, 
Senator Feingold has a great campaign finance bill.''
  What are important issues, as we debate the issues in the closing 
days of this Senate, are issues about public education and safety and 
crime and all of that. We will engage in that with our President in the 
coming days as we finalize some of these key appropriations bills.
  Again, I think what is important to the American people are issues 
like crime, the economy, taxes, health care, education, social 
security, and the moral decline of the country.
  What people really care about is whether their children will get 
safely back and forth from school--and whether they'll get a good 
education in the public schools.
  They care about keeping their jobs and trying to make ends meet while 
they watch more and more of their hard earned money slip away to 
Washington to satisfy this President's lust for spending.
  They care about their future--whether they can save enough money to 
retire some day. And if they retire, will there be any money left in 
the Social Security system, or will it all be spent on more government 
programs.
  These are the real concerns of Americans today, and I hope the Senate 
will soon be able to turn its attention to these important issues.
  Let me conclude by saying we are not wasting our time debating 
campaign finance reform. Defending the right of free speech and the 
right of citizens to participate in this most critical of American 
institutions is our job. To defend and protect that right is the 
reasonable goal. So I appreciate joining with my colleagues on the 
floor to oppose McCain-Feingold and hope Senators will join with us in 
protecting that freedom of expression of America's citizens.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BENNETT. Before the Senator from Idaho yields the floor, will he 
yield to a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BENNETT. I was very interested in a comment about the money being 
raised by the AFL-CIO. I would like to get the exact figure. Did the 
Senator say $49 million?
  Mr. CRAIG. That was in the last cycle.
  Mr. BENNETT. In the last cycle.
  Mr. CRAIG. Specific to those elections.
  Mr. BENNETT. Let me ask a question, which I will be asking my friends 
on the other side as well. But since my colleague has raised it, I 
think he could be an expert on this issue.
  Since we are being told repeatedly throughout this debate that the 
huge amounts of soft money are corrupting and controlling the votes, 
let me ask the Senator from Idaho, who is a member of the Republican 
leadership: If the AFL-CIO were to simply give that $49 million to the 
Republicans and thus corrupt and influence our votes, would that not be 
a better investment on their part than to have it wasted on people who 
are already with them?
  Mr. CRAIG. That is a unique thought. I guess I had not thought of it 
that way. I do not necessarily suggest the $49.2 million is a 
corrupting factor.
  Mr. BENNETT. I do not believe it is corrupting either, but we are 
being told repeatedly that it is.
  Mr. CRAIG. What is corrupting about that is when a labor boss says he 
is going to take the dues of his member without asking him or her 
whether he can use those dues for a political purpose.
  Mr. BENNETT. I agree with that.
  Mr. CRAIG. Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that. He said 
it was wrong, and an individual's money never should be used for those 
purposes. That is the corrupting factor, when money you thought you 
controlled for the purpose of expressing your political opinion would 
get misused. I think in this instance it does.
  Mr. BENNETT. I agree with the Senator from Idaho completely about 
that. But I want to go back to the argument that has been made again 
and again by my friend from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona, 
that the tremendous amount of money that is being put into the system 
influences how people vote. If I were sitting on a $49 million pot of 
money, advising the AFL-CIO, saying what you want is to get more of 
your legislation through the Congress, I would say to them: If in fact 
the $49 million does change the way people vote, why not give the $49 
million to the people who are not voting for us? Why not give the $49 
million to the Republicans and turn them all into rabid supporters of 
the AFL-CIO?
  Mr. CRAIG. In other words, following the logic that money talks and 
money influences.
  Mr. BENNETT. If we accept that logic, it is perfectly clear it ought 
to come on this side of the aisle rather than the other.
  Let me ask the Senator from Idaho, if he was to suddenly receive in 
his campaign--through, let us say, the State party of Idaho, because it 
cannot be given to him directly, there is no way the soft money can 
corrupt you because you cannot receive it--but, if the AFL-CIO were 
suddenly to give to the Republican Party of Idaho $1 million in cash, 
would you change your position on any of the labor issues you have 
discussed, paycheck protection, for example?
  Mr. CRAIG. How can you change your position on things that are 
fundamentally right in America, such as the right of an individual to 
control his money or her money for political purposes? Absolutely not.
  Mr. BENNETT. I accept the integrity of the Senator from Idaho. Let me 
ask him, as a member of leadership----
  Mr. CRAIG. Remember the New York Times says I am a member of a 
bordello.
  Mr. BENNETT. That is why I am raising the question, because in a 
bordello you can change what happens by where the money goes, without 
any question.
  Mr. CRAIG. I wouldn't know.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have never been in one, but I am at least told that is 
the way it works.
  Let me ask the Senator from Idaho, as a member of the leadership, you 
know other Members of the Republican Party. Do you know of any Member, 
on this side of the aisle, who would change his or her position on 
labor issues if the AFL-CIO were to suddenly put $1 million worth of 
soft money into his or her State party?
  Mr. CRAIG. I not only do not know of anyone, I know if you accused 
anyone of changing their opinion because of that, you would have a 
fight on your hands. I do not mean just a verbal fight. I say to anyone 
who would suggest to any of us that money influences, from the 
standpoint it is going to change our philosophy, change our

[[Page 25600]]

attitude or corrupt us, as some Senators have suggested on this floor 
that it does--out West we call them fighting words. Because you are 
questioning a person's integrity. You are basically saying they are for 
sale.
  Shame on those Senators who come to the floor to make that kind of 
suggestion. Maybe they know something we do not.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Idaho yield for a similar 
question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Most of the Republican Members of the Senate have been 
vigorous supporters of tort reform, changes in the legal system of this 
country. I ask my friend from Idaho, if the American Trial Lawyers 
Association gave $1 million to the Republican National Committee, would 
that turn the Republicans in the Senate into vigorous opponents of 
legal reform?
  Mr. CRAIG. It not only would not, you are speaking of a fantasy idea 
that I doubt will ever come to pass. But I thank you for asking that 
question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. My final question of the Senator from Idaho: Let's 
assume the National Right to Life Committee contributed $100,000 to the 
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Does the Senator from Idaho--
of course we are not in the best position to answer this, I don't 
guess, since it is not our party, but it is still interesting to 
speculate. Let's assume the National Right to Life Committee gave a 
$100,000 soft money contribution to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
Committee. I ask my friend from Idaho, does he anticipate at that point 
the Democrats in the Senate would become pro-life?
  Mr. CRAIG. No. I do not believe that a majority of them would. I 
think their basis for what they call a pro-choice position is one 
firmly grounded on their philosophy. I don't criticize--I don't agree, 
but I don't criticize--their right to hold that. But what National 
Right to Life is saying is that they want to have the right to give the 
Democrat Party money if they choose to. What they are saying is, we 
want to have a right to organize individual citizens to come together 
to pool their money for the purpose of giving it. What McCain-Feingold 
says is: No, you can't do that.
  National Right to Life is saying, in this instance: Give us choice, 
the right to choose where we want to play in the political process. 
Don't deny us what is our right as American citizens or an American 
group to participate in the political process.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Idaho, not only for responding 
to our questions but also for another outstanding contribution to this 
most important debate.
  We appreciate his insightful comments. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sorry my friend from Utah last left the 
floor. The fact is, the political balance of power is already heavily 
tilted toward corporations, by any study that you find. The fact is, in 
the last election cycle corporate interests spent about $700 million in 
political contributions. That is 11 times more than what unions spent. 
And they did not get the permission of their stockholders. While unions 
contributed less than 4 percent of the $1.6 billion raised by 
candidates and parties in 1996, corporations contributed over 40 
percent.
  So the disparity between corporate and union spending is not static; 
it is growing. In the next election cycle, instead of 11 to 1, it will 
probably be 14 to 1. What is so disconcerting about this is for this 
so-called soft money, it is even wider.
  While both corporations and unions have increased their unrestricted 
so-called soft money contributions, since 1992 corporate spending has 
grown twice as fast. In 1996, as an example, corporations spent more 
than $176 million--19 times more than what the unions spent.
  There is all this talk about the unions that represent the working 
men and women of this country spending 4 percent of what is spent in 
political campaigns. I think it is too bad that working men and women 
in this country do not have more of a representation. It is getting 
worse. That is why this legislation is before this body.
  I think it is important at this time to recognize the work done by 
Senator Feingold in making this an issue before the people of America. 
I applaud and congratulate Senator Feingold for his position based upon 
what he believes is principle.
  He not only talks the game; he lives the game, as indicated in his 
most recent election. While all over America people were spending huge 
amounts of soft money, and it was being spent in Wisconsin against 
Senator Feingold, he refused to take any money even though it was 
available to him.
  So I take this opportunity to say, first of all, let's bring in to 
proper perspective the disparity between corporate spending and union 
spending and also to congratulate my friend from the State of 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator mentioned $179 million of corporate 
expenditures. Are those for State and local races also?
  Mr. REID. Yes. The fact is, that is a lesser figure. What I did say 
in the beginning is that in the 1996 election cycle--the one that we 
have numbers on--corporate interests spent more; in fact, it is almost 
$700 million in political contributions, which is 11 times more than 
what unions spent.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do not know about that. But I know Mr. Sweeney has 
indicated he had $170-some-odd million, that they would spend $46 
million, I believe, on just the 34 Federal congressional races, all of 
which is very unregulated and underreported, inaccurately reported, of 
course. But I want to get those numbers straight, whether you are 
talking about throughout the Nation, including county commission races, 
State senate races, and all the races.
  The numbers are hard to compare. I think the Senator would probably 
agree with that.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alabama, if we took into 
consideration State and local races, the corporate skew would be even 
further out of whack because unions do get involved in local campaigns. 
But it is usually through the grassroots level and very rarely is it 
money; where the corporations very rarely are involved in the 
grassroots activities and are always involved in the money.
  So if we added all that, the number may even be more than 11 times 
more than what the unions spent.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The numbers I have are that labor spent $370 million 
per election cycle on campaigns. I am not sure where all the numbers 
come out, but that is quite a lot.
  Would the Senator agree with that? Or does he disagree with those 
numbers?
  Mr. REID. I do not know from where the Senator is getting his 
numbers. In the previous question the Senator asked, there was $40 
million. And now it is how much?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Sweeney said they were going to spend $46 million 
in 34 targeted U.S. congressional races.
  Mr. REID. Where does this other number come from?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The $370 million includes Federal election campaigns.
  Mr. REID. Over what period of time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The last election cycle.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend the numbers that he has, I don't know 
from where they came. I do state that in America we have far too much 
money being spent, soft money and other kinds of money. The point I was 
trying to make in my statement in response to my friend from Utah is 
the fact that corporate spending, by any number you pick, is far out of 
whack with union spending, whether it is 19 times more or 11 times 
more. We all acknowledge it is a growing disparity.

[[Page 25601]]

  The fact is, what is being attempted by my friend from the State of 
Wisconsin is to stop the flow of all this soft money.
  The fact is, there is a lot of talk about union money coming from 
working men and women in this country. Remember, corporate money is 
also money that represents shareholders. Certainly, they get no say in 
how that money is spent.
  So I suggest that before we start picking on organized labor, 
remember, is there anything wrong with the nurses of America, who are 
included in these numbers--the AFL-CIO, teachers, carpenters, cement 
finishers--being represented? The answer is, they should be able to be 
involved in campaigns just as much as somebody who represents tobacco 
interests and the very large health care industry in America. So they, 
too, need a voice.
  I am glad that voice is being represented by this side of the aisle.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has been 
waiting a long time.
  I will yield to him in 1 minute. But I want to make a quick point 
with regard to speech comments by the Senator from Colorado.
  He and I had a good discussion the other day about this issue. I 
enjoyed it. But he said that a soft money ban would be unfair to the 
Republican Party. And this very much reflects the comments of the 
Senator from Kentucky, who has made similar comments, that a soft money 
ban would somehow unfairly limit the ability of the Republican Party, 
as opposed to the Democratic Party.
  I find this very odd, since the comments this weekend of the chairman 
designate of the Democratic National Committee, the mayor of 
Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, who is the chair of the DNC, who said in a 
column, or was quoted in a column by David Broder:

       ``If the Republicans pass McCain-Feingold, we would be shut 
     down,'' Rendell said.

  So both parties apparently think it is the end of the line for them 
if we ban soft money--but only for one of them. I ask, how is it 
possible, since this whole soft money thing only happened 3 or 4 years 
ago in terms of the vast amounts of money? We certainly had political 
parties before this--pretty good political parties. How can both 
parties be right? How can the Senator from Colorado be right and Mr. 
Rendell be right?
  The fact is, both parties have become addicted to soft money, and 
they do not want to give it up. There is no reality to the notion that 
the parties will be crippled or any particular party would be severely 
harmed by the soft money ban.
  Mr. President, I wanted to make that point. At this point, since we 
are roughly trying to go back and forth, I hope the Senator from 
Massachusetts could proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I notice other colleagues wanting to 
address the Senate. I would hope and ask consent--I see my colleague on 
the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment? Will the Senator 
yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Without losing his right to the floor.
  In terms of order, I gather we are still rotating. I ask unanimous 
consent that on our side I be able to follow Senator Kennedy. Senator 
Levin may come, in which case I can talk with him about how to proceed. 
I ask unanimous consent that on our side I be allowed to follow Senator 
Kennedy.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I know the occupant of 
the chair was here to speak earlier. Is the Senator from Ohio going to 
be in the chair until 3?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have no problem with the Senator's consent 
agreement, then, if I may ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Ohio be recognized at 3 to make some remarks. I think that would help 
accommodate him. Nobody is trying to quiet anyone. I just want to give 
the Senator from Ohio a chance to get in the debate at 3. Does anybody 
have a problem with that?
  Mr. REID. I have no problem. We will begin rotating at this time. The 
Senator from Kentucky knows we have already had several speeches from 
Republicans. We will start now rotating.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. So after Senator Kennedy speaks, Senator Voinovich may 
speak. If necessary, you may cover the floor for him.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We will work that out.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I only planned to speak 
for 15 or 20 minutes. I think what the Senator from Kentucky has 
proposed will certainly be agreeable, if that is all right.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Ohio will be recognized after the 
Senator from Minnesota. We will make sure somebody gets in the Chair 
and gives him an opportunity to make his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will put in the Record the excellent 
summaries of total contributions according to the Center for Responsive 
Politics. That is a nonpartisan watchdog group. We can talk about 
numbers here and numbers there. However, I think it is important for 
the Record that we have summaries from the nonpartisan groups that have 
assessed the contributions by unions and corporations--hard money/soft 
money. As the Senator from Nevada, the Senator from Wisconsin, and 
others have pointed out, the ratio is about 11 to 1. You can slice it 
any way you want but the fact remains--it is basically the difference 
between the contributions, according to nonpartisan groups. Others have 
other ways of adding and subtracting figures; all well and good.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the summary provided 
by the Center for Responsive Politics because I think it is helpful to 
have the findings of those who have no ax to grind.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          [AFL-CIO Fact Sheet]

  Corporate vs. Union Spending on Politics--There's Too Much Money in 
                   Politics--But It's Not Union Money

       The political balance of power is already tilted heavily in 
     favor of corporations. In the 1996 election cycle, corporate 
     interests spent more than $677 million on political 
     contributions--11 times more than unions spent. So while 
     unions contributed less than 4 percent of the $1.6 billion 
     raised by candidates and parties in 1996, corporations 
     contributed more than 40 percent.
       The disparity between corporate and union spending is 
     growing. Since 1992 (when the ratio was 9-to-1), corporate 
     political contributions have increased by $229.8 million, 
     while union contributions rose by only $12.1 million.
       In ``soft money'' contributions, the gap is even wider. 
     While both corporations and unions have increased their 
     unrestricted, so-called ``soft money'' contributions since 
     1992, corporate spending grew twice as fast. In 1996, 
     corporations spent more than $176 million--19 times more than 
     unions did.
       Corporate special interests are pushing initiatives that 
     would skew the balance even further. By backing special 
     restrictions on unions while imposing no such limits on 
     themselves, big corporations are trying to remove working 
     families and their unions from the political playing field.
       Corporations, right-wing foundations and anti-union 
     lobbying groups are raising hundreds of millions of dollars 
     to ``de-fund'' unions. At a recent meeting of the Republican 
     Governors Association, proponents of the initiatives noted 
     that the de-funding ploy has two strategic benefits: If it 
     works, unions will lose funding. Even if it doesn't, unions 
     will be forced to spend millions of dollars in the fight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                 Corporations     Unions      Ratio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total contributions:
    1996...........................  $677,442,423  $60,352,761   11 to 1
    1994...........................   492,956,181   48,319,054   10 to 1
    1992...........................   447,594,985   48,152,256    9 to 1
                                    ====================================
Soft money contributions:
    1996...........................   176,108,186    9,505,745   19 to 1
    1994...........................    64,753,971    4,293,459   15 to 1
    1992...........................    66,342,241    4,251,334   16 to 1
Hard money contributions:
    1996...........................   501,334,237   50,847,016   10 to 1

[[Page 25602]]

 
    1994...........................   428,202,210   44,025,595   10 to 1
    1992...........................   381,252,744   44,067,720    9 to 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Center for Responsive Politics.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, briefly, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. On the number that the Senator said the unions spent, 
what was that number?
  Mr. KENNEDY. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 
1996, $60 million; 1994, $48 million; 1992, $48 million. On the 
corporations, $677 million in 1996; $492 million in 1994; and $447 
million in 1992. That is total contributions. It works out to a ratio 
of 11 to 1 in 1996, 10 to 1 in 1994, and 9 to 1 in 1992.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note the Washington Post article I was 
just looking at indicated there was a $46 million commitment by Mr. 
Sweeney in this election cycle for just 34 House of Representatives 
races, so those numbers don't sound accurate to me.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In 1996, the unions spent $50 million; the corporations, 
$501 million. So we are talking 1997, 1998, 1999. That figure may still 
be consistent with the 10 to 1 or 11 to 1 figure. I don't find that 
there would be any inconsistency if that were the figure being spent.
  I was interested to hear our good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, 
talking about people worrying at the dinner table about these issues. 
He mentioned people are much more concerned about what is happening 
down the street or near the school with regard to a shooting incident. 
I say that is right. And it is very interesting that I was not able to 
get a report, as a member of the conference committee on the juvenile 
violence act, that deals with the availability and the accessibility of 
guns to children in our society and of the criminal element. That has 
been locked up now for some 6 weeks. I don't think anyone on this floor 
is prepared to say the National Rifle Association doesn't have 
something to do with that.
  He talked about taxes--people are concerned about taxes. People are 
concerned about tax loopholes as well. How do the tax loopholes get 
into the Internal Revenue budget? We have $4 trillion of what are 
called tax expenditures in the IRS at the present time. That is the 
fastest growing expenditure we have in the Federal budget, the 
expansion of tax expenditures, tax loopholes. We don't have any debate 
on it. Many of us have said, let's do for tax expenditures what we do 
for direct expenditures--when we are cutting back on education and 
health care; let what is good for the goose be good for the gander. Do 
you think you can get those issues raised here on the floor of the 
Senate? Of course not. We all understand why.
  It is kind of interesting that those who have been the strongest 
spokespersons against this proposal also raise incidents in terms of 
what is on people's minds. It comes back, in many instances, to what 
the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin have talked 
about.
  This country has waited long enough for campaign finance reform. The 
current system is shameful, benefiting only the big corporations and 
lobbyists who have seemingly bottomless barrels of money to spend, 
while the voice of average citizens goes unheard in the special 
interest din.
  I commend Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their consistent 
leadership on this issue. Their commitment to reform gives us an 
opportunity to join the House of Representatives and cleanse our 
campaign financing system of special interest abuses. The House took 
effective action earlier this year, transcending partisan differences 
to adopt long overdue reforms. The large margin by which the Shays-
Meehan bill passed, 252 to 177, demonstrates that the public feels 
strongly about the need for reform. The Senate should act now to 
support the McCain-Feingold proposal and give the country clean 
elections in the years to come.
  Effective reform must include a ban on soft money. The McCain-
Feingold bill does just that. Soft money contributions are increasing 
at alarming rates, while hard money contributions are barely rising. In 
the 1992 Presidential election cycle, both parties raised a total of 
$86 million in soft money. Compare this to the $224 million total 
raised in the 1998 election cycle--a 150-percent increase of soft money 
contributions in only 6 years. A more recent survey shows figures from 
January to June 1999, soft money contributions totaled $46.2 million--
and $30.1 million of that total was given by corporations and business 
interests. In the 1996 elections, the consumer credit industry alone 
gave $5.5 million in soft money. True reform means closing this 
flagrant loophole that allows so many special interests to bypass legal 
limits on giving money directly to candidates. Until we close it the 
special interests will continue to strengthen their hold on the 
political process.
  The House reforms also ended other serious abuses in campaign 
financing. It ends the sham of the so-called issue ads loophole, which 
permits special interests to spend big money on campaign advertising 
obviously designed to support a candidate, as long as the ads do not 
specifically call for the candidate's election. The House bill treats 
these ads as the campaign ads they really are, and rightly subjects 
them to regulation under the campaign finance laws.
  The Senate should learn from the House, and join in ending these 
abuses that make a mockery of our election laws. Instead, the Senate 
Republican leadership is bent on preserving the status quo. They oppose 
campaign finance reform because they do not want to lose the support 
they currently receive from their special interest friends.
  Our Republican friends say they want to help working families--but 
their support of the Paycheck Protection Act demonstrates their 
antilabor bias, because that measure is designed to silence the voice 
of the American workers and labor unions in the political process. It 
is revenge, not reform--revenge for the extraordinary efforts by the 
labor movement in the 1996 and 1998 election campaigns. It imposes a 
gag rule on American workers, and it should be defeated.
  The act's supporters claim they are concerned about union members' 
right to choose whether and how to participate in the political 
process. But we know better. The Paycheck Protection Act should really 
be called the Paycheck Destruction Act. It is part of a coordinated 
national antilabor campaign to lock American workers and their unions 
out of politics.
  And who is behind this campaign? It is not the workers, unhappy with 
the use of their union dues for political purposes. It is businesses 
and their allies, anxious to reduce the role of labor. It is 
organizations like Americans for Tax Reform, which supports Social 
Security privatization, vouchers for private schools, and huge tax cuts 
for the wealthiest Americans. It is think tanks such as the American 
Legislative Exchange Council and the National Center for Policy 
Analysis, which support so-called right-to-work laws, the TEAM act, the 
flat tax, private school vouchers, medical savings accounts, and other 
antiworker legislation. And it is right-wing Republicans in Congress 
and in the states.
  We know that unions and their members are among the most effective 
voices in the political process. They support raising the minimum wage, 
protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, improving education, 
and ensuring safety and health on the job.
  Silencing these voices of working families will make it easier for 
those with antiworker agenda to prevail. Sponsors of this legislation 
support prevatizing Social Security. They favor private school vouchers 
instead of a healthy public school system. They would undermine 
occupational safety and health laws, end the 40-hour work week and 
permit sham, company-dominated unions. They oppose the Family and 
Medical Leave Act. They want to restrict Medicare eligibility and deny 
millions of workers an increase in the minimum wage. They are not 
trying to help working Americans. To the contrary--they are trying to 
silence the workers' participation in the political

[[Page 25603]]

process so they can implement an agenda that workers strongly oppose.
  Campaign abuses abandon other issues as well. The tobacco industry 
has made extensive PAC and soft money contributions, and the Senate 
Republican leadership has rejected much needed antitobacco legislation. 
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids reports that in the last 10 years, 
Senators who voted consistently against tobacco reform legislation took 
far more money from the industry--four times more--than those who 
supported the bill.
  The dabate on the Patients' Bill of Rights is another vivid example 
of the obstructionist influence of industries and special interests. 
Since 1997, the health insurance industry has been making huge 
political contributions to Republicans. Blue Cross/Blue Shield and its 
state affiliates made $1 million in contributions in the 1997-1998 
cycle, with four out of every five dollars going to Republicans. 
Managed care PACs--including the American Association of Health Plans, 
the Health Insurance Association of America, and Blue Cross/Blue 
Shield--gave $77,250 to leadership political action committees. 
According to the Center on Responsive Politics, all but $1,500 went to 
the Republican majority.
  These contributions bought the industry at least 2 years worth of 
stall and delay tactics in Congress. And, when the Senate finally 
passed legislation this year, it was not what patients needed, but an 
industry bill that places HMO profits ahead of patients' health.
  Contributions from the credit card and banking industries have had a 
similar effect on the bankruptcy reform debate. Master Card, Visa, and 
others doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled their spending to encourage 
passage of the bill they wanted. Visa increased its 1998 lobbying to 
$3.6 million from $900,000 in 1997. Master Card wasn't far behind--
their lobbying expenses rose from $430,000 in 1997 to $1.8 million in 
1998. In the 1997-1998 election cycle, commercial banks and financial 
service companies gave $20.8 million in large individual contributions, 
PAC money and soft money to candidates-- and two-thirds of that total 
went to Republicans. The result? Legislation that House Committee 
Chairman Henry Hyde described as ``pages and pages and pages of 
advantages [for] the creditor community * * *''
  Honest campaign finance reform does not include phony proposals that 
seek to eliminate political expression by average families. It does 
include eliminating the flagrant abuses that enable big corporations 
and special interests to tilt the election process in their favor.
  Real reform means giving elections back to the people and creating a 
level playing field on which all voters are equal, regardless of their 
income. Broad campaign finance reform is within the Senate's reach. We 
should follow the example set for us by the House. The greatest gift 
the Senate can give to the American people is clean elections.
  Over the course of debate, we have learned what the other side is 
against. We rarely learn what they are for. Senator McCain and Senator 
Feingold have laid out something I think we should be for. In the next 
few days, hopefully, the American people will speak through their 
representatives and support those efforts.
  One of the provisions we heard a good deal about, again from my 
friend from Idaho, was the whole question about workers and whether 
they have control over their dues. Of course, what exists in the 
McCain-Feingold provision is an incorporation of the Beck decision, 
which permits workers to check off, at the time they pay their dues, 
that they are not interested in the political process.
  Today, evidently, they want something that is going to be harsher on 
working men and women. Those forces that are pressing to restrict the 
voice of working men and women are actually the major interest groups 
that are strongly opposed to the agenda of working families, whether it 
has been an increase in the minimum wage, whether it has been HMO 
reforms, whether it has been education and increasing the education 
budget. These groups are opposed to workers participating because, in 
many instances, the workers have been the ones to try to advance these 
interests on our national agenda.
  I think it is important. I don't know how many of us are getting the 
communications from workers on these particular issues. Yet we have 
seen what has happened over this past year, whether it has been on the 
HMO reform--the change in expenditures by the insurance companies at 
the time when this body was debating whether doctors are going to be 
the ones who are going to make the decisions on health care for the 
particular patients, rather than the accountants and insurance 
industry. Nobody could deny when we were debating those issues that the 
contributions and expenditures by the insurance companies skyrocketed 
dramatically, escalated significantly. This is the kind of thing that 
we are talking about in terms of the impact that campaign finance 
reform can have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a couple of unanimous consent 
requests, cleared on both sides.
  As in executive session, I ask that, at 5:45 today, the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 270, the 
nomination of Florence-Marie Cooper to be United States District Judge 
for the Central District of California.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then immediately 
proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination and, following 
that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action 
and the Senate then return to legislative session.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield the 
floor?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe we have a consent agreement 
under which Senator Wellstone was to be recognized next. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is what I understand.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as I said earlier, when Senator Levin 
came to the floor I would be pleased to yield the floor to him. Senator 
McCain is here. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be allowed 
to speak, that we then go in order--I understand Senator McCain wants 
to speak, and I also know that the Chair, Senator Voinovich, seeks 
recognition--and I be allowed to speak after Senator Voinovich.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak after Senator Levin.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Then Senator Voinovich, and I would follow Senator 
Voinovich.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from 
Arizona was not here at the time, but Senator Voinovich was waiting 
patiently a little bit earlier. Would he have any objection to Senator 
Voinovich following Senator Levin?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Levin, then a Republican, and then a 
Democrat.
  Mr. McCONNELL. On this issue.
  Mr. McCAIN. Maybe I can sort it out. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Levin, then Senator Voinovich, then Senator 
Wellstone, and then Senator McCain be recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, may I add to the request that Senator 
Bennett be recognized after Senator McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object to that because we are going back and forth from 
one side to the other.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The two sides are not parties. The two sides are the 
issue, and by adding Senator Bennett and Senator Voinovich we get some 
balance on the issue back and forth, which is what we had been trying 
to do earlier.
  Mr. REID. I think that is appropriate.
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree.
  Mr. BENNETT. I renew my unanimous consent request.

[[Page 25604]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I hear the unanimous consent, just to be sure. 
Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Levin, Senator Voinovich, Senator 
Wellstone, Senator McCain, followed by Senator Bennett.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and all my colleagues. I particularly 
thank Senator Wellstone for allowing me to go at this time.
  Mr. President, our Federal election laws are broken, and the issue 
before the Senate is whether we want to fix them.
  In the 1970s, we passed laws to limit the role of money in Federal 
elections. Our intent was to protect our democratic form of government 
from the corrosive influence of unlimited political contributions.
  We wanted to ensure that our Federal elected officials were, neither 
in reality nor in perception, beholden to special interests who were 
able to contribute large sums of money to candidates and their 
campaigns.
  Our election laws were designed to protect the public's confidence in 
our democratically elected officials. And for many years our election 
laws worked fairly well. The limits they set were clear, and those laws 
are on the books today.
  Individuals aren't supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate 
per election, or $5,000 to a political action committee, or more than 
$20,000 a year to a national party committee, or $25,000 total in any 
one year. Corporations and unions are prohibited from contributing to 
any campaign. That is the law on the books today. This is the election 
law: $1,000 per individual to a candidate in an election; $5,000 to a 
PAC. It is right in these laws--$5,000 PAC contribution to a candidate.
  We are supposed to be limiting contributions to candidates. Yet, over 
the last few years, we have heard story after story about contributions 
of hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals, corporations, and 
unions, and even about contributions from foreign sources. Then the 
question is, How is it possible, when the law says $1,000 to a 
candidate per election, that people can give $100,000, which 
effectively helped that candidate in that election? How is it possible?
  This pretty good law of ours has holes in it, and both parties have 
taken advantage of them. There are no longer any effective limits on 
contributions. That is the bottom line. That is why we hear about a $1 
million contribution to the RNC from a corporation, or a half-million-
dollar contribution from one couple to the DNC.
  The Supreme Court in Buckley surely did not have this in mind. They 
understood the limits to mean that individuals can't contribute more 
than the overall $25,000 limit for a calendar year. Look at what they 
said when they upheld that provision in the law. The Buckley Court 
described the $25,000 limit as a modest restraint which ``serves to 
prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limitation by a person who 
might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particular 
candidate through the use of unearmarked contributions to political 
committees likely to contribute to that candidate or a huge 
contribution to the candidate's political party.'' Yet that is exactly 
what is happening today under the soft money loophole.
  So the Supreme Court foresaw that people would try to evade the 
$1,000 limit unless the Congress put in a $25,000 limit. They said that 
is one of the reasons the $25,000 limit per year is appropriate.
  Yet, under the soft money loophole, precisely what is happening today 
is that the $1,000 limit has been obliterated, for all intents and 
purposes. Our task is to make the law whole again and, in making it 
whole, to make it effective. If we don't, we risk losing the faith the 
American people have that we represent their interests and that each 
citizen's voice counts fairly.
  The principal culprit in this erosion of our laws is the soft money 
loophole. Soft money has blown the lid off the contribution limits of 
our campaign finance system. Soft money is the 800,000-pound gorilla 
sitting right in the middle of this debate.
  Look at the most recent data with respect to soft money 
contributions. In the 1996 Presidential election year, Republicans 
raised $140 million in soft money contributions; Democrats raised $120 
million. In 1998, even without a Presidential election, Republicans 
raised $131 million in soft money contributions and Democrats raised 
$91 million. The 1997-1998 combined soft money total was 115 percent 
more than the 1993-1994 total. We are told that the soft money 
contributions in the first half of 1999 have increased 55 percent over 
the same period in 1997, and they are 75 percent higher this year than 
they were in the first half of 1995.
  The increases are stunning when we look at specific examples. One 
corporation contributed $270,000 in soft money contributions in the 
first 6 months of 1997; it contributed $750,000 in the first 6 months 
of 1999. One union contributed $195,000 in soft money contributions in 
the first 6 months of 1997; it has contributed $525,000 in the first 6 
months of 1999.
  Those are the increases we are experiencing. They are out of control. 
The limits are effectively gone. There are effectively no more limits 
on contributions that get into campaigns and support candidates.
  That is not what the Supreme Court said in Buckley. The Supreme Court 
said in Buckley it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to limit 
contributions to candidates and to effectuate that by limiting the 
total contribution to $25,000 a year that could be made overall as a 
way of implementing, assuring, that the $1,000 contribution would be 
upheld and not evaded. Yet with the soft money loophole, we have wiped 
out the $25,000 contribution limitation. For all intents and purposes, 
there are no more limits on contributions that effectively assist 
candidates in campaigns.
  One case was discussed in the 1997 hearings. Roger Tamraz was a large 
contributor to both parties who became the bipartisan symbol for what 
is wrong with the current system. Roger Tamraz served as a Republican 
Eagle during the 1980s during the Republican Administrations and as a 
Democratic trustee in the 1990s during Democratic Administrations. 
Tamraz's political contributions were not guided by his views on public 
policy or his desire to support people who shared those views. He was 
unabashed in admitting his political contributions were made for the 
purpose of getting access to people in power. Tamraz showed in stark 
terms the all too common product of the current campaign finance 
system--using unlimited soft money contributions to buy access. Despite 
the condemnation by the press of Tamraz's activities, when asked at the 
hearing to reflect on his $300,000 contribution to obtain access, 
Tamraz said: I think next time I'll give $600,000.
  How do the parties entice wealthy contributors to make large soft 
money contributions? What they often do is offer access to decision 
makers in return for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a 
single contribution. The parties advertise access. It is blatant. Both 
parties sell access for large contributions, and they do it openly. The 
larger the contribution, the more personal the access to the decision 
maker.
  We all know about large contributors to the Democratic National 
Committee being invited to radio addresses given by the President, or 
to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, or to attend one of dozens of coffees 
with the President at the White House.
  Look at this invitation to be a DNC trustee. I believe this is from 
1996. For $50,000, or if you raise $100,000, the contributor gets two 
events with the President, two events with the Vice President, 
``invitations to join party leadership as they travel abroad to examine 
current and developing political and economic issues in other 
countries,'' and monthly policy briefings with ``key administration 
officials and Members of Congress.''
  It is an open sale of access for large contributions. Does anyone 
want to defend that at a town meeting in our home States? Does anyone 
want to hold up this invitation from the Democratic National Committee 
in a town

[[Page 25605]]

meeting and ask people whether or not they like this system? If any 
Members who oppose this bill banning soft money think their position is 
credible with the public, I challenge those Members to go back to a 
town meeting and hold up this invitation from the Democratic National 
Committee or from the Republican National Committee and ask our 
constituents if they think it is right for $50,000 or for $100,000 a 
year, if they raise it, to get two meetings with the President in 
Washington, two meetings with the Vice President in Washington, and 
have annual meetings with policy makers and elected officials in 
Washington.
  Take a look at the Republican National Committee's 1997 Annual Gala. 
For $250,000, one gets breakfast with the Majority Leader and the 
Speaker of the House and a luncheon with the Republican Senate or House 
Committee Chairman of your choice. By the way, they get that for 
$100,000; some of the other perks they don't get. All the way down to, 
I think $45,000, they get lunch with the Republican Chairman of their 
choice.
  How many Members of this body want to take home these invitations, 
and in a town meeting with a cross section of constituents, hold up 
that invitation and say, ``is this the way we want to fund campaigns?'' 
I don't think many Members want to do that.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask the Senator if he is saying that this is the only 
source of access and that only those who give have access?
  Mr. LEVIN. No, I don't think that is true.
  Mr. BENNETT. When I was on the committee with the Senator, we were 
debating this issue. I said the best way to get access to me is to be 
registered to vote in the State of Utah. Then I asked the Senator from 
Michigan, is that the same thing for himself--that he pays more 
attention to constituents from Michigan than he does to contributors 
who come from outside the State.
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope so, but that doesn't answer my point.
  My point is whether or not we believe for 100,000 bucks we ought to 
sell access to the President of the United States. That is my question. 
It is not whether one gets access in other ways. It is whether or not 
constituents ought to be able to buy, for $100,000, access to the 
President or have a lunch with the Committee Chairman of their choice.
  My question is, How many Members opposing the ban on soft money want 
to take that invitation to a town meeting and justify it? That is my 
question. There is an answer to it. The answer will come in whether or 
not any of my colleagues take these invitations to town meetings and 
say: Yes, nothing wrong with saying for $100,000 you can have lunch 
with the Republican Committee Chairman of your choice.
  Try to sell that to the public back home. I don't think we can. I 
cannot in Michigan; I won't speak for any other State.
  That is not what we intended when we put limits on campaign 
contributions and that is not what the Supreme Court intended in 
Buckley when they upheld the contributions because they specifically 
said in Buckley that the $25,000 annual limit on all contributions was 
intended to avoid evasion of the $1,000 contribution to an individual 
campaign to make sure they cannot, in effect, give it to a candidate or 
his or her campaign through a political party.
  The answer to my question will come in whether or not any of the 
opponents to the ban on soft money on these large contributions take 
these invitations home. And I mean both parties. We have a lot of other 
invitations, too. We will give Members an invitation of their choice 
and see whether or not they are comfortable going home to their 
constituents in a town meeting and saying: I'll defend this $100,000 to 
buy a meeting with the President, or the Vice President, or a Committee 
Chairman of choice.
  I don't think Members will. We will find out. I want to hear from any 
of the opponents of the soft money ban as to whether or not they do 
take that kind of an invitation home--selling access for large 
contributions--and defend it at a town meeting. I am interested as to 
whether or not your constituents say there is nothing wrong with that; 
that is free speech.
  That is not what the Supreme Court said in Buckley. They upheld 
contribution limits as being consistent with the First Amendment. Our 
institutions in this democracy depend upon the public having confidence 
in our institutions. When access is sold for a large contribution and 
someone is told they can have lunch with a Committee Chairman of their 
choice for $40,000 or a meeting with the President at the White House 
for $100,000, I think the public is so totally turned off by that kind 
of flow of money for access that I believe very few will take me up on 
my challenge to take this invitation back to a town meeting.
  One invitation in 1997 to a National Republican Senatorial Campaign 
Committee event promised that contributors would be offered ``plenty of 
opportunities to share [their] personal ideas and vision with'' some of 
the top Republican leaders and senators. Failure to attend, the 
invitation said, means that ``you could lose a unique chance to be 
included in current legislative policy debates--debates that will 
affect your family and your business for many years to come.''
  The letter from the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial 
Committee invites the recipient to be a life member of the Republican 
Senatorial Inner Circle: ``$10,000 will bring you face-to-face with 
dozens of our Republican Senators, including many of the Senate's most 
powerful Committee Chairmen.'' It goes on and on. That's access. That's 
what we're opening offering for sale for large contributions and that's 
what contributors are often buying. There are dozens of examples.
  I ask unanimous consent that some of these invitations that are 
similar to the ones I have read be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 1997 RNC Annual Gala, May 13, 1997, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC


                       gala leadership committee

   Co-Chairman--$250,000 Fundraising Goal--Sell or purchase Team 100 
      memberships, Republican Eagles memberships or Dinner Tables.

       Dais Seating at the Gala.
       Breakfast and Photo Opportunity with Senator Majority 
     Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on 
     May 13, 1997.
       Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and 
     the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your 
     choice.
       Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the 
     Gala.

  Vice-Chairman--$100,000 Fundraising Goal--Sell or purchase Team 100 
      memberships, Republican Eagles memberships or Dinner Tables.

       Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of 
     your choice.
       Breakfast and Photo Opportunity with Senator Majority 
     Leader Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on 
     May 13, 1997.
       Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and 
     the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your 
     choice.
       Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the 
     Gala.

 Deputy Chairman--$45,000 Fundraising Goal--Sell or purchase three (3) 
       Dinner Tables or three (3) Republican Eagles memberships.

       Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of 
     your choice.
       Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and 
     the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your 
     choice.
       Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the 
     Gala.

 Dinner Committee--$15,000 Fundraising Goal--Sell or purchase one (1) 
                             Dinner Table.

       Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of 
     your choice.
       VIP Reception at the Gala with the Republican members of 
     the Senate and House Leadership.
       (*Benefits pending final confirmation of the Members of 
     Congress schedules.)
                                  ____


                     Democratic National Committee


             dnc trustee events and membership requirements

                                 Events

       Two Annual Trustee Events with the President in Washington, 
     DC.

[[Page 25606]]

       Two Annual Trustee Events with the Vice President in 
     Washington, DC.
       Annual Economic Trade Missions--Beginning in 1994, DNC 
     Trustees will be invited to join Party leadership as they 
     travel abroad to examine current and developing political and 
     economic in other countries.
       Two Annual Retreats/Issue Conferences--One will be held in 
     Washington and another at an executive conference center. 
     Both will offer Trustees the opportunity to interact with 
     leaders from Washington as well as participate in exclusive 
     issue briefings.
       Invitations to Home Town Briefings--Chairman Wilhelm and 
     other senior Administration officials have plans to visit all 
     50 states. Whenever possible, impromptu briefings with local 
     Trustees will be placed on the schedule. You will get the 
     latest word from Washington on issues affecting the 
     communities where you live and work.
       Monthly Policy Briefings--Briefings are held monthly in 
     Washington with key administration officials and members of 
     Congress. Briefings cover such topics as health care reform, 
     welfare reform, and economic policy.
       VIP Status--DNC Trustees will get VIP status at the 1996 
     DNC Convention with tickets to restricted events, private 
     parties as well as pre- and post-convention celebrations.
       DNC Staff Contact--Trustees will have a DNC staff member 
     specifically assigned to them, ready to assist and respond to 
     requests for information.
       The ``Morning'' Briefing--DNC Trustees will receive daily 
     legislative and executive fax alerts, word on upcoming and 
     current political activities and member survey opportunities.
       Multi-Program privileges-participation in BLF and NFC 
     events.

                     Annual Membership Requirements

       A general Trustee membership requires a contribution of 
     $50,000 a year or $100,000 raised.

  Mr. LEVIN. One solicitation offered, for a contribution of $10,000, 
the choice of ``attending one of 60 small dinner parties, limited in 
attendance to 20 to 25 people, at the home of a Senator, Cabinet 
Officer, or senior White House Staff member.''
  One offer for the Republican Senatorial Trust said, ``Trust members 
can expect a close working relationship with all Republican Senators, 
top Administration officials and other national leaders. Personal 
relationships are fostered at informal meetings throughout the year in 
Washington, D.C. and abroad.''
  Another solicitation went so far as to say that, ``Attendance at all 
events is limited.'' Listen to this one, ``Benefits are based on 
receipts''; ``Benefits are based on receipts.'' You can't pledge 
money--cash must be in hand for that meeting with the chairman of your 
choice. That's how blatant these offers to purchase access have become.
  It is largely because of soft money. The amounts we see on these 
solicitations, selling access, are not the $1,000 and $2,000 
contributions. They are large--$25,000 and $50,000 and $100,000 in soft 
money contributions. The soft money loophole has increased and 
intensified the sale of access.
  Do these large money contributions create an appearance of personal 
access and improper influence by big contributors? This is what the 
Supreme Court said in Buckley v. Valeo. I think they answered that 
question. The Supreme Court said there is an appearance of corruption 
that is created from the size of the contribution alone. They didn't 
even get to the question of the sale of access. They just said that 
unlimited contributions inherently create an appearance of impropriety. 
It is inherent in unlimited contributions. That is the Supreme Court 
answering, I believe, for the American people. The Court in Buckley 
upheld contribution limits as a reasonable and constitutional approach 
to deterring, not actual corruption, but the appearance of corruption. 
This is what the Court said:

       It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act's primary 
     purpose--to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption 
     resulting from large individual financial contributions--in 
     order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for 
     the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of private 
     financing of elections, a candidate lacking immense personal 
     or family wealth must depend on financial contributions from 
     others to provide the resources necessary to conduct a 
     successful campaign. To the extent that large contributions 
     are given to secure political quid pro quos from current and 
     potential office holders, the integrity of our position of 
     representative democracy is undermined.

  And then the Supreme Court said this, ``Of almost equal concern''--
the Supreme Court is saying:

       Of almost equal concern to actual quid pro quos is the 
     impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public 
     awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime 
     of large individual financial contributions. . . . Congress 
     could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the 
     appearance of improper influence is also critical . . . if 
     confidence in the system of representative government is not 
     to be eroded to a disastrous extent.

  I want to repeat a few of those words:

       The impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from 
     public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a 
     regime of large individual financial contributions. . . .

  And that, I believe, is what the American people are most deeply 
concerned about. We, according to the Court, can correct it.
  The Court went on to say:

       . . . And while disclosure requirements serve many salutary 
     purposes, Congress was surely entitled to conclude that 
     disclosure was only a partial measure, and that contribution 
     ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal 
     with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a 
     system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even 
     when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of 
     their contributions are fully disclosed.

  The Buckley Court repeatedly endorses the concept that the issue of 
contributions without limits, alone, is enough to create the appearance 
of corruption and to justify the imposition of limits. Selling access 
in exchange for contributions would only take the Court's concerns and 
justifications for limits a step further.
  The Buckley Court also said:

       Not only is it difficult to isolate suspect contributions 
     but, more importantly, Congress was justified in concluding 
     that the interest in safeguarding against the appearance of 
     impropriety requires that the opportunity for abuse inherent 
     in the process of raising large monetary contributions be 
     eliminated.

  Add to the equation the actual sale of access for a large 
contribution and you have an even greater ``opportunity for abuse'' and 
the appearance of corruption.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BENNETT. I will confess, this whole question of the appearance of 
corruption bothers me a very great deal. I do not know that the 
drafters of the first amendment talked about the appearance of free 
speech or the appearance of a vigorous political debate. So I ask the 
Senator this question.
  Hypothetically, if the Senator from Michigan were to meet with the 
head of the United Auto Workers on a Monday, in advance of casting a 
vote on the union's position on the following Tuesday, and vote in 
favor of the union's position within 24 hours of that meeting, and then 
on the following Wednesday, within another 24 hours, the union made a 
very large soft money contribution to the Democratic National 
Committee--in the opinion of the Senator from Michigan, A, would that 
be the appearance of corruption; and, B, would that be something he 
would seek to ban in the name of appearance of corruption?
  Mr. LEVIN. Does the question assume that I solicited the UAW for that 
contribution? That was not clear in the question of the Senator.
  Mr. BENNETT. Let us assume the Senator from Michigan did not solicit; 
that the solicitation came from the Senator from New Jersey in his 
position--changing it, therefore, from the Democratic National 
Committee to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the 
solicitation came from the Senator from New Jersey in his posture as 
chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. The fact I had a meeting with anybody within a day or a 
week or an hour and voted as that person would have urged me to vote is 
not the appearance of corruption, in my judgment.
  Mr. BENNETT. Nor in mine. But the fact is, there is a chain of 
events.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe in the view of the American people, and it is a 
reasonable view which has been sustained by the Supreme Court: Inherent 
in unlimited campaign contributions, inherent, is an appearance of 
impropriety which undermines public confidence in our institutions. I 
believe the same

[[Page 25607]]

thing. More important, the American people believe the same thing. The 
timing of it is not the issue. The issue is that the solicitation of 
unlimited amounts, huge amounts of contributions, and frequently or 
very often in exchange for access, is inherently inappropriate in a 
democracy and creates public disrespect and a lack of public support 
for our democratic institutions.
  That is, No. 1, my own belief very deeply. I believe the American 
people believe that very deeply. Most important, though, in addition to 
what the American people believe, the Supreme Court has directly said 
that inherent in unlimited contributions is an appearance of 
impropriety. The Supreme Court has specifically said that in Buckley. 
When you put on top of that these kind of sales of access for $50,000 
and $100,000 to the President or Committee Chairmen around here, you 
have, it seems to me, made it triply clear what the Supreme Court did 
not even need to see or find. They did not even look at the access 
issue. That was not even in Buckley. But it sure adds fuel to the fire, 
and that fire is a fire which can burn the institutions of this 
Government.
  That is my judgment. Maybe a majority of us do not feel that way. 
But, again, I challenge my good friend from Utah. I challenge him, take 
home one of these invitations and try a town meeting; $100,000 for a 
meeting with the President, $50,000 for a meeting with the Committee 
Chairman of your choice. Give it a try at a town meeting. See what they 
think about it.
  I think I know what you will find. Maybe not; I don't represent Utah. 
I think you will find they would tell my good friend from Utah that 
this is wrong. This is wrong. Unlimited huge contributions, buying 
access--which is frequently the case--is wrong. I happen to agree with 
them.
  (Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Was he aware on Friday Senator Kerrey of Nebraska came to 
the floor and said:

       I had the experience of going inside the beast in 1996, 
     1997, and 1998, when I was chairman of the Democratic 
     Senatorial Campaign Committee. I don't want to raise a sore 
     subject for the Senator from Maine. It changed my attitude in 
     two big ways. One, the apparent corruption that exists. 
     People believe there is corruption. If they believe it, it 
     happens. We all understand that. If the perception is it is 
     A, it is A, even though it may not be. And the people believe 
     the system is corrupt.

  The Senator is aware of the statement of the Senator from Nebraska 
yesterday, which I think is a very precise and informed opinion?
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Arizona.
  Madam President, what these soft money contributions allow the 
parties to do is many things, but more and more, pay for ads, TV ads, 
which are claimed to be about issues but in reality are ads to help 
candidates.
  I want to look at two ads: A Republican ad and a Democratic ad. They 
both have the same problem.
  First, Bob Dole's ad. In this TV commercial, Mr. Dole said: ``We have 
a moral obligation to give our children in America the opportunity and 
values of the Nation that we grew up in.'' Then it talks a lot about 
Bob Dole and his very strong personal qualities. Then it ended by Bob 
Dole saying, ``It all comes down to values. What do you believe in? 
What do you sacrifice? And what do you stand for?''
  That ad was paid for with soft money contributed by the Republican 
National Committee. It is viewed as permissible under current law 
because that ad does not explicitly ask the viewer to vote for or 
support Bob Dole. It spends its whole time talking positively about his 
character.
  If it added four words at the end, which said, ``Vote for Bob Dole,'' 
it would be treated as a candidate ad, not an issue ad, and would be 
subject to hard money limits. Any reasonable person looking at that ad 
at that particular time in the Presidential season would say: It's not 
an ad about welfare or wasteful spending; it is an ad about why should 
we elect that particular nominee.
  Democrats avail themselves of the same loophole.
  In the 1996 Presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee 
ran ads on welfare and crime and the budget which were basically 
designed to support President Clinton's reelection.
  At our hearings on campaign finance reform, Harold Ickes was asked 
about these DNC ads and to the extent to which people looking at the 
ads would walk away with the message to vote for President Clinton. And 
here is what Harold Ickes said. And my good friend from Utah, I think, 
is nodding because I think he remembers this.
  Harold Ickes was asked: Do you think people looking at these ads 
would walk away from these ads with the message that they should vote 
for President Clinton? His answer: ``I would certainly hope so. If not, 
we ought to fire the ad agencies.''
  Those kinds of ads are paid for with soft money--so-called--
unregulated, unlimited money. They are not supposed to be candidate 
ads.
  So we should not delude ourselves either about what the American 
people believe this system is all about, and how it is run, and how it 
sells access for huge contributions. They are not deluded, and we 
should not be deluded about their feelings about this system. And we 
should not be deluded about how this money is spent. We should not kid 
ourselves.
  People are arguing that unless we can get the entire original bill 
which was introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold, we should simply 
not accept half a loaf, which is what the revised version does. And my 
answer to that simply is this: I would prefer the original McCain-
Feingold bill because I think it is important that we not kid ourselves 
about issue ads, how they are funded, and what their purpose and intent 
is. But the sponsors of the bill have indicated--and they are very 
honest, smart people, with tremendous integrity--that we do not have a 
chance of getting the original McCain-Feingold approach passed, that 
our best chance of passing a bill with campaign finance reform in it is 
to try to ban soft money, to close that loophole, to stop parties and 
candidates from either soliciting, themselves or through their 
employees, or through their agents, money which is not regulated by 
law. And I accept that.
  I think if that is the best we can get, if that is going to be the 
most we can accomplish, that would be a significant accomplishment. It 
is not my preference, but it would be a significant accomplishment.
  I would only say this: To a nation that is hungry for reform, a half 
a loaf is better than no loaf. I hope that, at a minimum, we will be 
able to achieve that success this year.
  The only way we will do it, I believe, is that when people --if they 
do--filibuster against this approach, against the ban on soft money, 
that those of us who support this reform not withdraw from the field.
  The civil rights days proved that the only way to get these very 
difficult reforms achieved is by telling the filibusterers: You have a 
right to filibuster. That is your right, and we'll protect it. But we 
don't have to withdraw because you are filibustering. With voting 
rights, it took four cloture votes and about 6 weeks before cloture was 
able to be invoked and voting rights passed.
  I would hope we would act with the same kind of determination as they 
did in those days and the same kind of passion as the opponents have 
against this reform.
  Finally, I want to close with a tribute to Senators McCain and 
Feingold. I know of no two people in this body who have taken an issue 
as they have and tried as long and as hard as they have to bring this 
to the fore, to bring this to national attention. They are entitled to 
the thanks of the Nation for what they are doing.
  I want to end my remarks with a personal thank you to our two good 
colleagues for the fight that they are waging on this reform. It cannot 
happen without them, without their integrity, without their 
determination. And they have shown it in the past. I am personally very 
much in their debt. Much

[[Page 25608]]

more important, the Nation will always be in their debt for the fight 
they have waged and are waging and will wage for campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator be willing to include me in the statement 
just made regarding Senators Feingold and McCain?
  Mr. LEVIN. Include you in which way? Someone joining me in 
congratulating and thanking them, or including you as one of the 
reformers? I am happy to do either one.
  Mr. REID. Including me in underlining and underscoring your support 
for these two men who have done so much to focus attention on this very 
badly needed reform.
  Mr. LEVIN. I do.
  Mr. REID. I just completed a campaign where, in the small State of 
Nevada, with less than 2 million people, we don't know how much was 
spent, probably about $23 million on the two candidates.
  So I certainly, as I had tried to do earlier, direct my attention to 
the good work they have done. But you said it in a way that I think was 
graphic. And I want to join your support, if you will allow me.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Nevada, and I think everybody 
who is supporting this cause thanks him for his support of this effort, 
as well.
  So, Mr. President, this kind of candidate advertising, which should 
clearly be subject to contribution limits, escapes those limits through 
the soft money loophole. And it's that soft money loophole that the two 
amendments before us would close.
  Now some of my colleagues argue that if we only close the soft money 
loophole to political parties, the money we cut off to the parties will 
be redirected to special interest groups. Well if the Daschle amendment 
could pass, I would prefer it and I've supported similar proposals for 
years, because it not only stops the soft money loophole to parties, it 
stops the use of sham or phony issue ads by third party organizations. 
But I also say if all we can do is stop soft money to the parties and 
that money then goes to outside groups, so be it. Candidates and public 
officials running for reelection won't be raising it, the parties won't 
be raising it, and the contributors won't be buying access to us with 
it. This bill would preclude a candidate or office holder from 
soliciting soft money for private organizations running issue ads. 
Under this legislation, I couldn't go and solicit money for an outside 
group to use for issue ads in some campaign. This bill would bar that. 
Will contributors of these large sums want to buy access to the Sierra 
Club or the National Rifle Association? Perhaps. If so, let them do it. 
Will they be able to buy access to us through these unlimited 
contributions to third parties? No. If that were to occur, then it 
would be in direct violation of the law. Under this soft money ban, 
public officials and candidates will be out of the soft money 
fundraising loop, and that's the important step we'll be taking with 
this legislation.
  To a nation hungry for reform, a half of loaf is better than no loaf.
  Mr. President, we've been here before--trying to pass campaign 
finance reform, trying to stop the explosion of soft money. The 
question is--will it be different this time? 70% of the American people 
want campaign finance reform. 70% of the American people want us to 
clean up our act. We're the only ones who can do it.
  The soft money loophole exists because we in Congress allow it.
  It is time to stop pointing fingers at others and take responsibility 
for our share of the blame. Congress alone writes the laws. Congress 
alone can shut down the loopholes and reinvigorate the federal election 
laws.
  Mr. President, the Reid amendment closes the biggest loophole in our 
campaign financing system and it restores that system to what Congress 
intended in the 1970's--that there should be reasonable limits to what 
a person can contribute to a candidate, a PAC or a party and that 
unions and corporations should not be allowed to contribute to either 
parties or candidates. It's that simple. We had that system in the 
1970's; it operated pretty well for many years; soft money has torn 
apart that system, and the Reid amendment puts it back together.
  The public is appalled at these huge contributions which buy access 
to candidates and office holders and fund television ads which are for 
all intents and purposes about candidates. As the Supreme Court said in 
Buckley, the appearance of corruption is ``inherent in a system 
permitting unlimited financial contributions.'' And permitting the 
appearance of corruption undermines the very foundation of our 
democracy--the trust of the people in the system. We have the right to 
protect our democratic institutions from being undermined by the open 
sale of access for large contributions which people believe reasonably 
translates into influence. And the greater the purchase price, the 
greater the perception that access yields influence.
  Mr. President, we can't afford to give Mr. Tamaraz a next time. We've 
got to stop this practice of selling access now. And the amendment 
before us is the way to do it. It is time to enact campaign finance 
reform. That is our legislative responsibility. Otherwise we will be 
haunted by the words of Roger Tamraz that in the next election he will 
give $600,000.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, this legislation before us today has 
presented me a dilemma, and that dilemma is that I have been publicly 
in favor of banning soft money. At the same time, I understand, in my 
State particularly, our labor unions would not be impacted by this 
legislation, and for all intents and purposes, they are the Democratic 
Party in terms of things a party would do traditionally.
  I also recognize the fact that we need to raise money for our own 
campaigns and we need to also support our parties so they can do the 
job a party should be doing in our respective States and nationally. I 
recall during my campaign for the Senate, I raised my money the hard 
way, hard dollars. But I kept worrying, toward the end of the campaign, 
whether or not soft money would appear from somewhere and whether or 
not I would be able to counteract that soft money coming into our 
State. In my particular case, it didn't. I suspect maybe it didn't 
because they thought I was going to win.
  The fact is, I thought about this last weekend. I had intended to 
come here today and present an amendment that I think would improve the 
McCain-Feingold piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I understand no 
amendments are going to be accepted. I was going to ask that the 
Daschle amendment be laid aside, but I understand such requests have 
been objected to.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I was going to send to the 
desk be printed in the Record and I be given a few minutes to explain 
what the amendment would have accomplished.
  There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       (a) Contribution Limit for Candidates and 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 (A), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting ``$3,000''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$20,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000''.
       (b) 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 3(b), is amended by striking the first 
     sentence and inserting the following: ``An individual shall 
     not make contributions described in subparagraphs (A) and (C) 
     of paragraph (1) in an aggregate amount in excess of $25,000 
     during any calendar year.''.
       (c) Index of Certain Amounts.--Section 315(c) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection (b) and 
     subsection (d)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (3) of 
     subsection (a) and subsections (b) and (d)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974.'' and inserting ``means--

[[Page 25609]]

       ``(A) in the case of subsections (b) and (d), calendar year 
     1974; and
       ``(B) in the case of subsection (a), calendar year 1999.''.

     SEC. __. WORKERS' POLITICAL RIGHTS.

       Section 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding the following:
       ``(c)(1) Except with the separate, prior, written, 
     voluntary authorization of a stockholder, employee, member, 
     or nonmember, it shall be unlawful--
       ``(A) for any national bank or corporation described in 
     this section to collect from or assess such stockholder or 
     employee any dues, initiation fee, or other payment as a 
     condition of employment if any part of such dues, fee, or 
     payment will be used for political activities in which the 
     national bank or corporation, as the case may be, is engaged; 
     and
       ``(B) for any labor organization described in this section 
     to collect from or assess such member or nonmember any dues, 
     initiation fee, or other payment if any part of such dues, 
     fee, or payment will be used for political activities.
       ``(2) An authorization described in paragraph (1) shall 
     remain in effect until revoked and may be revoked at any 
     time.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `political 
     activities' includes communications or other activities which 
     involve carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence 
     legislation, or participating or intervening in any political 
     campaign or political party.''.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. My amendment would have leveled the playing field by 
empowering average Americans over special interests in their ability to 
participate in the electoral process. I believe the bill before us 
doesn't do that. I think it further tilts the balance toward a handful 
of powerful individuals, individuals who have the ability to determine 
how to spend the dues of some 16 million hard-working men and women. I 
am quite surprised we haven't heard more about that.
  The good thing about this bill is that it will end the enormous 
corporate donations to political parties, donations that reach into six 
figures. I was glad the Senator from Michigan made a point of the fact 
that soft money from corporations does not go only to the Republican 
Party but goes to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. 
Editorially, I suggest the invitations to join the Democratic National 
Committee or the Republican Committee, in terms of belonging to the 
club, regardless of what happens to McCain-Feingold, ought to be 
something to which all of us stand up and object.
  I recall, being Governor of Ohio, I never had a fundraiser in the 
Governor's residence. I tried not to use my office to take money out of 
the pockets of people who were encouraged to contribute either to my 
campaign, someone else's campaign, or to the Republican Party. I hope 
after this is over, all of us will indicate to our parties that the 
days of the clubs and the rest of it should be over so that people such 
as Senator Levin can't get up and show the ways people are being asked 
to contribute. I think that is horrible. It sends a bad message to the 
American people. It certainly adds to the cynicism and is one of the 
reasons we have fewer people show up on election day.
  Unfortunately, a soft money ban without other reforms has the 
potential to severely impact the ability of our parties to continue 
their worthwhile activities, including grassroots mobilization and 
party building. Banning party soft money is an objective I support. 
However, I am concerned about the devastating impact it could have on 
the ability of our national parties to cover operating expenses and 
grassroots activities.
  Current contribution limits must be updated. Under current law, an 
individual can give up to $25,000 per year total in campaign 
contributions, with a sublimit of $20,000 of that amount to the 
parties. If we ban soft money contributions to the parties without 
adjusting total contribution limits, the parties will have to compete 
with their own candidates for a limited supply of money.
  My amendment would fix the problem. It would eliminate soft money and 
would create two separate aggregate limits for yearly hard dollar 
contributions--I am talking about hard dollar individual 
contributions--a $25,000 limit to candidates and a $25,000 limit to 
parties. These limits would be indexed to inflation, so once they went 
into effect, they would go up each year.
  In addition to creating new aggregate limits, my amendment would 
adjust individual campaign contribution limits. As my colleagues know, 
our current campaign contribution limits are not indexed to inflation; 
they have remained the same since the law was enacted 25 years ago. 
Under current law, an individual cannot give more than $1,000 to the 
general election campaign of a particular Federal candidate in a given 
year. If this limit had been indexed to inflation, it would be 
approximately $3,000 today.
  Adjusting the individual contribution limits is important for three 
reasons. That is what my amendment would have done. It would have 
increased it from $1,000 to $3,000, and then it would have indexed it 
up each year.
  First of all, it would reduce the amount of time candidates spend 
raising money. The people in this country should know about the hours 
and hours candidates running for national office and local office spend 
dialing for dollars. I have already started to raise money for my next 
campaign for the Senate because I know if I don't spread it out over a 
long period of time, I will be unable, during my last 2 years in this 
body, to do the job the people of the State of Ohio have asked me to 
do. We need to increase that campaign contribution limit.
  Second, it would level the playing field for candidates competing 
against wealthy opponents who are bankrolling their own campaigns. With 
all due respect to many Members of this body, if we keep going the way 
we are, people such as George Voinovich will not be able to be in the 
Senate because we are seeing more and more campaigns bankrolled by 
individuals who can win primaries and, once the primary is over, they 
can put their own money into the campaign. Money does have an impact on 
the results of an election.
  Third, it also would relieve the pressure for groups to seek out 
loopholes to circumvent the campaign finance laws. In fact, many 
experts believe the reason we have the increase in sham issue ads in 
the past few years is the tightening of the amount individuals can give 
in hard dollars. My amendment would address these concerns by 
increasing the individual campaign contribution limit from $1,000 to 
$3,000 per election and then adjust it, as I say, each year.
  Lastly, one of the greatest areas of abuse in the current campaign 
finance system is the involuntary use of membership dues by union 
leaders for political purposes. In addition to making soft money 
contributions to parties and engaging in issue advocacy, labor leaders 
also spend millions of unauthorized dollars each election cycle in 
order to explicitly advocate for labor's preferred candidates among its 
rank and file, a rank and file which is over 16 million. That doesn't 
include the millions more that are in their families.
  These express advocacy activities include phone banks, get-out-the-
vote drives, newsletters, and scorecards. In my State, the Democratic 
Party does not do it; it is the labor unions that do it. No one, not 
even union members, is exactly sure how much union leaders spend for 
these campaign activities because this money is unregulated and thus 
soft. It is all soft money.
  Under McCain-Feingold, party soft money would be prohibited, just as 
it should be. However, McCain-Feingold would allow this key form of 
union money to remain entirely unchecked. I just can't understand why 
those who are promoting McCain-Feingold haven't been willing to take on 
this particular issue that seems to be put over on the side as not 
being something that is very important. It is really important to many 
of us around this country, particularly individuals such as myself who 
have been the victim of that soft money effort.
  Union leaders would be allowed to continue spending millions of 
dollars of membership dues to support the candidates of their choice 
and to influence elections, thereby tilting the playing field in favor 
of union-backed candidates.
  We have heard this over and over again today. According to AFL-CIO 
president John Sweeney, some $46 million in union funds is going to be 
used

[[Page 25610]]

to influence this coming election. In the 1996 cycle alone, $30 million 
was spent. This $46 million is a 53-percent increase in spending from 
just a few years ago. Think of it, a 53-percent increase in the use of 
union dues for political purposes.
  McCain-Feingold would not regulate any of that incredible amount of 
money--$46 million. That is just for the Federal candidates. It doesn't 
talk about the money that is going to be used at the State and local 
level.
  I believe an effective and constitutional way to address this issue 
is by requiring union leaders to get written authorization from each of 
their members before they use any portion of their dues for political 
activities.
  I heard earlier about the codification of the Beck decision. While 
the Beck codification contained in McCain-Feingold bill is a step in 
the right direction, it would only protect a very small group of 
people: dues-paying, nonmembers in non-right-to-work States. However, 
no one should be compelled to give campaign contributions without 
explicit approval.
  I do not come from a right-to-work State. I have people in my State 
who, in order to get a job, must join the union. Many of those 
individuals complain to me that they have no control over how their 
union dollars are being spent. I think those individuals, those hard-
working men and women, ought to have the opportunity to say whether or 
not they want their union dues to be used for political purposes. I 
can't help but believe that, if they did that, it would not be the 
great problem some think it would be. But it would cause the unions to 
go out and really get their people involved and let them make their own 
decision as to whether or not they want their dues to be used for 
political purposes.
  My amendment would give them the right to know where their hard-
earned dollars are being spent. Unfortunately, I have been denied the 
opportunity to offer that amendment.
  The proponents of this bill have utilized parliamentary tactics 
designed to tie up the Senate without any meaningful discussion of some 
of these alternatives. That is their right. However, if we don't have a 
full discussion of this bill--with the ability to amend and make the 
bill stronger--the proponents of this legislation should not expect 
Senators to support its passage.
  We can debate this bill, amend this bill, and pass this bill in the 
hope we can get some real change in our current campaign finance 
system. Unfortunately, it appears that some of my colleagues--and we 
see this a lot in this body--are interested in scoring political 
points. This is a problem, and I respect those who have tried to do 
something about it. But, from my perspective, if we don't allow working 
men and women who belong to labor unions, the opportunity to decide how 
their union dollars should be spent, this bill is flawed to the extent 
that I would vote against it.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, as Congress considers various plans to 
overhaul the current campaign finance system, I think everyone can 
agree on one fact: the status quo is indefensible. The system needs to 
change in order to restore the American people's faith in their 
government.
  The imbalances which exist in our election laws today were created by 
the Federal Election Campaign Act in the name of equality. They 
resulted in unfair advantages which are institutionalized in the name 
of fairness, protecting some forms of political speech while 
criminalizing others. Enacting more laws along the same lines will only 
lead us further down the path of destruction. Freedom matters. Freedom 
works. Free speech works. Free participation works. The current system 
does not. If we want real reform, we will scrap this bill, repeal 
current law, and start over.
  Campaign finance reformers think the solution is new regulations and 
methods that I believe work only to preclude participation in politics. 
They believe that new laws, more restrictions, and additional 
bureaucracy are the answer. This position is based upon the assumption 
that current laws are working and they just need a few modifications to 
make them better. I strongly disagree. Freedom of expression is an end 
in itself and can not be subordinated to any other goals of society. 
Information is the backbone to freedom, ignorance is the backbone to 
oppression.
  Reformers tolerate these inequalities because they believe they will 
result in lower-cost elections, less influence in the process by 
special interests, and will make the electoral system more accessible 
to challengers. Even if these goals could be achieved in this way, the 
trampling of the First Amendment in the process is unacceptable.
  The fact is, current laws do not work. Let's admit that. We wouldn't 
be debating this issue if they did. They were passed in haste, as a 
knee-jerk reaction to the Watergate era, and while they were enacted 
with good intentions, their result has been a disaster. We should 
recognize that a mistake was made when the Federal Election Campaign 
Act was enacted, and no modifications to this law will improve the 
system.
  Campaign finance laws restricting free speech should be repealed, and 
the absolute freedom to engage in the political process should be 
promoted and defended. The American people should know that their 
participation is encouraged, respected, and welcome. If that 
participation includes fully disclosed contributions to candidates and 
parties, so be it. Disclosure is the key factor here. Let's give the 
American people some credit. They are smart enough to judge for 
themselves where conflicts of interest lie. They do not need the 
bureaucracy of the Federal Elections Commission to police their speech 
and thwart their involvement. The only job of the FEC should be the 
posting and reporting of all contributions in a timely manner so that 
the American people can judge for themselves. Current law is an insult 
to the intelligence of the American people.
  Soft money is perceived as a loophole in current law. Banning soft 
money is only one more step toward the elimination of free speech in 
elections. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is not a 
loophole. It is a fundamental freedom that protects, among other 
things, political speech. Again, let Americans decide whether and to 
what extent they want to participate.
  We should be protecting freedom of speech over everything else. We 
should not enact legislation to preclude the public from voicing their 
opinions on the work we do here. We may not like what is said about us, 
but we can all agree that people have a right to speak their mind, 
especially their political mind.
  This bill also recognizes that current law does not protect working 
Americans' ability to decide which causes they will support. While this 
bill codifies the Beck decision which enables non-union workers to 
request a refund for the portion of their union fees used for political 
causes. If it does not address the concerns of union members who are 
forced to participate in political causes without their consent.
  No American should be faced with the direct or indirect threat of 
losing their job because of their political beliefs. No one should be 
forced to participate in advocating for a cause or causes they find 
repugnant. The rights of individuals to be free certainly extends to 
their political beliefs and the way in which they choose to participate 
or not to participate. No forced participation under any guise should 
be tolerated or encouraged. Let individuals make choices for 
themselves. That is the most fundamental freedom in a democracy.
  A vibrant democracy depends on the ability of all voices to be heard, 
and how loudly one may wish to speak should be limited only by that 
individual, not by government. If an individual can and is willing to 
expend over $1,000 in support of a candidate, they should be able to do 
so. If they wish to express their support with their time or in any 
other fashion, then this, too, should be applauded and encouraged. And 
if individuals wish to ignore the political process altogether, then 
this, too, is a right to be defended. To tinker with this fundamental 
right gives power to some at the expense of others.

[[Page 25611]]

  Finally, I would submit, that we need to re-examine our attitude 
toward money in the electoral process, and I would propose that 
spending money to communicate one's message is not the root of all evil 
in politics. Candidates for public office have the important task of 
getting their message out to the voters. In statewide races across the 
country, candidates must spend substantial amounts of money for print 
and electronic media, since it is the best current method of reaching 
the maximum audience.
  Take a moment and think about the power of the media today--
television, newspapers and radio frame the debates of important issues. 
A candidate must be able to raise enough money to get his or her 
message out to the public.
  When I was campaigning for my Senate seat back in 1988, I faced 
enormous opposition from the newspapers. Newspapers have vast resources 
to openly campaign for a candidate. Had I not had the freedom and 
ability to counter their message, I would not be a Senator today.
  True reform will not strip candidates, parties, or individuals of 
their ability to counter the messages in the media. True reform should 
recognize the imbalance current law has created, and would seek to 
level the playing field between candidates and the media. Remember, the 
First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but it also protects the 
freedom of individuals to speak loud and clear.
  Madam President, I believe in the First Amendment. Protecting that 
right must be our primary goal.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is unfortunate that the procedural 
structure that has been erected stands in the way of moving forward on 
significant and thoughtful reform to our campaign finance laws. I would 
like to have the opportunity to debate and vote on some of those 
reforms, particularly the measure offered by Senator Hagel, but we are 
precluded from doing so. Today, I want to speak about campaign finance 
reform legislation I introduced earlier this year and about an 
amendment I am prepared to offer.
  This past May I introduced the Constitution and Effective Reform of 
Campaigns Act of CERCA, which I first introduced during the 105th 
Congress. This legislation is the product of 2 years of hearings during 
my chairmanship of the Rules Committee, discussions with numerous 
experts, party officials, and candidates, and nearly two decades of 
participating in campaigns and campaign finances debates in the Senate.
  I view my legislation as an opportunity for bipartisan support. It is 
a good faith effort to strike middle ground between those who believe 
public financing of campaigns is the solution, and those who believe 
the solution is to remove current regulations. If offers a package of 
proposals which realistically can be achieved with bipartisan support 
and meet the desire of the majority of Americans who believe that our 
present system can be reformed. In my judgment, we will not succeed 
with any measure of campaign reform in this complicated field without a 
bipartisan consensus.
  In drafting this legislation, I began with four premises. First, all 
provisions had to be consistent with the first amendment: Congress 
would be acting in bad faith to adopt provisions which have a 
likelihood of being struck down by the Federal courts.
  Second, I oppose public financing and mandating ``free'' or reduced-
cost media time which in my mind is neither free nor a good policy 
idea. Why should seekers of Federal office get free time, while 
candidates for State office or local office--from governors to local 
sheriffs--do not receive comparable free benefits? Such an inquity and 
imbalance will breed friction between Federal and State office seekers.
  Third, I believe we should try to increase the role of citizens and 
the political parties.
  Fourth, any framwork of campaign reform legislation must respect and 
protect the constitutional right of individuals, groups, and 
organization to participate in advocacy concerning political issues.
  The McCain-Feingold bill has been debated thoroughly in the Senate, 
and any objective observer of the Senate would agree that we are 
genuinely deadlocked. This body needs to move beyond the debate of 
McCain-Fiengold. I hope that all Members will review my bill as an 
objective and pragmatic approach to current problems with our campaign 
system. I commend other Members for coming forward, as I have, with 
proposals which objectively represent pragmatic approaches to what can 
be achieved.
  Several of the issues addressed in my legislation have been raised by 
other Members in the context of this debate. Amendments have been 
proposed on foreign soft money, increasing the hard dollar contribution 
limits, and disclosure of last-minute expenditures, among others.
  My focus today is how can we expand participation in the political 
process--both by voters and by potential candidates. I hope that any 
reform carries with it the opportunity for more small contributors to 
participate in the political process. And, I hope that reform will 
bring more candidates into the arena.
  To this end, I want to focus on two reforms contained in my original 
legislation. First, we need to ensure that the average voter can, and 
will, contribute to the candidate of their choice. The influence of 
voters on campaigns has been diminished by the activities of political 
action committees and interest groups. Therefore, I propose a $100 tax 
credit for contributions made by citizens, with incomes under specified 
levels, to Senate and House candidates in their states. This credit 
should spark an influx of small dollar contributions to balance the 
greater ability of citizens with higher incomes to participate. In 
addition, the increased individual contribution limit, as proposed by 
others, should balance the activities of political action committees.
  Second, we need to remove barriers to challengers. Compared to 
incumbents, challengers face greater difficulties raising funds and 
communicating with voters, particularly at the outset of a campaign. My 
solution is to allow candidates to receive ``seed money'' contributions 
of up to $10,000 from individuals and political action committees.
  This provision should help get candidacies off the ground. The total 
amount of these ``seed money'' contributions could not exceed $100,000 
for House candidates or $300,000 for Senate candidates. To meet the 
constitutional test, this provision would apply to both challengers and 
incumbents alike, but in the case of an incumbent with money carried 
over from a prior cycle, those funds would count against the seed money 
limit. In addition, Senate incumbents would be barred from using the 
franking privilege to send out mass mailings during the election year, 
rather than the 60-day ban in current law.
  But elective office should not be for sale. Campaigns should be 
competitive. Candidates with personal wealth have a distinct advantage 
through their constitutional right to spend their own funds. Therefore, 
if a candidate spends more than $25,000 of his or her own money, the 
individual contribution limits would be raised to $10,000 so that 
candidates could raise money to counter that personal spending. Again, 
to meet constitutional review, this provision would apply to all 
candidates.
  Mr. President, if we can do these two things--enhance citizen 
involvement, and level the playing field for condidates--we will have 
made significant progress. Again, I hope the Senate will have the 
opportunity to address these issues. I was prepared to offer my 
amendment and I hope I will have the opportunity to do so.
  These are the problems which I believe can be solved in a bipartisan 
fashion. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact 
meaningful campaign reform, by looking at creative solutions to address 
the real problems with our present campaign system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill summary and the 
text of my amendment be printed in the Record.

[[Page 25612]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Amendment No. --

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. __. ENCOURAGING SMALL CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL 
                   CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES.

       (a) General Rule.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25A the following:

     ``SEC. 25B. IN-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONGRESSIONAL 
                   CANDIDATES.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual, there 
     shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the aggregate 
     amount of contributions made during the taxable year by the 
     individual to any local congressional candidate.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) 
     for any taxable year shall not exceed $100 ($200 in the case 
     of a joint return).
       ``(2) Adjusted gross income.--No credit shall be allowed 
     under subsection (a) for a taxable year if the taxpayer's 
     modified adjusted gross income (as defined in section 
     25A(d)(3)) exceeds $60,000 ($120,000 in the case of a joint 
     return).
       ``(3) Verification.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) 
     shall be allowed with respect to any contribution only if the 
     contribution is verified in such manner as the Secretary 
     shall prescribe by regulation.
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Candidate.--The term `candidate' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).
       ``(2) Contribution.--The term `contribution' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).
       ``(3) Local congressional candidate.--The term `local 
     congressional candidate' means a candidate in a primary, 
     general, runoff, or special election seeking nomination for 
     election to, or election to, the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives for the State in which the principal 
     residence of the taxpayer is located.
       ``(4) Principal residence.--The term `principal residence' 
     has the same meaning as when used in section 121.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 642 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to special rules for credits and deductions of 
     estates or trusts) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(j) Credit for Certain Contributions Not Allowed.--An 
     estate or trust shall not be allowed the credit against tax 
     provided by section 25B.''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 25A the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 25B. In-State contributions to congressional candidates.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.

     SEC. __. SEED MONEY TO ENCOURAGE NEW CANDIDATES AND 
                   COMPETITIVE CAMPAIGNS.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``No person'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (i), no 
     person'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``No multicandidate'' 
     and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (i), no 
     multicandidate''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Modification of Limits.--
       ``(1) Seed money.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a candidate for 
     nomination for election to, or election to, the Senate or 
     House of Representatives, the limits under paragraphs (1)(A) 
     and (2)(A) of subsection (a) for any calendar year shall be 
     an amount equal to 4 times such limit, determined without 
     regard to this section, until such time as the aggregate 
     amount of contributions accepted by a candidate during an 
     election cycle exceeds the applicable limit for a candidate.
       ``(B) Candidate's applicable limit.--The applicable limit 
     under subparagraph (A) with respect to a candidate shall be--
       ``(i) an amount equal to--

       ``(I) in the case of a candidate for the Senate, $300,000; 
     and
       ``(II) in the case of a candidate for the House of 
     Representatives, $100,000,

     reduced (but not below zero) by
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount determined under subsection 
     (j)(1) that the candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     committees have available to transfer from a previous 
     election cycle to the current election cycle.
       ``(C) Time to accept contributions under modified limit.--A 
     candidate and the candidate's authorized committees shall not 
     accept a contribution under the modified limits of this 
     subsection until the candidate has received notification of 
     the aggregate amount under subsection (j)(2).''.
       (b) Determination of Contributions Transferred From 
     Previous Election Cycle.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) (as amended by 
     subsection (a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(j) Determination of Contributions Transferred From 
     Previous Election Cycles.--
       ``(1) Determination.--For purposes of subsection (i)--
       ``(A) in the case of an individual elected to the Senate or 
     the House of Representatives, after the receipt of the 
     individual's post-general election report under section 
     304(a)(2)(A)(ii) for the election cycle in which the 
     individual was elected, the Commission shall determine the 
     aggregate amount of contributions that is available to be 
     transferred from 1 or more previous election cycles to the 
     current election cycle of the candidate (regardless of 
     whether the amount has been so transferred); and
       ``(B) in the case of any other individual, the aggregate 
     amount of contributions available shall be zero.
       ``(2) Notification.--The Commission shall notify each 
     candidate of the amount determined under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to the candidate.
       ``(3) Adjustment.--On receipt of notification under 
     paragraph (2), the limits under paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) 
     of subsection (i) shall be adjusted accordingly with respect 
     to the candidate.''.

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

       (a) Modification of Contribution Limits in Response to 
     Expenditures From Personal Funds.--Section 315(i) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) (as 
     added by section __) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(2) Increase in limit to allow response to expenditures 
     from personal funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--The applicable limit under paragraph (1) 
     for a particular election shall be increased by the personal 
     funds amount.
       ``(B) Personal funds amount.--The 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)) in excess 
     of $25,000 that an opposing candidate in the same election 
     makes; over
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of expenditures from personal 
     funds made by the candidate in the 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 (D); 
     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 made by a candidate using personal 
     funds to the candidate's authorized committee.
       ``(ii) Initial notification.--Not later than 24 hours after 
     a candidate seeking nomination for election to, or election 
     to, the Senate or the House of Representatives makes or 
     obligates to make an aggregate amount of expenditures from 
     personal funds in excess of $25,000 in connection with any 
     election, the candidate shall file a notification stating the 
     amount of the expenditure with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
       ``(iii) Additional notification.--After a candidate files 
     an initial notification under clause (ii), the candidate 
     shall file an additional notification each time expenditures 
     from personal funds are made or obligated to be made in an 
     aggregate amount of $5,000 with--
       ``(I) the Commission; and
       ``(II) each candidate in the same election.
       ``(iv) Contents.--A notification under clause (ii) or (iii) 
     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) Definitions.--Section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(20) Election Cycle.--The term `election cycle' means the 
     period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent 
     general election for the specific office or seat that a 
     candidate is seeking and ending on the date of the next 
     general election for that office or seat.
       ``(21) 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

[[Page 25613]]

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

     SEC. __. LIMIT ON SENATE USE OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE.

       Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``Congress may not'' and inserting ``the House of 
     Representatives may not''; and
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``60 days (or, in the case 
     of a Member of the House, fewer than 90 days)'' and inserting 
     ``90 days''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C)(i) A Member of the Senate shall not mail any mass 
     mailing as franked mail during a year in which there will be 
     an election for the seat held by the Member during the period 
     between January 1 of that year and the date of the general 
     election for that office, unless the Member has made a public 
     announcement that the Member will not be a candidate for 
     reelection to that office in that year.
       ``(ii) A Member of the Senate shall not mail any mass 
     mailing as franked mail if the mass mailing is postmarked 
     fewer than 60 days before the date of any primary election or 
     general election (whether regular, special, or runoff) for 
     any national, State, or local office in which the Member is a 
     candidate for election.''.
                                  ____


 S. 1107--Constitutional and Effective Reform of Campaigns Act of 1999


              title i--enhancement of citizen involvement

       Section 101: Prohibits those ineligible to vote (non-
     citizens, minors, felons) from making contributions (``hard 
     money'') or donations (``soft money''). Also bans foreign 
     aliens making independent expenditures and codifies FEC 
     regulations on foreign control of domestic donations.
       Section 102: Updates maximum individual contribution limit 
     to $2000 per election (primary and general) and indexes both 
     individual and PAC limits in the future.
       Section 103: Provides a tax credit up to $100 for 
     contributions to in-state candidates for Senate and House for 
     incomes up to $60,000 ($200 for joint filers up to $120,000).


          title ii--leveling the playing field for candidates

       Section 201: Seed money provision: Senate candidates may 
     collect $300,000 and House candidates $100,000 (minus any 
     funds carried over from a prior cycle) in contributions up to 
     $10,000 from individuals and PAC's.
       Section 202: ``Anti-millionaires'' provision: when one 
     candidate spends over $25,000 of personal funds, a candidate 
     may accept contributions up to $10,000 from individuals and 
     PAC's up to the amount of personal spending minus a 
     candidate's funds carried over from a prior cycle and own use 
     of personal funds.
       Section 203: Bans use of Senate frank for mass mailings 
     from January 1 to election day for incumbents seeking 
     reelection.


          title iii--voluntariness of political contributions

       Section 301: Union dues provision: Labor organizations must 
     obtain prior, written authorization for portion of dues or 
     fees not to be used for representation: Establishes civil 
     action for aggrieved employee. Requires employers to post 
     notice of rights. Amends reporting statute to require better 
     disclosure of expenses unrelated to representation.
       Section 302: Corporations must disclose soft money 
     donations in annual reports.


               title iv--elimination of campaign excesses

       Section 410: Adds soft money donations to present ban on 
     fundraising on federal property and to other criminal 
     statutes.
       Section 402: Hard money contributions or soft money 
     donations over $500 which a political committee intends to 
     return because of illegality must be transferred to the FEC 
     and may be given to the Treasury as part of a civil or 
     criminal action.
       Section 403: ``Soft'' and ``hard'' money provisions. Soft 
     money cap: no national party, congressional committee or 
     senatorial committee shall accept donations from any source 
     exceeding $100,000 per year. Hard money increases: limit 
     raised from $25,000 to $50,000 per individual per year with 
     no sub-limit to party committees.
       Section 404: FEC regulations banning conversion of campaign 
     funds to personal use.


                      title v--enhanced disclosure

       Section 501: Additional reporting requirements for 
     candidates: weekly reports for last month of general 
     election, 24-hour disclosure of large contributions extended 
     to 90 days before election, and end of ``best efforts'' 
     waiver for failure to obtain occupation of contributors over 
     $200.
       Section 502: FEC shall make reports filed available on the 
     Internet.
       Section 503: 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures 
     over $1,000 in last 20 days before election, and of those 
     over $10,000 made anytime.
       Section 504: Registered lobbyists shall include their own 
     contributions and soft money donations and those of their 
     employers and the employers' coordinated PAC's on lobbyist 
     disclosure forms.


              title vi--federal election commission reform

       Section 601: FEC shall develop and provide, at no cost, 
     software to file reports, and shall issue regulations 
     mandating electronic filing and allowing for filing by fax.
       Section 602: Limits commissioners to one term of eight 
     years.
       Section 603: Increases penalties for knowing and willful 
     violations to greater of $15,000 or 300 percent of the 
     contribution or expenditure.
       Section 604: Requires that FEC create a schedule of 
     penalties for minor reporting violations.
       Section 605: Establishes availability of oral arguments at 
     FEC when requested and two commissioners agree. Also requires 
     that FEC create index of Commission actions.
       Section 606: Changes reporting cycle for committees to 
     election cycle rather than calendar year.
       Section 607: Classifies FEC general counsel and executive 
     director as presidential appointments requiring Senate 
     confirmation.


       title vii--improvements to national voter registration act

       Section 701: Repeals requirement that states allow 
     registration by mail.
       Section 702: Requires that registrants for federal 
     elections provide social security number and proof of 
     citizenship.
       Section 703: Provides states the option of removing 
     registrants from eligible list of federal voters who have not 
     voted in two federal elections and did not respond to 
     postcard.
       Section 704: Allows states to require photo ID at the 
     polls.
       Section 705: Repeals requirement that states allow people 
     to change their registration at the polls and still vote.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today in support of meaningful 
campaign finance reform. It is high time that this Congress act to 
improve our political process and to restore faith in our democracy. In 
fact, it is past time.
  When I was elected by the people of my State in 1992, one of the key 
things they asked me to do was to help fix our campaign finance system. 
I have been part of the reform effort since I walked through these 
doors.
  Well, here it is, 7 years later. And it's the same old story. 
Campaigns still cost too much money. And too often, the power of ideas 
is pushed aside by the power of money. That is not the way our system 
should work. We need to do all we can to show the American people that 
their voices count--and to provide that their voices will be heard over 
the roar of special interest money.
  Overall, I do think we have made some positive changes in the way the 
Capitol operates since my election. I do think we have addressed some 
of the issues families care about. But our campaign finance system 
still undermines our best efforts--draining public interest in our 
political process and sapping the energy from American voters in ways 
that will affect our democracy for years to come.
  The opponents say the public doesn't care about campaign finance 
reform. But, in fact, the role of money in our elections and the rise 
of special interest influence have a profound--and very negative--
effect on public perception of politics. Many people believe that 
Members of Congress are controlled by special interests and wealthy 
donors--and are no longer listening to their concerns. It keeps them 
from voting and from participating in the decisions that affect their 
lives.
  We are here to represent the people of our States. As a 
representative of working Americans, I have felt from

[[Page 25614]]

the beginning that it is my duty to ensure their voices and concerns 
are heard loudly and clearly in the political process. If my 
constituents believe they aren't being heard and that is partially due 
to the influence of special interests, then I must do something about 
it. This legislation is an opportunity to act.
  I think this legislation could go further, for example, in the way it 
treats types of advocacy. Express advocacy is designed to get the 
public to vote for or against a specific candidate. For that reason, 
express advocacy is regulated. There is another type of advocacy that 
is not regulated. It's called ``issue advocacy.'' Issue advocacy 
campaigns were intended to allow groups and individuals to communicate 
their support or opposition to particular policy issues. Unfortunately, 
these activities have become organized campaigns run by partisan groups 
to influence the election or defeat of a particular candidate. At a 
minimum, the public has a right to know who is funding these so-called 
``independent expenditures'' by requiring the producers of these 
campaigns to disclose their contributors. A earlier version of this 
bill would have made issue advocacy subject to similar restrictions as 
express advocacy. That is one of the improvements I would like to see 
as we go through the amendment process.
  But there are other amendments that would weaken the bill's 
provisions and could kill this legislation. One is the so-called 
Paycheck Protection Act. It is a poison pill to kill true campaign 
finance reform. This provision would defund unions by setting up 
barriers to their obtaining union dues to spend on political 
activities. However, the Republican Paycheck Protection Act misses the 
target. Despite the rhetoric, no worker is ever forced to join a union 
or pay for political and legislative activities with which he or she 
does not agree. Never. But the vast majority of unions--and their 
supporters--believe their voices are critical to a strong healthy 
economy and to strong, healthy families. And I agree with them.
  I am not optimistic about this process. We have some very determined 
foes who oppose any attempt at reform. While we have 100 percent of the 
Democratic caucus and a handful of brave Republicans, it appears we do 
not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster against reform. This makes me 
unhappy, but not willing to give up.
  I will continue to participate in the coalition of those Senators 
pushing for reform. I will keep my commitment to bring public faith 
back into our political system and to return political power to our 
citizens. And I will anxiously await the day when 60 of my Senate 
colleagues agree with the American people that now is the time for 
campaign finance reform.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, last Thursday, I listened aghast to the 
exchanges among Senators McCain, Bennett, Feingold, McConnell, and 
Gorton concerning the implication that an appropriation was provided to 
a project in my home in exchange for campaign money.
  While my junior colleague from Utah made the case commendably, I do 
feel compelled to respond for myself since I have actively sought and 
promoted these appropriations for my State.
  The Senator from Arizona seems to have confused representation with 
corruption.
  Since when does standing up for one's State, its local governments, 
or its people constitute corruption?
  I was under the impression that this is what we were sent here to do.
  The Senator from Arizona is way out of line when he suggests that my 
colleague, Senator Bennett, has done even one thing even remotely 
improper in advocating for our State and for the help necessary to host 
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. He should include me in that accusation 
as well.
  My definition of ``pork'' is an appropriation that is unjustified 
(i.e., unneeded), not meritorious (i.e., the proposal is poorly 
conceived or too expensive), or it is solely to benefit the entity 
receiving the appropriation. The project that the Senator has labeled 
as ``pork'' is none of those things.
  First, Salt Lake City was America's choice to host the Olympic games. 
These are America's games. There are certain things we are going to 
need help with and that can appropriately be done by the federal 
government.
  The so-called pork barrel project he has cited was for Ogden, UT, for 
water, sewer, and storm water improvements. The Senator from Arizona 
has intimated on his website that this project received appropriated 
funds because members of the Senate--and I presume he means me and 
Senator Bennett--have been improperly influenced by soft money.
  I wonder if my colleague has actually thought about that. Does he 
really believe that Ogden, UT, is so tremendously wealthy that it can 
make campaign contributions or that its citizens would even countenance 
such a thing to achieve this project grant? Does the Senator from 
Arizona hear how ridiculous this sounds?
  I have thought, while listening to the Senator's remarks, that we 
have been debating that old question about the tree falling in the 
forest. If a dollar flows into a campaign chest, but no one takes any 
action in relation to it, does that make it corrupt? Is acceptance of 
any campaign contribution de facto corrupt? That certainly seems to be 
what Senator McCain is saying.
  I was stunned by the personal nature of the Senator's remarks last 
week, particularly as regards my colleague Senator Bennett, and most 
particularly since Senator McCain could not seem to cite any specific 
evidence that this line item for sewer improvements was included as a 
payoff for a soft money--or hard money for that matter--contribution.
  No, the best he could do is to say that the appropriation was not 
authorized.
  I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--it is an authorizing 
committee. And, I can't tell you the number of times I have debated 
jurisdiction with the Senator from Arizona. I am well aware of how 
strongly he feels about the authorization process. I agree with him on 
that.
  But give me a break. The Judiciary Committee is not going to 
authorize every individual grant to a law enforcement agency. I can't 
believe the Senator wants to authorize $2 million for water, sewer, and 
storm water improvements in Ogden, UT.
  And, I suspect that, if he were to be a spectator at the Olympic 
downhill in 2002, and he needed to use the restroom, he would 
appreciate those sewer improvements.
  Moreover, the authorization process is not the good housekeeping 
stamp of approval. If campaign contributions can taint the 
appropriations process, they can also taint the authorization process. 
The logic of the Senator from Arizona is false on this point.
  I will second the remarks made by Senator McConnell with respect to 
the tenor of this debate. One would have hoped that we could debate our 
respective ideas about campaign finance reform without getting into 
accusing one another of soft money-for-pork deals.
  But, I hope my colleagues will listen carefully when the Senator from 
Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin attempt to smooth things over by 
saying, ``we're not accusing you; it's the system.''
  If these colleagues are not accusing us, then why do we need this 
bill? If members have not engaged in abuses--then this bill has no 
basis.
  When I was a youngster I remember being terribly irritated when the 
teacher made the whole class stay after school because a couple of my 
classmates misbehaved. I remember too that sometimes the punishment was 
that the rules governing library privileges or playground activity 
became stricter because certain classmates broke the old ones.
  Today, our Government reacts much the same way when there have been 
abuses of freedome--we want to legislate a means of prevention. We want 
to tighten up the rules.
  Because the people are justifiably outraged at abuses, particularly 
at breaches of their trust, we feel compelled to respond.
  We think if we rail loudly in sympathy with their outrage and 
introduce

[[Page 25615]]

bills to address the cause of it, the people will think we are above it 
and have nothing to do with the dirty business. But, me thinks some 
doth protest too much. (So there will be no misunderstanding, I refer 
here to the Clinton administration which has yet to sanction the 
appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the alleged 
campaign finance violations involving contributions to the Democratic 
National Committee.)
  At the end of the day, the people will not be fooled. While there is 
no doubt in my mind that those who favor the McCain-Feingold 
legislation do so with the purest of motives, and I respect their 
views, I believe that what the people really want is not new law, but 
honest politicians. And, that, I say to my colleagues, cannot be 
legislated.
  Moreover, to the extent that there have been abuses of campaign 
integrity, let alone existing law, the problem is not the lack of 
regulation, but the violation of it. Our efforts might be better spent 
in toughening both public and private oversight, enforcement, and 
penalties on the offenders.
  But, we are instead debating legislation that would impose 
significant new regulations on the way we undertake the most 
fundamental of all American freedoms--elections for public office.
  What on earth are we doing? Why are we even contemplating such 
sweeping changes--changes that would inevitably dampen free speech in 
our country? Changes that would damage the ``checks and balances'' that 
are inherent in our two-party system?
  Well, in light of recent abuses of freedom in campaign fundraising 
and in light of what we politicians perceive to be mounting 
dissatisfaction among the electorate, we are debating a proposal for a 
new law.
  That'll fix it. We will all put out our press releases. We will 
congratulate each other on our so-called ``reform'' legislation. And, 
if it's a ``reform'' bill, it must be good, right?
  With all due respect to my colleagues Senators McCain and Feingold, 
who have been working on this legislation for a long time and who I 
know are sincerely dedicated to improving our campaign process, I must 
say that, if we pass their bill, we will deliver broad-based reforms 
which we perceive to be popular at the moment. But, we will also be 
fundamentally changing the relationship between those running for 
public office and those who elect them for the long term. We will be 
imposing significantly more regulation governing who can give what to 
whom as well as how support can be given and how it can be received.
  Let me comment briefly on this relationship. We all understand it--or 
we should.
  When we throw our hats in the ring for public office, we do so 
because we believe we have ideas and a point of view that would benefit 
our home state constituents and our country. And, I think it is safe to 
say that we don't do it for the money--and we have pretty well 
``deperked'' this place as well.
  But, our success depends on the support of others. Our candidacies 
all began in someone's office or living room. There may have been 3, 5, 
10, 15 people in the room. The first order of business was to get our 
views and ideas before the people with the hope that our platform would 
appeal to enough people that they would join our bandwagon.
  How do you grow a campaign? First, people have to know who you are. 
So, you print some posters and campaign buttons. I might add that when 
I first ran in 1976, having never held public office before and running 
against a 3-term incumbent senator, I needed a lot of signs.
  Then, since you can't really get much substantive information on a 
yard sign or button, you need some brochures. You need to put out some 
press releases. You need to buy some TV and radio advertising.
  Assuming you get some positive response from the people to your 
views, you will need to hire some staff to organize volunteer efforts 
and precincts. Later on, you will need to have some phone banks and a 
get-out-the-vote program.
  All of this requires money--that people who believe in your candidacy 
donate to your campaign. This is not money that is taxed and 
apportioned by some governmental entity. It is money voluntarily given 
because, in giving it, people are expressing their preferences for 
those who will represent them. It could be one dollar or a thousand 
dollars, but the act of contributing to a candidate for public office 
is an exercise of political freedom.
  Now, the McCain-Feingold bill, for all of its good intentions, fails 
this crucial test: it imposes new restrictions on how people can 
participate financially in campaigns.
  Previous incarnations of the McCain-Feingold bill would have outlawed 
all soft money contributions and issue advocacy by special interest 
groups.
  The argument goes that sophisticated organizations are manipulating 
candidates and elections by donating large amounts of money. And, the 
argument goes further that this manipulation is poisoning the political 
process for all citizens.
  So-called coffees at the White House, nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, 
receptions at Buddhist temples, fundraising from taxpayer-maintained 
territory, specious connections to foreign governments--that is what 
has affected people's faith in the electoral process. It isn't the 
direct mail letter, the cocktail reception, or the $10 per person 
summer weinie roast. People are pretty savvy. They know we have to 
raise the money to run, and they know it's not cheap.
  But, this year, Senators McCain and Feingold have apparently accepted 
that their proposed ban was blatantly unconstitutional. They have opted 
for a half-ban--a ban on soft money contributions from political 
parties, but not on non-party organizations.
  Let's be clear about one thing: political parties are already 
regulated by law and regulation. These contributions and expenditures 
are already controlled. The Republican or Democratic National 
Committees cannot so much as buy a legal pad with 100 percent soft 
money.
  This ban on party soft money merely elevates the importance of 
special interest soft money, which Senators McCain and Feingold have 
declared to be society's biggest evil. The League of Women Voters, 
which previously supported the McCain-Feingold bill, has now asked 
Senators to oppose it because it not only fails to correct the problem 
of soft money influence as they see it, but exacerbates it.
  Additionally, this half-ban on soft money from political parties and 
its concomitant increase in the importance of special interest groups, 
serves to weaken our political parties.
  I recognize that many Americans are frustrated with both parties--
and, I admit, often for good reason. But, the fact is that a strong 
two-party system is what keeps American government working. Nations 
with multiparty systems often have extreme difficulty finding consensus 
and are plagued with frequent reversals in ministerial leadership, 
national policy, and unstable markets given political uncertainty.
  The American two-party system is a healthy competition of ideas and 
viewpoints. And, national parties should not be curtailed in their 
efforts to build their state and local infrastructures and to support 
their slates of candidates.
  A ban on the ability of national parties to send money to state and 
local parties and to candidates is like telling a major league baseball 
team that it cannot support its farm teams or give a bonus to its 
promising players.
  Last, but certainly not least, the revised McCain-Feingold bill 
remains constitutionally specious.
  Despite the sponsors recognition that the ban on all soft money 
violated free speech rights under the Supreme Court's decision ion 
Buckley v. Valeo, the half-ban still skates on very thin ice.
  The Court stated:

       The First Amendment denies government the power to 
     determine that spending to promote one's political views is 
     wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained 
     by our Constitution, it is not the government but the 
     people--individually as citizens and collectively as 
     associations and political committees--who must retain 
     control over the quantity and range of debate on public 
     issues in a political campaign.


[[Page 25616]]


  But, the bottomline for today is that, quite simply, political 
parties are entitled to promote their views. The McCain-Feingold bill 
would compromise that right.
  Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, balanced budgets, and health 
care have all been the subject of issue advertising. And, neither 
Republicans nor Democrats should be ``gagged'' by the provisions of 
this bill. Since a political party exists to promote a particular 
viewpoint or philosophy of government, the McCain-Feingold proposal 
quite simply infringes on its right to do so.
  But, unlike my school teacher's withholding recess, the McCain-
Feingold proposal is not a simple trade-off of privileges for 
accountability. It asks Americans to exchange a fundamental freedom, 
which is coveted throughout the world, for the vague promise of 
curtailing the influence of special interests in elections.
  But, here again, the McCain-Feingold proposal misses the mark. Who 
are the special interests? I submit that the ``special interests are 
us.''
  One man's greedy special interest is another man's organization 
standing up for truth and the American way. It is impossible for this 
Congress--or any Congress--to make this distinction.
  The prohibition on party soft money suggested by the McCain-Feingold 
bill does not even allow the people to exercise their own judgments 
about the propriety of an expenditure or even about the candidates or 
the issue. It simply outlaws soft money activity out of hand.
  Some have said to me, ``But this is a bipartisan bill. It is a good 
compromise.'' My response must be that just because a measure is 
bipartisan and called ``reform'' does not make it good.
  Moreover, I remind my colleagues that the original plaintiffs in this 
suit included James Buckley, the conservative Senator from New York and 
Eugene McCarthy, liberal former Senator from Minnesota.
  The diverse coalition of groups who have led the opposition to 
previous versions of McCain-Feingold include the National Right to Life 
Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union.
  In my view, Mr. President, this is not campaign finance reform. No 
legislation, certainly nothing called ``reform,'' should leave the 
people with less freedom.
  Let's look at this issue.
  Many pundits and many colleagues here in Congress perceive that the 
American people think that our government has become too fraught with 
special interest influence, bought with special interest campaign 
contributions. We have all heard voters voice their frustrations about 
government. Given some of the games we play up here that affect 
necessary legislation--such as the bankruptcy bill to name just one 
example--this attitude is not surprising or unwarranted.
  It may be a mistake to interpret these frustrations as widespread 
cynicism about the influence of special interests rather than about the 
government's inability to enact tax relief, inertia on long-term Social 
Security and Medicare reforms, and the tug-of-war on budget and 
appropriations.
  Nevertheless, it goes without saying that maintaining the integrity 
of our election system and citizens' confidence in it has to be among 
our highest priorities. The question is: what is the right reform?
  The best way to reform our campaign finance system is to open it up 
to the light of day and to allow citizens to make the judgments about 
how much influence is too much.
  For example, some people may believe that a single dollar from a 
tobacco PAC, an environmental lobby, or the AFL-CIO is too much. For 
others, such contributions may not be as much of a concern.
  Under a system of more prompt, user-friendly disclosure, people can 
compare the source of contributions with votes cast by the candidate. 
They can decide for themselves which donations are rewards for 
faithfulness to a principle and representation of constituents and 
which contributions might be a quid pro quo for special favors.
  I had planned to offer a substitute amendment to S. 1593. I called my 
proposal the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act.'' It would require all 
candidates and political committees to disclose every contribution they 
receive and every expenditure they make over $200 within 14 days on a 
publicly accessible website. This means people will not have to wade 
through FEC bureaucracy to get this information, and the information 
will be continuously updated.
  Further, my proposal would encourage--not require--non-party 
organizations to disclose expenditures in a constitutionally acceptable 
manner the funds that they devote to political activity. Organizations 
that chose to file voluntary reports with the FEC would make individual 
donors to their PACs eligible for a tax deduction of up to $100.
  This provision is designed to encourage voluntary disclosure of 
expenditures of organizational soft money. Those organizations that did 
so would be shedding light on campaign finance not because they have 
to, but because it furthers the cause of an informed democracy.
  An article in the Investor's Business Daily quoted John Ferejohn of 
Stanford University as writing that ``nothing strikes the student of 
public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of 
information most people possess about politics.''
  The article goes on to suggest that ``many reforms, far from helping, 
would cut the flow of political information to an already ill-informed 
public.''
  Citing a study by Stephen Ansolabehere of MIT and Shanto Iyengar of 
UCLA, which demonstrates that political advertising ``enlightens 
voters,'' the IBD concludes that ``well-informed voters are the key to 
a well-functioning democracy.'' [Investor's Business Daily; 9/20/99]
  Morton Kondracke editorializes in the July 30, 1999, Washington 
Times, ``Full disclosure would be valuable on its merits--letting 
voters know exactly who is paying for what in election campaigns. Right 
now, campaign money is going increasingly underground.''
  This is precisely the issue my amendment addresses. My amendment, 
rather than prohibit the American people from having certain 
information produced by political parties, it would open up information 
about campaign finance. Knowledge is power. My proposal is predicated 
on giving the people more power.
  Additionally, my legislation will raise the limits on individual 
participation in elections. Special interest PACs sprung up as a 
response to the limitations on individual participation in elections. 
The contribution limit for individuals is $1000 and it has not been 
adjusted since it was enacted in 1974.
  Why are these limits problematic? The answer is that if a candidate 
can raise $5000 in one phone call to a PAC, why make 5 phone calls 
hoping to raise the same amount from individuals? My legislation 
proposes to make individuals at least as important as PACs.
  My bill also raises the 25-year-old limits on donations to parties 
and PACs. It raises the current limits on what both individuals and 
PACs can give to political parties.
  As the League of Women Voters has correctly pointed out, the 
activities of political parties are already regulated, whereas the 
political activities of other organizations are not. If we are 
concerned about the influence of ``soft'' money--that is, money in 
campaigns that is not regulated and not disclosed--and cannot be 
regulated or subject to disclosure under our Constitution--then we 
ought to encourage--not punish--greater political participation through 
our party structures.
  We need to put individuals back as equal players in the campaign 
finance arena. Special interests--both PACs and soft money--have become 
important in large part because current law limits are not only a 
quarter century old, but are also higher for special interests than 
individuals.
  The McCain-Feingold approach represents a constitutionally specious 
barrier to free speech. It would, by law, prohibit political parties 
from using soft money to communicate with voters.

[[Page 25617]]

  My amendment, in contrast, does not prohibit anything. It does not 
restrict the flow of information to citizens--it does not restrict 
freedom. On the contrary, my amendment recognizes that citizens are the 
ultimate arbiters in elections. They should have access to as much 
information as possible about the candidates and the positions they 
represent.
  Thus far, the information that is available to voters about campaign 
finance has been difficult to obtain and untimely. My amendment, by 
empowering votes with this information, will put the role of special 
interests where it rightfully belongs--in the eye of the beholder, not 
the federal government.
  I regret very much that Senator Daschle has elected to use this 
parliamentary tactic--filling the amendment tree and objecting to 
consideration of other amendments--to foreclose all other amendments. 
He has put the Senate in a take-it-or-leave-it situation.
  Some of us had ideas for amendments to the McCain-Feingold bill--or, 
such as the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' a proposal for a complete 
substitute. The opportunity for amendments, however, has been scuttled.
  The proponents evidently believe they have done such a marvelous job 
that they refused to consider any other amendment when Senator 
McConnell asked consent to do so last Friday.
  The proponents of McCain-Feingold will no doubt hit the airwaves and 
say that the opponents do not support reform. They will say that we 
voted to keep the status quo, that we support the so-called insidious 
corruption of soft money.
  These would be false statements. Many of us do support reform--we 
simply want it to be fair and respectful of constitutional protections.
  There is no righteousness whatsoever in voting for a reform bill that 
limits freedom.
  I would have liked to offer my proposal. I would have liked the 
Senate to consider the merits of its approach.
  But, inasmuch as I will not be able to do that, and other senators 
who may have supported my alternative will not be able to vote for it, 
we are left with the Reid amendment, which does not even contain the 
amendments offered by the Senator from Kentucky to beef up internal 
procedures for accountability.
  We are left with an unamended, constitutionally flawed piece of 
legislation that has the effect of further bureaucratizing our 
electoral processes and gagging our two most prominent political 
organizations, thus shielding the people from information as if they 
are incapable of making evaluations on their own.
  If this is ``reform,'' it is not reform worthy of support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will my friend yield for a moment for me to make a 
comment to the Senator from Ohio?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Ohio. I listened carefully to 
his remarks. He accurately pointed out that labor unions are the only 
organizations in America that can raise political funds and spend them 
on whatever they choose to without the consent of the donor, which is 
an aberration. Everybody else in the political system has to raise 
money from voluntary donations. They have to ask for it. I thank my 
friend for pointing out that there really can't be any campaign finance 
reform that is meaningful without addressing this extraordinary abuse. 
I appreciate very much his comments on this debate.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. While I am in this 
body, I am going to continue to try to work with other people to see if 
we can't come up with something to ban soft money and deal with some of 
the problems I discussed, which would have been in my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2306 To Amendment No. 2298

    (Purpose: To allow a State to enact voluntary public financing 
legislation regarding the election of Federal candidates in such State)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2306 to amendment No. 2298.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the language proposed to be stricken, add the 
     following:

     SEC.   . STATE PROVIDED VOLUNTARY PUBLIC FINANCING.

       Section 403 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 453) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The preceding sentence shall not be interpreted to prohibit 
     a State from enacting a voluntary public financing system 
     which applies to a candidate for election to Federal office, 
     other than the office of President or Vice-President, from 
     such State who agrees to limit acceptance of contributions, 
     use of personal funds, and the making of expenditures in 
     connection with the election in exchange for full or partial 
     public financing from a State fund with respect to the 
     election, except that such system shall not allow any person 
     to take any action in violation of the provisions of this 
     Act.''.

  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield for an 
inquiry?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't yield the floor, but I will yield for an 
inquiry.
  Mr. McCONNELL. My inquiry is this: Is the Senator from Kentucky 
correct that this amendment is offered to what we call around here the 
other side of the tree?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator from Kentucky also correct that if 
cloture were invoked on either of the cloture motions tomorrow, this 
amendment would be wiped out?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that the 
amendment would not fall if it is germane.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Germane, postcloture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first of all, let me say to my 
colleagues that I wanted to bring this amendment to the floor because I 
thought we should get on with business and have up-or-down votes on 
amendments that deal with this, I think, critically important question.
  Let me start out with some context. This is an editorial from the New 
York Times, which actually was written Tuesday, October 20, 1998. The 
title is ``A Grass-Roots Message On Reform.''
  This deals with some of the victories that have taken place around 
the country; namely, two initiatives; one was in Massachusetts and one 
in Arizona. Of course, the Presiding Officer knows this all started 
with Maine, and then there was Vermont. I am talking about the clean 
money/clean election option. This is an editorial that talks about the 
momentum at the State level.
  What has happened is, a good many States in our country have partial 
public financing. In Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and also Arizona, 
citizens of those States have decided that if people running for office 
will agree, it is on a voluntary basis, they are going for a clean 
money/clean election option. If a State desires a States rights option, 
they should be able to apply it to House and Senate races. I point this 
out to the Chair because I think it is all positive about her.
  I notice in this paragraph, it says that it is no surprise that two 
of the seven Senate Republicans who challenged their leadership on this 
issue came from Maine, where similar public financing legislation was 
passed in 1996. It has been important to see what is happening at the 
State level.
  I ask unanimous consent this editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 25618]]



                [From the New York Times, Oct. 20, 1998]

                    A Grass-Roots Message on Reform

       In the weeks since campaign finance reform was killed in 
     Washington, it has been fashionable to say that the issue 
     never had much popular support. But that cynical view is 
     belied by the momentum behind two important initiatives this 
     fall, in Massachusetts and Arizona, where voters are being 
     asked to create publicly financed campaign systems that would 
     free politicians of their dependence on money from special 
     interests. Approval of these measures would provide a model 
     for how to clean up local political races and send a strong 
     signal to Washington to enact reform legislation next year.
       Both initiatives call for extensive public money to pay for 
     political campaigns, to be awarded after the candidates have 
     raised modest sums on their own. Many state and local 
     governments, including New York City, have provisions for 
     public financing. The post-Watergate laws governing national 
     elections also provide for public subsidies. But in these 
     cases, the money kicks in only when the candidates themselves 
     have raised large sums. As the last round of scandals shows, 
     candidates have also circumvented the law by accepting public 
     money and then using unregulated ``soft money'' contributions 
     for their campaigns.
       Even though it will cost them money, the voters in both 
     states are responding positively. In Massachusetts, the money 
     would come in part from taxpayers checking off a box on their 
     income-tax returns, and in part from legislative 
     appropriations. In Arizona, the money would be raised by 
     increasing the fee for lobbyists, a voluntary tax checkoff 
     and a surcharge on criminal and civil fines.
       Another encouraging sign is that these reforms are 
     occurring in one of the most conservative states in the 
     country as well as in one of the most liberal. It is perhaps 
     no accident that the main sponsors of campaign reform in 
     Washington include Senator John McCain of Arizona and 
     Representative Martin Meehan of Massachusetts. Nor is it 
     surprising that two of the seven Senate Republicans who 
     challenged their leadership on the issue this year came from 
     Maine, where similar public financing legislation was enacted 
     in 1996.
       Success in Arizona, Massachusetts and other states with 
     more limited campaign reform measures on their ballots could 
     build momentum, for change in Washington next year. Many 
     incumbent lawmakers have long argued that the public will not 
     tolerate public financing, by which they usually mean that 
     they do not want to give their challengers an equal chance. 
     They need only be reminded that voters can speak even more 
     loudly than campaign donations.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. There was a piece also that David Broder wrote, on 
July 18, 1999, in the Washington Post, ``Federal Lag, State Reform.'' 
David Broder, a highly respected journalist, talks about the energy at 
the State level. He talks about the work of public campaigns and 
victories in Maine and Vermont and Massachusetts and Arizona. He also 
talks about some of the activity around the country, the energy of 
grassroots people, people in our States, at the State level, who say, 
don't tell us we don't care about good government; don't tell us we 
don't care about clean elections. They are passing these initiatives.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 18, 1999]

                       Federal Lag, State Reform

                          (By David S. Broder)

       While Congress continues to procrastinate on changing the 
     campaign finance laws--the House will not take up the issue 
     until September; the Senate, who knows when?--things are 
     changing in the states.
       More and more of them are moving beyond the regulatory 
     approach embodied in most of the proposals in Washington and 
     are deciding that public financing of elections is the best 
     way to reduce the influence of interest groups and wealthy 
     individuals--while satisfying the maze of legalities laid 
     down by the courts.
       The latest and in some ways most surprising development 
     comes in Wisconsin, where Gov. Tommy Thompson, the dean of 
     the 50 governors and a staunch Republican, is making headway 
     with a proposal for partial public funding of state 
     campaigns.
       An appropriation of $750,000, urged by Thompson as part of 
     a reform plan devised by a bipartisan commission, has been 
     approved by the Senate-House finance committee and is 
     awaiting final action by the legislature. The full plan has 
     not yet passed and faces strong opposition, but Wisconsin 
     could become the second state in recent years, following 
     Vermont, to move to public financing by action of elected 
     officials.
       Since 1996, three others--Maine, Massachusetts and 
     Arizona--have done the same thing by voter initiatives, 
     bringing the total of states with full or partial public 
     financing systems to 24, according to Ellen Miller, the head 
     of Public Campaign, a Washington, DC-based group supporting 
     these efforts. Missouri and Oregon may have such initiatives 
     in 2000, she says.
       What is interesting about this phenomenon is that public 
     financing is considered beyond reach in the Washington debate 
     on campaign reform. Twenty-five years ago, Congress approved 
     partial public financing of presidential campaigns by a 
     checkoff on individual income tax returns--with matching 
     funds available to candidates accepting spending limits in 
     the primaries and a full subsidy available for the general 
     election.
       But in recent years, it has been accepted wisdom on Capitol 
     Hill that voters rebel at the idea of more of their tax 
     dollars being used to pay for those TV spots everyone 
     despises. And yet, when measures to subsidize campaigns from 
     public sources are put to a vote of the people in states as 
     diverse as Arizona and Massachusetts, they pass--despite the 
     reluctance of many local political leaders to endorse them.
       In Massachusetts, both Republican Gov. Paul Celluci and 
     leaders of the Democratic legislature looked askance at the 
     1998 initiative, but it passed by a 2 to 1 margin. Even with 
     that big win, there was doubt whether the legislature would 
     appropriate the money to begin funding the first publicly 
     financed elections, scheduled for 2002.
       Celluci put no request in his budget, but, the 
     legislature--a bit squeamish about defying a public mandate--
     did so, with the House voting for $10 million and the Senate 
     for $13 million. The House could not resist adding a joker--a 
     requirement that another initiative be passed in 2000 
     reaffirming that voters really want tax money used for 
     campaigns--but it's not certain whether that will be in the 
     final version of the budget.
       For now, backers of the measure told me, they are confident 
     that a series of annual appropriations plus voluntary 
     checkoffs will produce the $40 million kitty needed to fund 
     85 percent of the expenses of Massachusetts candidates who 
     accept spending limits in 2002.
       In Arizona, where the initiative barely passed by a 51 
     percent to 49 percent margin over the opposition of 
     Republican Gov. Jane Hull and others, opponents have filed 
     two lawsuits challenging the measure. The state Supreme Court 
     threw out the first one; the second is pending in a lower 
     court. Meantime, the financing machinery has begun to 
     function. Lobbyists are being asked to pay higher 
     registration fees, and a surcharge is being added to civil 
     and criminal penalties assessed in Arizona courts. Next year, 
     people filing their state income taxes will be told that, for 
     the first time, they can claim a tax credit of up to $500 for 
     political contributions--and, barring mishaps, public 
     financing will begin in 2002.
       The Wisconsin move is particularly interesting because 
     Thompson, like most other Republicans, was initially opposed 
     to taxpayer-financed campaigns. He endorsed the package of 
     other reforms recommended by the bipartisan commission he had 
     named. But when that measure was stymied by partisan battling 
     in the legislature, Thompson endorsed the direct subsidy as a 
     way of breaking the deadlock. In a phone call from Alaska, 
     where he was vacationing, he told me that he hopes Wisconsin, 
     which pioneered welfare reform under his leadership, ``can be 
     a model for the country'' on campaign reform as well.
       It will take more courage than Washington usually displays 
     for that wish to be fulfilled.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Finally, Madam President, I wish to read from a letter 
that asks Senators to support this amendment which would allow States 
to enact voluntary public financing legislation, commonly referred to 
as clean money/clean election initiatives regarding the election of 
Federal candidates in the States.

       Historically, the states have been ``laboratories of 
     reform.'' (a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Louis 
     Brandeis) where innovative public policies have been created 
     and tested. We believe, therefore, that the U.S. Senate, 
     which has been a champion of states' innovative efforts in a 
     number of policy efforts in recent years, should also support 
     the right of individual states to determine the campaign 
     finance system for their candidates for federal elections.

  This letter goes on to talk about the great victories in Arizona, 
Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, and also goes on to cite a recent 
poll undertaken by the Mellman Group in Iowa--you know everybody is 
focused on Iowa with the Presidential races--pointing out that voters, 
72 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans, support a system 
of voluntary full public financing and spending limits for campaigns. 
Not only did the support cut across party lines, but also there was 
support among ideologies within the political party.
  I ask unanimous consent this letter, which is signed by about 50 
different organizations that are working on reform at the State level, 
be printed in the Record.

[[Page 25619]]

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  Fifty Plus Citizen Groups in Support of Wellstone ``States Rights'' 
  Amendment to S. 1593, the ``Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1999''

                                                 October 14, 1999.
       Dear Senator. As the Senate prepares to debate S. 1593, the 
     ``Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1999,'' we the 
     undersigned urge you to support Senator Paul Wellstone's 
     amendment to allow states to enact voluntary public financing 
     legislation regarding the election of Federal candidates in 
     such states.
       Historically, the states have been ``laboratories of 
     reform'' (a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Louis 
     Brandeis) where innovative public policies have been created 
     and tested. We believe, therefore, that the U.S. Senate, 
     which has been a champion of states' innovative efforts in a 
     number of other policy areas in recent years, should also 
     support the right of individual states to determine the 
     campaign finance system for their candidates for federal 
     elections.
       The states are already moving in this direction with regard 
     to their own state elections. Twelve states currently offer 
     partial public financing to candidates for state offices. In 
     addition, four states have gone even further and have 
     recently passed full public financing systems for their state 
     elections--Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. Three 
     of the four states will have such a system in place for the 
     2000 election cycle.
       Finally, the American people, according to survey after 
     survey, say that the current campaign finance system is out 
     of control and they want it overhauled. A recent poll 
     undertaken by The Mellman Group in Iowa revealed that voters 
     (72 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Republicans) support 
     a system of voluntary full public financing and spending 
     limits for campaigns. Not only did support for such a 
     voluntary system cut across party lines, but it also 
     maintained strong support from all ideologies within the 
     parties.
       Again, we urge you to support Senator Wellstone's amendment 
     to S. 1593 and allow the states to have the right to decide 
     for themselves whether a voluntary public financing program 
     makes sense for the election campaigns of their own Members 
     of Congress.
           Sincerely,
     Arizona Clean Elections Institute
     Citizen Action of New York
     Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
     Colorado Progressive Coalition
     Connecticut Citizen Action Group
     Democracy South
     Dollars and Democracy Project/Ohio
     Episcopal Church
     Equality State Policy Center/Wyoming
     Florida Consumer Action Network
     Florida League of Conservation Voters
     Friends Committee on National Legislation
     Georgia Rural-Urban Summit
     Illinois Citizen Action
     Indiana Alliance for Democracy
     Iowa Citizen Action Network
     League of United Latin American Citizens
     Lutheran Office of Governmental Affairs--Evangelical Lutheran 
           Church in America
     Maine Citizen Leadership Fund
     Mass Voters for Clean Elections
     Michigan Citizen Action
     Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action
     Missouri Alliance for Campaign Reform
     Missouri Voters for Fair Elections
     National Voting Rights Institute
     NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
     New Hampshire Citizens Alliance
     New Jersey Citizen Action
     North Carolina Alliance for Democracy
     North Dakota Progressive Coalition
     Northeast Action
     Ocean State Action
     Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
     Oregon Political Accountability Network
     Pennsylvania Consumer Action Network
     Public Campaign
     South Carolina Progressive Network
     Southeast Forest Project
     Texans for Public Justice
     Texas Public Citizen
     Union of American Hebrew Congregations
     Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
     United Vision for Idaho
     United We Stand--Arizona
     U.S. PIRG
     Utah Progressive Network
     Vermont PIRG
     West Virginia Peoples' Election Reform Coalition
     West Virginia Citizen Action
     Western States Center
     Wisconsin Citizen Action
     Working Group on Electoral Democracy

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, before I get started in arguing my 
brief to this amendment, I appreciated the comments of my colleague 
from Ohio. I appreciate the sincerity in which he made his case, but 
there are a couple of points on which I am in disagreement. I don't 
know if this amendment will come up. I certainly hope it doesn't. We 
have been focusing on soft money. I join Senator Levin in thanking 
Senators McCain and Feingold for continuing to be a strong voice for 
reform. I understand the pragmatism of their initiative. I think if we 
could ban soft money it would be a significant step for our country--a 
good step forward, not a great leap sideways. I thank them.
  But I also want to point out for Senators, Democrats and Republican, 
that there is also the hard money issue. People who are listening--soft 
money/hard money--I think are wondering what all of this is about.
  When I hear other Senators say we ought to raise the limit from 
$1,000 to $3,000, actuality it would be $2,000 to $6,000 counting 
primary and general elections. I want to point out a couple of figures.
  This year, a spectacularly small portion--in the Presidential race--
of U.S. citizens have contributed more than $200. So far this year, 
only 4 out of 10,000 Americans have made a contribution higher than 
$200 to the Presidential race. That is .037 percent. As of June 30, 
1999, only .022 percent of all Americans have given $1,000 or more to a 
Presidential candidate. In the 1998 election, .06 percent of all 
Americans gave $1,000. That was roughly 1 in 5,000 citizens.
  If you say money is speech, then I guess we know who the people are 
who are going to do all of the talking. I cannot believe that 
Senators--Republicans, Democrats--whoever they are, believe this will 
give ordinary people more confidence and more faith in the political 
process.
  Again, what we have right now, when you are talking about 
contributions of over $1,000 this year, is .022 percent. Even over 
$200, it is only .037 percent. People do not have this kind of money. 
People can't afford to make these kinds of contributions.
  Now what we are going to do is raise this from $1,000 to $3,000--
actually $2,000 to $6,000, counting primary and general elections--and 
we are going to call this a reform.
  I want to say to everybody that in my not so humble opinion, about 90 
percent of the people in the country will not view this as reform. They 
will view this as a huge step backward, and they will view this as an 
effort to enable the wealthiest and high-income citizens to have even 
more influence and more say over the political process than they have 
right now.
  This amendment is a States rights amendment to this underlying bill. 
I hope it will have broad bipartisan support. This amendment allows 
States to set up voluntary systems of full or partial public financing 
for Federal congressional candidates that involve voluntary spending 
limits on both personal and outside contributions as long as those 
systems otherwise are not in conflict with the Federal Election 
Campaign Act. Again, it is entirely up to the candidates. It is only if 
they agree to it. Clearly, we set a floor, which is the Federal 
Election Campaign Act.
  Again, the letter I read to you was on the mark. States have been the 
laboratories for reform. This States rights amendment would allow these 
laboratories to do this work but in a safe way because we make it clear 
that the Federal law remains the floor. No State can violate existing 
Federal law. No State can be in violation of existing Federal law. But 
if a State wants to do better--if Kentucky or Minnesota or Nebraska or 
Arizona--Arizona has already done better, and Minnesota tried --they 
want to apply some system of partial or full public financing to 
Federal offices, and they say: we are sick and tired of waiting for you 
all to pass this kind of legislation; we have the sneaking suspicion 
that those interest groups that have the power have too much say in the 
Senate and you are not going to pass it; let us have a go at it, then 
we ought to let States do so.
  The Federal law is the floor. But it is a very low floor. We had this 
debate the other day. I don't want to go over again in great detail the 
definition of corruption. Let me simply say one more time that I, for 
one, I say to my colleague whom I have a lot of affection for, the 
Senator from Utah, that I am not going to make any arguments

[[Page 25620]]

about a one-to-one correlation between fundraising and ``corruption.'' 
I am not going to make any of those arguments, but I will say that to 
me corruption is more serious than wrongdoing of individual 
officeholders. It is systemic. That is what we have. It is simply a 
case of those people who make these big contributions, the big soft 
money contributions and the big hard money contributions--they are the 
investors. They are the heavy hitters. They are the players. They are 
the ones who are well connected. They are the ones who have too much 
influence. And most citizens believe there is a connection between big 
special interest money and outcomes in American politics.
  I am very sad to say that most citizens who believe that are right. 
People know that who has the money determines who wins and who has the 
money determines all too often what even gets put on the table in the 
first place. That is why people are turning away from the political 
process. That is why people are disillusioned. That is why people are 
disengaged. That is why people feel, I will say it again, if you pay, 
you play; if you do not pay, you don't play. That is what is going on.
  Recent polls: 92 percent of all Americans believe special interest 
contributions buy votes of Members of the Congress--92 percent. Again, 
I say to colleagues, I am not agreeing with that kind of thing, but it 
is one of the reasons we should want to change this system. It really 
doesn't matter in the last analysis. If you get more money from oil 
companies, or labor unions, or environmentalists, or citizen groups, or 
financial institutions, the fact is people can always have that 
concern. Why don't we try to break that?
  Eighty-eight percent of people believe those who make large 
contributions get special favors from politicians. Sixty-seven percent 
believe their own representatives in Congress would listen to views of 
outsiders who made major political contributions before they would 
listen to their own constituents' views. And then, finally, nearly half 
of all registered voters believe lobbyists and special interests 
control the Government.
  I know the sponsors of the new McCain-Feingold bill have stripped the 
bill down in the hope that we are going to have the votes to achieve 
cloture and that we can move this long-stalled debate forward. I am in 
agreement. However, given the inability of Congress to agree on a lot 
of the incremental changes, which is important, let alone comprehensive 
reform--this is a stripped down bill. The authors will admit that. But 
they are saying, let's try to move something forward. Let's take a step 
forward that will lead to improvement. I agree. But what I am saying 
about this amendment is that it is also an ideal time to let States 
take the lead. We should not allow States to undermine Federal election 
law. They won't do that. But the law should also not be an artificial 
ceiling that prevents States from setting up systems of public 
financing such as Maine has done, such as Vermont has done, such as 
Arizona has done, and such as Massachusetts has done that would allow 
them to address this obscene money chase, that allows them to address 
voter apathy; that allows them to address the kind of corruption that I 
have talked about--both actual or corruption that is perceived.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I am interested and pleased to hear the 
Senator say he does not agree with those polled who say money buys 
votes and that the individual Members of the Senate are not corrupt.
  My question to the Senator, since he is a teacher by profession is, 
if that perception in the public is not true, why shouldn't this 
teacher spend his time trying to educate the public as to what is true 
rather than to fall in with the sentiment expressed in the poll which 
is inaccurate?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I actually have not finished laying 
out the amendment.
  To my colleague from Utah, I was saying the huge percentage of people 
who believe this to be the case troubles me. I certainly do not believe 
that in a majority of cases of Senators whom I know, to the extent I 
know them--and I think I do--that that is the case, the ``money'' vote 
way. I don't think that is the link.
  That is my sense, not in an individual way.
  I have also argued, and the Senator has heard me say this many 
different times, I do think we have a more serious kind of corruption, 
and it is the imbalance of power. It is systemic.
  Therefore, from my point of view, my colleague from Utah could be 
referring to one of two things: Either the statement I gave on the 
floor the other day in which I said we have to change this system in 
order to give citizens faith in this political process--and they have 
every reason to believe that; unfortunately, it is dominated by the 
few--or the Senator could be referring to this amendment. I hope not 
because all this amendment says is, whether one agrees or not with the 
perception, if people in Utah or people in Minnesota decide they want 
to put into effect comprehensive reform and cover our Federal 
elections, House and Senate races, as they are doing in the State 
elections, they should have the right.
  Mr. BENNETT. If I may, I was responding to the statement made by the 
Senator from Minnesota on the floor today when he talked about the 
poll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am yielding for a question.
  Go ahead. I want to be clear I have the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely, and I appreciate the courtesy of the 
Senator, and I shall not interrupt again.
  I have had the experience, the polls in Utah show a very large 
percentage of people holding the same opinion as the Senator from 
Minnesota has subscribed. Because I am convinced that McCain-Feingold 
is, (a) unconstitutional, and (b) unworkable, I have----
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor and 
may yield for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased, for my colleague from Utah, to yield for 
a question.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
  I have had the experience of explaining my position and once 
explaining, being endorsed.
  My question to the Senator is, again, if he disagrees with the 
position stated in the poll, even though it is held by 92 percent of 
the respondents to that poll, inasmuch as he is a skilled, trained, and 
professional teacher, would he not spend his time well using his skills 
as a teacher educating these people in his State, as I have tried to do 
with the people in my State, rather than simply going along with them 
and saying if that is your position, I will follow it legislatively 
even though I disagree with it? Would that not be a better use of the 
Senator's obvious teaching skills?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the first part of the question I 
appreciate.
  The second part of the question I might have a slightly different 
interpretation. To the first part of the question I want the Senator 
from Utah to know--for that matter, the Senator from Kentucky--that I 
believe in public service, and I am honored to be here.
  I reject the across-the-board denigration of public service and 
people in public service when and if anyone does that. I haven't seen 
that done on the floor of the Senate. However, I hear people talking 
that way and I go out of my way to say to people that there are many 
Senators whom I have met, including those who have a very different 
viewpoint, who I think have a highly developed sense of public service, 
who believe in what they are saying, and believe in what they are 
doing.
  If the Senator were to ask me whether or not I tried as a Senator or 
teacher to speak to this notion that there is all this corruption and 
wheeling and dealing and everything is cynical and everything is 
corrupted, absolutely I do because I don't think that is true.
  On the second point, I think my time is well spent supporting the 
McCain-Feingold effort, and for that matter,

[[Page 25621]]

supporting even more comprehensive reform. I do believe the money chase 
and the mix of money and politics--especially big money politics--has 
undercut what I hold most dear, which is this very noble and grand, 
wonderful, over-200-year experiment in self-rule that we have had in 
this country.
  I think this is a debate about representative democracy. I believe we 
have to change the way we finance campaigns if we are to have a 
healthy, functioning, representative democracy.
  I thank my colleague for his question.
  Madam President, if the American people, according to survey after 
survey, are going to say this system of financing is out of control and 
they want an overhaul, then we owe it to them to get out of the way and 
let the States go ahead and move forward and do what we as a Congress 
have been unable to do. Just because the Senate can't move on 
comprehensive reform doesn't mean we should tie the hands of States. My 
colleagues can agree or disagree with what States will do, but give 
them the option.
  Let me give the legal context. My own State of Minnesota attempted to 
set up a system of public financing, a system for Federal candidates, 9 
years ago in 1990 when the State legislature passed the law offering 
partial public financing to candidates, the congress of Minnesota. 
Unfortunately, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 
struck down Minnesota's law in 1993 in Weber v. Heaney. The court ruled 
because the Federal Election Campaign Act did not specifically allow 
States to create this kind of voluntary public financing program, then 
FECA prohibited it.
  The amendment I am introducing corrects that by adding one simple 
sentence to FECA which specifically allows States to set up voluntary 
public financing programs for the election of their own members to the 
House or the Senate as long as no program violates any provision of the 
current Federal Election Campaign Act.
  The court said, given what we are dealing with, given existing law, 
we cannot go forward. If we change the law, it could very well be a 
different court decision. In other words, if a State wants to create a 
public financing fund and give its congressional candidates the option; 
it is a voluntary option of financing their campaigns wholly or 
partially with public money rather than the private contributions, then 
that State would be able to do so, again, provided there are no 
violations in the FECA provisions.
  I want to emphasize this amendment makes these programs strictly 
voluntary, as the system of public financing for the Presidential 
campaign is voluntary. Some States are already moving in this direction 
with regard to State and local elections. There is a lot of energy for 
this. Twelve States already offer partial public financing to 
candidates for State offices. In fact, one of the most advanced is in 
the State of Kentucky. In addition, four States have gone even further 
and recently passed full or nearly full public financing systems for 
their State elections--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Senator 
McCain's State, the State of Arizona.
  Local and State elected officials, along with citizen activists in 
nearly 40 States around the country, have launched the Elected 
Leadership Project 2000. And this is an all-out effort for 
comprehensive reform.
  I say to colleagues, if the people in our States want to strengthen 
American democracy, if they have the gumption and they have the citizen 
politics to go forward with real reform that would get so much of the 
big money out of politics--that would really create a level playing 
field, that would reinforce people's faith in the elections, that would 
mean people could say these elections belong to us, this political 
process belongs to us--and that is why there has been so much support 
for the clean money/clean elections initiative--then my amendment says 
to Senators: Let them do it. You might not agree. But if your State 
wants to do what Maine has done and Maine says we want to apply this to 
Congress as well, then Maine should be able to do it; Minnesota should 
be able to do it; Kentucky should be able to do it, Utah should be able 
to do it.
  This legislation goes to the root cause of a system which is founded 
on private special interest money, and it cures the disease.
  I hear colleagues talking about the need to tighten up campaign 
finance laws. The problem is not what is illegal; the problem is what 
is legal. The real problem is that most of what is wrong with this 
current sick system is perfectly legal. It is perfectly legal, those 
huge amounts of money, hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money 
contributions that Senator Feingold and Senator McCain are trying to 
prohibit and which prohibition too many Senators are trying to block--
huge amounts of personal, individual contributions that really, 
basically, very-high-income and wealthy people are able to contribute 
but the vast majority of people are not--all of which determine who 
gets to run, who gets elected; all of which determine the people who 
have the most access.
  We have moved so far away from the principle that each person should 
count as one, and no more than one, it is absolutely frightening. We do 
not have elections any longer; we have auctions.
  Why don't we get the big interested money out? We had this debate 
about corruption. Again, maybe it is only the appearance of corruption. 
But my friend Phil Stern, who is no longer alive, once wrote a book, 
``The Best Congress Money Can Buy.'' He made the following argument in 
the book. I just thought of it. Bill Moyers, in a speech he gave called 
``The Soul Of Democracy,'' made the same argument.
  Imagine what it would be like--maybe some people had a chance to 
watch the ball games last night--imagine what it would be like if 
umpires or referees received huge contributions from the players of the 
different teams before the baseball game or before the football game. 
Would you have any confidence that they would be rendering impartial 
decisions? You might be worried that they would not be. In a way, we 
have something similar to that here. We make all these different 
decisions about health care and health insurance reform, about 
telecommunications legislation, banking legislation, where we are going 
to make budget cuts, labor legislation--across-the-board. At the same 
time we receive all these contributions, we are the referees; we are 
the umpires; we are going to make the decisions. It looks terrible. It 
looks awful. It looks awful to people in the country.
  What I am saying is that if, in fact, we want to give people an 
opportunity to have more confidence in their political process, then I 
think we ought to go forward and we ought to agree to this amendment.
  I have two final points. I have been waiting for a long time. I will 
be done, but I want to make two final points.
  First of all, I have heard it said that people do not care.
  I do not think that is true at all. I think people have reached the 
conclusion that when it comes to their concerns, they are of little 
matter in the Congress. I think people have reached the conclusion that 
the influence of private wealth and power is strongly felt; that it 
shapes the acts and policies of government; that money crawls the halls 
of the Capitol and the halls of the White House.
  No one in politics today can deny the shaping influence of money on 
public acts. Few people who contribute vast sums of money to political 
campaigns do it just out of profound ideological beliefs. They do it in 
part because they do have some hope for gain. It is an understandable 
ambition for those individual figures, but one to which public figures 
should not yield their larger commitment to all Americans. That is what 
this debate is about, whether or not we as public figures maintain a 
larger commitment to all the people in our country, not just the people 
who have the financial wherewithal to make these contributions. That is 
what this debate is about.
  In my view, until we take the big money out of politics, our historic 
drive for more opportunities for citizens, for more justice, for a 
better life for all the people, for improving the

[[Page 25622]]

standard of living for all the people in our country, for really 
investing in children's lives, for making our country a better America, 
that drive will continue to be diverted and frustrated and ultimately 
denied.
  This issue is the core issue, and this amendment I have introduced 
simply says to my colleagues we ought to, if we are not going to go 
forward with comprehensive reform but at the State level our States 
want to have clean money/clean elections, and they want to apply it on 
a voluntary basis to races to the House of Representatives and the 
Senate, then they ought to be able to do so.
  I do not see why we would not have strong bipartisan support for this 
amendment because, frankly, I think, along with the efforts of Senator 
Feingold and Senator McCain--Senator McCain and Senator Feingold--the 
energy for the reform is going to come at the grassroots level; it is 
going to come at the State level. That is what this public campaign has 
been about all across this country. That is what the victory in Arizona 
was about. That is what the victories in Massachusetts, Vermont, and 
Maine were all about. That is what people in my State tried to do 9 
years ago. Let's just pass a law that would enable States to move 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 2299 and 
ask consent the vote occur at 5:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky reserves the right 
to object.
  Is the Senator objecting?
  Mr. REID. I could not hear. The Senator moved to table the Reid 
amendment; at what time would the vote occur?
  Mr. McCAIN. It was agreeable to the leadership. I was told they 
wanted a vote at 5:45, but I would be willing to set the time for that 
vote at any time. I am told by staff, 5:45 is the time for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. May I inquire which amendment we are talking about.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to explain to the Senator from Kentucky. 
It is basically the soft money amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Reid amendment, No. 2299.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And the request is----
  Mr. McCAIN. Table.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Table the Reid amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a unanimous request pending to have 
the vote occur at 5:45. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. To have the tabling vote on the Reid amendment occur 
at 5:45?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the request.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is the request of the Senator from Arizona?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the request. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in the interest of time, I would be glad 
to move to table the Reid amendment, which does not require unanimous 
consent, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not debatable.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the tabling motion occur at 
5:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want my colleagues to know this is a 
defining vote of this debate. This is a defining vote because it all 
has to do with soft money. This is the fundamental proposition that the 
Senator from Wisconsin and I are propounding.
  There has been parliamentary maneuvering. There has been substitutes. 
There has been a filling up of the tree. There have been a lot of 
things that have been going on which have sort of not surprised me but 
disappointed me.
  Friday, on the other side, for reasons that are still not clear to 
me, the Senator from Nevada, and others, chose not to allow the 
amending process to go forward. On this side, we have had some delays, 
which I would argue were not particularly helpful to the process.
  So this tabling motion of the Reid amendment is basically a defining 
vote on whether or not we want to ban soft money. I intend to vote not 
to table the Reid amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would vote 
not to table the Reid amendment. Then we will have the Senate on record 
as to whether we are for or against soft money in American political 
campaigns.
  On Friday, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska--it is funny; we were talking 
about this today at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial luncheon today that 
Senator Hagel and I attended, that there is kind of an interesting 
relationship that exists between those of us who had the privilege of 
serving in that conflict.
  One of the traits I find true with Senator Hagel, Senator Cleland, 
Senator Robb, and Senators Kerrey and Kerry, is that there is a certain 
degree of honesty and straightforwardness which I find extremely 
attractive.
  Senator Kerrey, on Friday, who is also the former chairman of the 
Senatorial Campaign Committee, said:

       There will be all kinds of amendments offered to change the 
     bill, some of which I support strongly. It seems to me our 
     only chance of getting this legislation passed is to stick as 
     closely as possible to the bill we currently have in front of 
     us.

  He went on to say, in an exchange with the Senator from Wisconsin:

       I wonder if the Senator from Wisconsin will tell me if what 
     I am saying is true. I like Shays-Meehan. I like the bill. 
     The junior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, has an amendment 
     I like as well.

  He goes on to talk about:

       . . . It makes it much more likely we will fail to break a 
     filibuster and, as a consequence of that failure, fail to 
     enact legislation, and as a consequence of that, we will 
     never go to conference and never change the law.

  Then Senator Kerrey of Nebraska went on to say:

       . . . The Senator is very kind to say I have always been a 
     supporter. Actually, I have not always been a supporter . . . 
     Speaking of campaign finance reform.

  He says:

       When I came to the Senate in 1989, this was not a very 
     important issue. Indeed, at one point, I joined the Senator 
     from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, to defeat campaign finance 
     reform.
       Then I had the experience of going inside the beast in 
     1996, 1997, and 1998 when I was Chairman of the Democratic 
     Senatorial Campaign Committee--I do not want to raise a sore 
     subject for the Senator from Maine. It changed my attitude in 
     two big ways: One, the apparent corruption that exists. 
     People believe there is corruption. If they believe it, it 
     happens. We all understand that. If the perception is it is 
     A, it is A, even though we know it may not be, and the people 
     believe the system is corrupt.
       Equally important to me, I discovered in 1996, 1997, and 
     1998 that there are men and women who would love to serve. 
     They say: I can't be competitive; I can't possibly raise the 
     money necessary to go on television; Oh, and by the way, my 
     reputation could get damaged as a consequence of what could 
     be said on television against me.

  He went on to say:

       I am persuaded this law needs to be changed for the good of 
     the Republic, for the

[[Page 25623]]

     good of democracy. I hope Members, such as myself, who are 
     enthusiastic about changing that law will take the advice of 
     the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona to 
     heart because we may have to vote against things we prefer in 
     order to make certain we get something that not only we want 
     but the Nation desperately needs.

  Madam President, it is impossible for me to elaborate on that kind of 
comment from my esteemed colleague and American hero, Bob Kerrey of 
Nebraska.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me clarify what the Senator from Arizona is 
attempting in moving to table the Reid amendment.
  I would ask the Senator from Arizona, when we take this vote on 
tabling, will you regard this vote on the Reid amendment as a true test 
of the question we have been asking our colleagues, and that question 
is, Are you for or against soft money?
  Would the Senator from Arizona regard that vote as a procedural vote 
or a vote up or down on the question of whether you are for or against 
soft money?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to respond to my friend.
  I am hearing that the distinguished majority leader may try to remove 
the bill from the consideration on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. We 
know that it is cluttered with various amendments, some of them very 
important. The Senator from Minnesota spoke very eloquently in favor of 
his amendment, which I am sure has some merit.
  But the crux and heart of this matter is soft money. We all know 
that. I worry if we do not get this vote, that we could possibly reach 
a situation where the Senate is gridlocked; and eventually, over time, 
obviously, we would not even have recorded votes on this important and 
crucial issue.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Can the Senator recall any other occasion in which the 
Senate has voted up or down on the question of whether to ban party 
soft money?
  Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding the Senate has never voted up or 
down on that specific issue, at least since 1907, when, thanks be to 
one of the greatest Republicans and greatest Presidents in history, 
Theodore Roosevelt, who alleged there was corruption at that time--and 
I will include many of his remarks in the Record--because of the 
influence of major corporations and robber barons and special interests 
on the American political process, I believe the Senate did vote to ban 
soft money. And I believe that statute is still on the books.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Again, I ask a further question. I appreciate that 
answer because I think the problem we have had is we have not had a 
chance to get to the question of whether you are for or against 
unlimited contributions. For year after year, it appears that--and I 
ask the Senator from Arizona to confirm--we keep trying to get to this 
vote, but we never seem to be able to get right at it; the bill is 
pulled or a tabling motion is made on the overall bill or something, a 
cloture motion is filed. It is amazing, after 5 years, we have never 
gotten to this. But apparently we are about to.
  Let me ask one other question, if I could, because the Senator from 
Oregon consulted me on this. Senator Wyden, who does not limit himself 
to supporting our efforts, has been, in my mind, one of the strongest 
advocates of campaign finance reform in this body. He has been creative 
and has a number of interesting ideas of his own that I like very much. 
He asked me--and I certainly think you will answer the same way I did--
whether or not, after this motion is disposed of one way or another, 
Senators will still have the chance to amend the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Of course. Of course. I hope that would move the process 
forward, once we are on record. And perhaps that might increase our 
chances of reaching 60 votes, I would say to my friend.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator for bringing us to the point where 
finally we can have an up-or-down vote on soft money.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to.
  Mr. REID. I offered an amendment on Friday to establish a procedure 
whereby there would be a vote to determine whether or not we would 
invoke cloture on the so-called soft money ban. Is the Senator aware of 
that? The Senator from Arizona has indicated and I may be paraphrasing 
the words; that there were games being played and Senators were not 
being allowed to offer amendments.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, the Senator from Minnesota offered 
an amendment today. Amendments could have been offered Friday. Will the 
Senator acknowledge that having the two amendments, one being ``McCain-
Feingold lite'' and the original version of the McCain-Feingold bill, 
that we should be able in this body to vote on both those matters?
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, first of all, I never argued that 
games were being played. I would not make that allegation. I believe 
the Senator from Kentucky and I had a colloquy on Friday where it was 
clear that the situation was such that even if an amendment were 
considered on Friday and adopted, it would have fallen with a vote on 
the underlying legislation that was pending, which I think correctly, 
in the view of the Senator from Kentucky, made further amendments and 
debate meaningless. I see the Senator from Kentucky is on the floor. I 
think that was his comment. If he disagrees, I will be glad to yield 
for a question from him in that respect. On Friday, I was disappointed, 
and I think the Senator from Kentucky was, that we didn't move forward 
with genuine amendments that would have stood or fallen on their own 
merit.
  I am glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky for a question on 
that.
  Mr. REID. If I could just ask one more question, maybe the Senator 
could respond to both of them. I say to my friend from Arizona, I have 
stated publicly and privately, both outside these Chambers and inside 
these Chambers, about the work that is being done by the Senator from 
Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin, and indeed it has been a 
tremendous effort bringing this very important issue before this body. 
You have been undying in your efforts to bring this forward. You would 
acknowledge, would you not, that there are others in this body, other 
than the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona, who 
believe strongly that there should be some campaign finance reform? 
Would you acknowledge that?
  Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.
  Mr. REID. And would you also acknowledge that your method in 
obtaining campaign finance reform may not be the best way to go?
  Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.
  Mr. REID. I guess the point I want to make is that I am not sure I 
can put my many efforts on behalf of campaign finance reform next to 
that of the Senator from Arizona. He has done so much to move this 
issue forward. But I would say to my friend from Arizona--and I would 
like the Senator to either acknowledge whether or not this Senator 
believes strongly that there should be campaign finance reform. Even 
though my qualifications for asserting the need for campaign finance 
reform would not meet those of the Senator from Arizona, I think I am 
in the top 10 of members of this body who have been a strong advocate 
for reform. For example, I have given speeches on the Senate floor, 
since I came here with the Senator from Arizona in 1986, about the need 
for campaign finance reform. Would the Senator acknowledge that?
  Mr. McCAIN. I not only acknowledge it, but it is worthy of mention; 
the Senator from Nevada and I have been close and dear friends for 
nearly 20 years. One thing I have tried to do during the course of this 
debate is keep it from in any way personalizing or showing any 
disrespect to any individual, no matter where they stand on this issue.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  Did the Senator from Kentucky want to make a comment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Senator from Arizona, he is correct. My 
understanding Friday was and remains

[[Page 25624]]

that the right side of the tree, which is what we normally amend around 
here, was filled by the two amendments and the two cloture votes. That 
effectively made additional amendments somewhat an exercise in 
futility. What I recommended to our side--and it has been happening 
today--is that they discuss their amendments--I know Senator Hagel is 
here to discuss his--and indicate that they would like to have had a 
vote, a meaningful vote, which would have been on the right side of the 
tree.
  So the Senator from Arizona does correctly state my opinion of 
Friday, which remains my opinion today.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  I agree with the Senator from Nevada; there are many ways to approach 
the issue of campaign finance reform. I agree with him; there are many 
laudable aspects of campaign finance reform that deserve serious 
consideration.
  One that doesn't seem to surface as much as it should is free 
television time for candidates. The broadcasters receive $70 billion 
worth of free digital spectrum. It seems to me there should be some 
obligation along with one of the great rip-offs in the history of the 
United States of America.
  But we really are down to soft money, I say to the Senator from 
Nevada. We are really down to that. We can build on that. There is no 
reform that could have any meaning unless it meant, at its fundamental 
heart, the banning of soft money. We have been through a number of 
debates about what independent campaigns do.
  By the way, before I leave the issue, I heard the Senator from Ohio 
say that banning of soft money does not in any way affect labor unions. 
Yesterday or the day before, there was a notice in the paper that the 
labor unions plan on spending $45 million in soft money in the upcoming 
campaign. I am afraid the Senator from Ohio is misinformed because this 
banning of soft money does enormous damage to the ability of labor 
unions to engage in the kind of practices we are trying to eliminate, 
just as much as it does the other side.
  I want to make perfectly clear, the reason that I and the Senator 
from Wisconsin are seeking to table or asking for a vote on a tabling 
motion is so we can have the Senate on record on the issue of soft 
money. If the Senate, in its wisdom, decides that we should table the 
Reid amendment and that we should, therefore, not ban soft money, then 
obviously this entire exercise is largely futile. I think there are 
about three Members on the other side who may not be voting who would 
vote for us, and I would take that into account in this vote because, 
really, this vote is about the intentions and the will of the Senate.
  The soft money reports from Common Cause: Soft money, CWA-COPE, 
$2,593,000; American Federation of State and County Municipal 
Employees, $2,334,000--these are obviously all Democrats--Service 
Employees Union, $1.5 million. I hope the Senator from Ohio will take a 
look at the enormous amount of money that is coming in from labor 
unions that he somehow believes would not be affected by a ban on soft 
money.
  Also, recently information came out that the Democratic Party is 
raising now as much soft money as the Republican Party, a very 
interesting turn of events.
  We have, at most, 48 hours left on this legislation. We have not made 
a lot of progress. It is time we did. I believe having the Senate on 
record on soft money is a very defining vote. I talked extensively with 
Senator Feingold about this before we decided to make this move. I hope 
my colleagues will vote not to table the Reid amendment, which bans 
soft money. I hope my colleagues will vote not to table the McCain 
tabling motion of the Reid amendment.
  I believe Senator Bennett is next under the unanimous consent 
agreement. I believe both Senators Hagel and Wyden have been waiting. I 
don't know what the disposition of that is.
  Senator Reid?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Bennett is 
to be recognized at the conclusion of Senator McCain's speech.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think Senator Hagel was here first. Is that OK?
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Utah will yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I haven't yielded the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, what we should do, in keeping with what we 
have done earlier in the day--Senator Bennett is opposed to the 
legislation; he is going to speak next. Senator Wyden, who is in favor 
of the legislation, should speak next after the Senator from Utah, and 
then we should go to Senator Hagel.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask that I may follow after Senator Hagel.
  Mr. REID. For the information of Members, Senator Bennett--how long 
is he going to speak?
  Mr. BENNETT. I was planning to----
  Mr. REID. He has been here for 2 days.
  Mr. BENNETT. I was planning to discuss the amendment that I was 
unable to offer. I want to spend 15 minutes or so on that. Then I want 
to make a general statement about the bill. I will try not to get 
overly enthusiastic about my arguments, but I might get carried away 
for another 20 minutes or so about that, so between 30 or 40 minutes. I 
will do my best to restrain myself.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry. If I may----
  Mr. McCAIN. I think I have consumed 7 or 8 minutes. I hope the 
Senator from Utah will recognize that both the Senator from Nebraska 
and the Senator from Oregon have been here for a long time. I hope he 
would give them the opportunity to speak before the 5:45 vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Arizona making a unanimous 
consent request that after the Senator from Utah has finished his 
remarks, the Senator from Oregon would be recognized, followed by the 
Senator from Nebraska, followed by the Senator from Wisconsin?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making such a request?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to make that request.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Oregon 
wishes to speak for 15 minutes. This is so other Members will have an 
idea about what is going on. The Senator from Nebraska wishes how much 
time?
  Mr. HAGEL. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. REID. I do not object.
  Mr. McCAIN. I amend the unanimous consent agreement. The Senator from 
Utah would like how many minutes?
  Mr. BENNETT. I will be happy to do 20 minutes on the bill itself and 
delay my 20 minutes on the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Utah for his courtesy. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be recognized for 20 
minutes, the Senator from Oregon for 15 minutes, the Senator from 
Nebraska for 20 minutes, and then the Senator from Wisconsin for 20 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I only ask if there is 
enough time to get us to 5:45.
  Mr. McCAIN. Roughly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity. I have 
been following this debate and, indeed, have been involved in it with 
great interest ever since it began.
  While I appreciate and, indeed, salute the sincerity with which the 
Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin pursue their 
efforts to achieve what they sincerely believe will be good for our 
country, I must begin by stating that I am absolutely convinced that 
what they are pursuing would be bad for our country, would be bad for 
our political system, would be bad for campaigns in general, and would 
raise, rather than lower, the

[[Page 25625]]

sense of frustration and disgust with the political system overall.
  That has been the history of campaign finance reform. It has gone on 
in this town for decades. Every time, the reformers end up making 
things worse. I say that with all respect for the sincerity with which 
they pursue their goal. But, in my opinion, the goal they are pursuing 
is not available to them through the route they are following.
  I wish to begin by quoting a column that appeared last week in the 
Washington Post written by Robert Samuelson. Robert Samuelson is not 
known as one of the more partisan of the political commentators. He is 
basically considered an objective commentator, spending more of his 
time on economics than other issues. But what he has to say about this 
issue captures what I believe about it so well that I am going to quote 
him at some length.
  He says:

       Few subjects inspire more intellectual conformity than 
     ``campaign finance reform.'' All ``right-thinking'' people 
     ``know'' that election spending is ``out of control,'' that 
     the present system of campaign finance is corrupt and that 
     only reactionaries block ``reform.''

  I think that captures exactly what we have been hearing on the 
floor--that all ``right-thinking'' people ``know'' that election 
spending is out of control and the present system is corrupt and only 
reactionaries block ``reform''.
  Then he goes on:

       Who cares if these common beliefs are either wrong or 
     wildly exaggerated--or that most ``reforms'' would do more 
     damage to democracy than any harm they might cure? The case 
     against ``reform'' is almost impossible to make, because 
     people's minds are closed.

  That beginning of Mr. Samuelson's column, as I say, perfectly 
captures how I feel about this issue. Here is the history--again, in 
previous debates, I have gone through the history at some length. Mr. 
Samuelson summarized well:

       The history of ``campaign finance reform'' is that every 
     limit inspires new evasions. One possibility is that interest 
     groups will finance more independent campaigns . . . to elect 
     or defeat targeted candidates. ``Reformers'' view such 
     ``issue ads'' . . . as shams. And so, the next step would be 
     to curb such advertising, even if curbs flout the First 
     Amendment.

  Mr. Samuelson then goes on with this very insightful quote from one 
of the reform groups that summarizes how this debate has crystallized:

       ``Any effort to reform issue advocacy spending in 
     connection with federal elections must strike a regulatory 
     balance between protecting political speech and protecting 
     the integrity of our electoral process,'' says one reform 
     group.

  Well, as Mr. Samuelson says:

       The First Amendment says that ``Congress shall make no law 
     . . . abridging the freedom of speech.'' There's no mention 
     [in the First Amendment] of ``regulatory balance.'' And if 
     elections and ``issue ads'' aren't about political speech, 
     what are they about? ``Right thinking'' people minimize the 
     conflict between ``campaign finance reform'' and free speech, 
     because it is inconvenient.

  Then Mr. Samuelson summarizes, and I think, again, this is the 
ultimate summary of the debate:

       As long as we have the First Amendment, the effort to 
     regulate elections--under the guise of ``campaign finance 
     reform''--is futile, self-defeating, and undesirable. The 
     hysteria about money's corrupting power worsens the very 
     problem that reformers claim to deplore: public cynicism. But 
     right-thinking people are oblivious to evidence or logic. 
     They are at ease with their own respectable conformity.

  I could not have done it better, so I didn't try. That is why I 
quoted it at that length. Let's go to the debate for a minute. By the 
way, I ask that I be informed when I have 5 minutes left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be informed.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Torricelli, took the floor a day or two ago to give us a glimpse of the 
real world that we are facing if certain portions of this bill go 
forward. He was arguing that we should not pass the substitute, 
commonly known as Shays-Meehan, because he said it will limit the 
speech of political parties and leave us to the mercies of special 
interest groups. I wrote down some of the things he said.
  He said, ``The debate will be fought by surrogates over our heads in 
a far larger context.'' I agree with that absolutely. If political 
parties are limited in the amount of soft money advocacy in which they 
can be involved but special interest groups are not, special interest 
groups will simply ignore the political party by the ads themselves.
  Mr. Torricelli laid out for us in great detail some of the stratagems 
that would be followed, thus validating the comments Robert Samuelson 
made about political money finding another way around, finding a new 
way to come into the arena. That is the real world we will face, and 
the junior Senator from New Jersey was exactly right in outlining how 
it will work. Yet we seem to go plowing ahead on the assumption that 
somehow the real world will be different if we just show how honest and 
anxious we are to appear not to be corrupt.
  Let me give you some real-world examples. We have heard that from 
other Members of the Senate. People have talked about their own 
elections. I want to talk about several real-world examples from 
elections in which I have participated.
  Let's go back to the 1998 election when I got reelected. My opponent 
complained about this very issue. He complained often and he complained 
as loudly as he could that somehow there is something broken about the 
system because, he said: I can't raise enough money to compete with 
Senator Bennett. What is the matter with a system where ordinary people 
can't compete?
  We pointed out to him in one of the debates that on the ticket with 
him was a sixth-grade schoolteacher running for Congress who raised 
more money than her incumbent opponent. What is the difference? The 
candidate for the Senate can't raise enough money, he says, to compete 
with me, whereas another Democrat in the same State, a sixth-grade 
schoolteacher, can raise enough money to compete against a sitting 
Congressman.
  My opponent, by the way, according to his financial disclosure, is a 
millionaire. The sixth-grade schoolteacher clearly is not. The sixth-
grade schoolteacher clearly depends upon her paycheck very heavily. The 
difference was not because of my personality or his personality. The 
difference was that the people who are involved in providing money for 
political races make a very cold calculation as to what your chances 
are.
  When I first ran for the Senate, and I came to this town, and I did 
the circuit of all of these terrible places we have been hearing about 
on this floor asking them for money, they did not ask me what I 
believed. They didn't ask me, what will our access be if we give you 
money? They didn't say to me, gee, we want to know your positions 
before we decide. They wanted to know if I had a chance of winning 
because, they said: We don't back losing horses. And they were 
convinced I was a losing horse, and they didn't give me any. I went out 
of this town empty-handed.
  I was outspent 3 to 1, with my opponent in a primary in the State of 
Utah spending $6.2 million. That sets a record on a per vote cast that 
I don't think has ever been broken. I was able to put my message across 
with a third of that amount, and I beat him, at which point people 
started to say: All right, now we will talk to you, because now that 
you have won the Republican nomination, it looks as if you may have an 
opportunity.
  The problem my opponent had had nothing to do with his positions, had 
nothing to do with his own bank account, had nothing to do with his own 
personality. It was simply that he was perceived as a loser and the 
people who were giving money decided they didn't want to back a loser.
  But here comes a sixth-grade schoolteacher with no money in the bank 
and no political experience of any kind, and they thought she might be 
a winner, so she got all the money she needed. She didn't win. One of 
the reasons she didn't win is very appropriate to this debate. She 
signed the term limit pledge; her opponent did not.
  So Americans for Term Limits--or whatever they are called--came into 
that congressional district with a

[[Page 25626]]

whole series of issue ads attacking her opponent, attacking him for his 
failure to sign the term limit ad. This is a special interest group 
with soft money. We have no idea where it came from. We have no idea in 
what amounts it was raised. We have no idea who signed on because they 
are not under the FEC. But they exercised their constitutional right. 
They came into the Second Congressional District in the State of Utah, 
and they flooded the airwaves with some of the nastiest, most vicious 
political ads I have ever seen attacking the incumbent Congressman.
  What happened? Early polls showed that the sixth-grade schoolteacher 
was going to beat the incumbent Congressman. She had more money than he 
did. She had momentum. Then these ads started to run, and the reaction 
on the part of the voters in the second district--I heard it everywhere 
I went campaigning--was: We hate those ads. How can Lily Eskelson be so 
vicious as to run those ads?
  She then went on the air, and she said: I am not running them. I 
don't have anything to do with them. This is a special interest group. 
All I did was sign the term limit pledge, and Congressman Cook didn't.
  Congressman Cook went on the air and said: I am the victim of a smear 
campaign. And in the minds of many voters, it was Lily Eskelson who was 
doing the smearing. She had absolutely no control over the ads. If she 
had, she would have pulled them. But she didn't. It was the special 
interest group that was exercising its constitutional right, and there 
was nothing she could do about it.
  Congressman Cook appropriately protested: How can you attack me for 
violating term limits when I am running for my first reelection? He had 
only been in Congress one term. They were attacking him for being part 
of the system and not signing the term limit pledge that would have 
given him three terms. He said: Don't come after me until I have served 
at least the three terms you think are appropriate.
  I think the special interest ads in the second district had a 
significant impact on the outcome of that election.
  I point this out. Here is a sixth-grade schoolteacher with no money 
who is able to outspend and outfundraise her opponent because those who 
put up the money thought she has a chance to win. That is the 
criterion, nothing else. She lost the race because a special interest 
group came in and flooded the district with their ads, thinking they 
were helping her but were in fact hurting her.
  If we say that political parties cannot defend themselves against 
these special interest ads, we will do exactly the thing about which 
the Senator from New Jersey talked. We will create a situation where 
the candidates become unimportant, and the special interest, in the 
words of the Senator from New Jersey, ``fight over our heads in a far 
larger context.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  This is the real world. The real world is a world in which attempts 
to get around the first amendment and attempts to find ways to regulate 
political speech backfire against the reformers, and they do not work.
  One last description out of the real world. We have heard a lot on 
this floor this afternoon about access. All right, maybe we are not 
corrupt. We had that debate earlier last week whether or not we are all 
corrupt. So now we are being told, well, no, we are not corrupt. At 
least we have made that clear--not to Maureen Dowd, but to a lot of 
other people we are at least not corrupt. But we are somehow tainted by 
virtue of the fact that we can't control this access, and access 
becomes the issue rather than corruption.
  As I said once before, the easiest way to get access to me is to be a 
voter registered in the State of Utah. I will take your call, and I 
will have you come into my office. But my opponent in this last 
election raised this issue of access in this context. As it so happens, 
he has been lobbying me for the entire time I have been in the Senate 
about a program of which he is in favor. He successfully lobbied me. I 
agree with him on their program. It is microcredit. I have done 
everything I can as a member of the Appropriations Committee to 
increase the appropriations for microcredit. And, frankly, I have been 
successful. All I did during the campaign was ask him this one 
question: Every time you came to see me to try to lobby on behalf of 
microcredit, did anyone in my office ever ask you if you had made a 
political contribution to Senator Bennett?
  He immediately said: No, no one ever asked me that question.
  I said: Then why do you stand here and claim that access is for sale 
when you, now my opponent in this race, have had full access to my 
office for the entire 6 years I've been here?
  It boils down to those who are corrupt will be corrupt regardless of 
the system; those who are not corrupt will not be corrupt regardless of 
the system.
  For those who say we are now far worse than we ever were, I offer two 
last comments. No. 1, when I moved into the Dirksen Building, I noticed 
there was a safe in every Senator's office. My father was here when the 
Dirksen Building was built. Let me state why there is a safe in every 
office--for the Senators to put the cash they receive in their offices 
from people who come to see them. That doesn't mean they are corrupt. 
My father was not corrupt. But I watched him receive an envelope full 
of cash in his office in the Dirksen Building, and I watched him open 
the safe and put it in there. It happened, by the way, to have come 
from one of the senior Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle who 
said, ``I don't want any other Republican to be the ranking member of 
my committee; I want you to win, Wallace, and I raised this money for 
you.''
  It was $5,000, which in those days was in excess of 5 percent of the 
total cost of a campaign. Dad put it in his safe in the Dirksen 
Building. When my office was renovated recently in the Dirksen 
Building, what did I do? I took the safe out because I have never used 
it, and I don't think any other Senators ever use it. We don't get 
offered cash in our offices anymore.
  Second, David McCullough wrote the biography of whom many considered 
the most incorruptible President we have ever had, Harry Truman. In his 
biography of Harry Truman, David McCullough reports that the highest 
paid individual on Harry Truman's staff was Bess Truman, who lived in 
Missouri and never came to Washington or entered the Senator's office. 
Why was she his highest paid staff member? Because Senators routinely 
did that in order to be able to live on their salaries.
  According to Mr. McCullough, Harry Truman was terrified the people of 
Missouri would find out he was paying Bess the highest permissible 
salary so he and Bess could handle the financial challenges of serving 
in the Senate. Was Harry Truman corrupt? No. Even in a corrupt system, 
and I am sure there are Senators who were, he was not a corrupt man. 
There may have been an appearance but the appearance did not mean the 
reality.
  They changed the system. We are now paid a living wage. We don't do 
that anymore. We don't put our relatives on the payroll and have them 
not show up. But let Members not sit here and say the system is far 
worse now than it ever used to be. Politics in America is as clean as 
it has ever been and far cleaner than it used to be. Let's not do what 
Robert Samuelson warns against: In the name of campaign finance reform 
make things worse again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Oregon, Mr. Wyden, is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank our colleague from Nebraska for his 
thoughtfulness. He has been waiting a long time, as well.
  I am a supporter of the McCain-Feingold bill, this iteration, as with 
all others. It is an important step in the right direction. However, I 
believe the biggest problem is that campaigning in America has become a 
never-ending money chase. There is an election the first Tuesday in 
November. People sleep in on Wednesday and all the fundraising starts 
all over again on Thursday. It is truly a permanent campaign.

[[Page 25627]]

  If I had my way, if I could write my version of what the Senate ought 
to do on campaign finance, we would look at some sort of approach along 
the lines of what is used in several countries in Europe. They confine 
their elections to several months over a period of a couple of years. 
Money can be raised. It has to be disclosed. It is spent. They have 
their election, and, heaven forbid, after a few months of campaigning, 
they go back to tackling the issues that all Members get an election 
certificate for--to improve health care, education, to try to stuff the 
nuclear genie back into the bottle, to create an opportunity for people 
who work hard and play by the rules.
  We are, obviously, not going to get that kind of reform, although I 
have been amazed in the last few days when I have colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle say they like that and wish there was a bipartisan 
Senate task force to look at something similar. That really would be 
reform. We could spend most of our time doing a job for which we were 
elected.
  For now, we are limited to steps that can be taken immediately that 
are effective. I have come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a 
step that Senator Jeff Bingaman and I have developed. It is an 
important step in the view of Senator Bingaman and myself. It limits 
negative campaigning.
  My view from personal experience is negative ads are similar to a 
virus. They infect everyone with whom they come in contact. In the 
special election to replace Bob Packwood in the Senate, unfortunately I 
didn't say no to some of those media consultants who told me to win, I 
had to just rip in to our colleague, my friend, Senator Gordon Smith, 
with negative ads. I should have known immediately that all those 
negative ads run contrary to everything I got involved with when I 
began the Gray Panthers in Oregon to try to practice good government, 
but I didn't step in when I should have on the negative ads, and I 
regret it to this day.
  With a month to go before that special election, I did tell my 
consultants I could not stand any longer the stench of the negative 
ads, and I told them to take them off the air. Moreover, I apologized 
to the people of Oregon. I said I made an error in judgment and it 
would not happen again. I ran my 1998 campaign, I am proud to be able 
to say, without mentioning my opponent at all.
  I believe candidates ought to stand by their ads. They ought to be 
directly responsible for their ads. What Senator Bingaman and I will 
propose later this week is an approach we call ``stand by your ad.'' 
Specifically, the Bingaman-Wyden proposal says a candidate who mentions 
his or her opponent in a campaign ad must do so in person in order to 
get the lowest unit rate for advertising. Under current Federal 
communications law, broadcasters are required to sell commercial air 
time to candidates for Federal office at the lowest available price, 
known as the lowest unit broadcast rate. That means for 45 days prior 
to a primary or primary runoff, for 60 days prior to a general 
election. In effect, everybody else in town--the car dealership, the 
restaurant, the tire manufacturer--has to subsidize politics. Their ad 
costs are greater because broadcasters have to give these cheaper rates 
during the election cycle.
  I think it is time to hold candidates personally responsible for 
their ads. I am amazed to find that all across the political spectrum I 
am joined in support of this idea. For example, in the House of 
Representatives, my Oregon colleague, Greg Walden, is a broadcaster by 
profession. He doesn't think this is bureaucratic or hard to comply 
with. He introduced in the House, as I did in the Senate, the ``stand 
by your ad'' approach that says candidates who mention their opponent 
have to do it in person to get the lowest unit rate. No first amendment 
violation here.
  I recently received from the Library of Congress a legal opinion 
stating it would be constitutional to put in place the Bingaman-Wyden 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that legal opinion be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                   Congressional Research Service,


                                          Library of Congress,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 1999.
     Memorandum To : Honorable Ron Wyden. Attention: Jeff Gagne, 
         Legislative Assistant.
     From: L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney, American Law 
         Division.
     Subject: Constitutionality of Conditioning Receipt of Lowest 
         Unit Rate for Federal Candidate Broadcast Communications 
         on Compliance With Attribution Requirements.
       This memorandum is furnished in response to your request 
     for an analysis of the constitutionality of a proposed 
     amendment to S. 1593 (106th Cong.), ``McCain/Feingold II,'' 
     which would amend 47 U.S.C. Sec. 315(b) to restrict the 
     availability of the lowest unit rate for campaign 
     advertising, in which a federal candidate directly references 
     an opponent, to only those radio and television broadcasts 
     where the candidate personally makes the reference. That is, 
     in the case of a television broadcast directly referencing an 
     opponent, the candidate would be required to make a personal 
     appearance and, in the case of a radio broadcast directly 
     referencing an opponent, the candidate would be required to 
     make a personal audio statement identifying the candidate, in 
     order to qualify for the lowest unit rate. Such personal 
     appearance and personal audio statements are often referred 
     to as broadcast attribution requirements.
       In the landmark decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme 
     Court made it clear that the right to associate is a ``basic 
     constitutional freedom'' \1\ and that any action that may 
     have the effect of curtailing that freedom to associate would 
     be subject to the strictest judicial scrutiny.\2\ The Court 
     further asserted that while the right of political 
     association is not absolute,\3\ it can only be limited by 
     substantial governmental interests such as the prevention of 
     corruption or the appearance thereof.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ 424 U.S. 1, 25 (1976) (quoting Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 
     U.S. 51, 57 (1973) ).
     \2\ Id. at 25 (quoting NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61 
     (1958) ).
     \3\ Id. (citing CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 567 
     (1973) ).
     \4\ Id. at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Employing this analysis, the Court in Buckley upheld the 
     disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     (FECA), noting that the ``ability of the citizenry to make 
     informed choices among candidates for office is essential.'' 
     \5\ Also of relevance, the Buckley Court upheld the FECA 
     presidential public financing provisions, which condition a 
     candidate's receipt of public funding on the candidate 
     voluntarily agreeing to limit spending.\6\ The Court found 
     that the provisions did not infringe on free speech, but 
     rather constituted a proper means of promoting the general 
     welfare by actually encouraging public discussion and 
     participation in the electoral process.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \5\ Id. at 14-15.
     \6\ Id. at 57, fin. 65 (noting that ``[j]ust as a candidate 
     may voluntarily limit the size of the contributions he 
     chooses to accept, he may decide to forgo private fundraising 
     and accept public funding.'')
     \7\ Id. at 97-104 (finding also that conditioning receipt of 
     public funding on complying with spending limits was a less 
     onerous restriction than those in the ballot access cases 
     with respect to minor and new parties.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In view of the Supreme Court's holdings in Buckley v. 
     Valeo, it appears that the proposed amendment, to condition 
     federal candidate receipt of the lowest unit rate for 
     broadcast communications on candidates' voluntarily agreeing 
     to comply with certain attribution requirements, would be 
     upheld as constitutional. Similar to the FECA disclosure 
     requirements and presidential public financial provisions, 
     the proposal could be found to provide important candidate 
     information to the voting citizenry. Moreover similar to the 
     presidential public financing provisions, due to its 
     voluntary nature,\8\ the proposed amendment could be found 
     not to infringe on free speech, but rather to promote the 
     general welfare by increasing public discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \8\ That is, a candidate could legally not choose to comply 
     with the broadcast attribution requirements and still 
     purchase broadcast time at a price higher than the lowest 
     unit rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       In addition, it appears that, requiring a radio or 
     television broadcaster to condition providing federal 
     candidates with the lowest unit rate for broadcast 
     communications on candidates' voluntarily agreeing to comply 
     with certain attribution requirements would also pass 
     constitutional muster under Supreme Court precedent upholding 
     reasonable access and equal time requirements.\9\ For 
     example, in C.B.S. v. Federal Communications Commission, The 
     Supreme Court considered a federal statute allowing the FCC 
     to revoke a broadcast license if the broadcaster willfully or 
     repeatedly failed to grant a federal office candidate 
     reasonable access to airtime or denied a federal office 
     candidate the ability to purchase reasonable amounts of 
     airtime. Although the Court did not rule that there is a 
     general right of candidate access to the broadcast media, the 
     majority held that the reasonable access statute 
     constitutionally provided, on an individual

[[Page 25628]]

     basis, legally qualified federal office candidates with 
     special access rights.\10\ Moreover, as the Supreme Court 
     found in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C., ``it does not 
     violate the First Amendment to treat licensees given the 
     privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as proxies for 
     the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and 
     attention to matters of great public concern.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \9\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 312(a)(7).
     \10\ 453 U.S. 367 (1981). See also, Farmers Educational and 
     Cooperative Union v. WDAY, 360 U.S. 525 (1959) (upholding 
     F.C.C. equal time requirements.)
     \11\ 395 U.S. 367, 394 (1969).

       It is arguable that the subject proposal is a less onerous 
     burden on broadcast licensees than the equal time and 
     reasonable access provisions. As the Supreme Court has upheld 
     the constitutionality of the equal time and reasonable access 
     requirements, it is likely that the proposed requirement, 
     that broadcast licensees condition providing federal office 
     candidates with the lowest unit rate for broadcast 
     communications on candidate compliance with certain 
     attribution restrictions, would likewise be upheld.
                                                L. Paige Whitaker,
                                             Legislative Attorney.
  Mr. WYDEN. We have a proposal the law division of the Library of 
Congress believes is constitutional which has been introduced by 
broadcaster Gregg Walden, a conservative Republican serving in the 
other body. It is a chance to take a practical step to deal with these 
negative ads. I believe it is possible to have a real debate about 
public issues without taking an approach that coarsens the public 
dialog and alienates so many people from the political process.
  I am very proud that Senator Smith and I put out a bipartisan agenda 
for the people of our State. We said, on important things for our 
State, that politics is going to stop at the State's borders. We said 
we do not want a part of the negative politics practiced in that 
special election to replace Bob Packwood. Frankly, Senator Gordon Smith 
summed it up pretty well when we talked about those negative ads after 
he was elected to the Senate and people were talking about our working 
together. He asked me how I felt when he ran his ads; how my kids 
looked at those ads?
  I said: Well, Gordon, they were pretty upset by those ads.
  He said: What did you tell your daughter?
  I said: Gordon, I said when you ran those ads, me looking like I 
hadn't shaved for a couple of weeks, like a convict who had just gotten 
out of prison, I told my daughter Lilly, ``Gordon Smith doesn't mean 
those things. He's just kidding, Lilly. He doesn't mean those negative 
ads.''
  Gordon, to his credit, said on television to the people of Oregon: I 
want to tell Lilly Wyden she's right. I didn't really mean those things 
I was saying about her dad.
  Madam President, colleagues, we all know that this system is out of 
kilter. We all know that. Clearly we are going to have to take some 
bold steps in a bipartisan way to put it back on track. But I ask my 
colleagues to look seriously at the proposal that Senator Bingaman and 
I will bring to the floor later this week. It is a practical step that 
we could take against the virus of negative ads, negative ads that 
produce this spiraling effect where each side runs one that is more 
negative than the previous one, and the public is alienated.
  Our proposal, based on the analysis done by the law division of the 
Congressional Research Service, is constitutional. Frankly, it is a lot 
less intrusive than a variety of requirements imposed on broadcasters 
right now. Broadcast licensees have to comply with equal time and 
reasonable access provisions. The Supreme Court has upheld them. The 
proposal we made that broadcast licensees providing the lowest unit 
rate available to candidates actually make the candidates offer their 
statements in person is one I am absolutely convinced the Supreme Court 
will uphold. They upheld the equal time and reasonable access 
provision. They will uphold this one as well.
  It is time to change the current communications law and require, when 
candidates reference their opponent in a radio or television ad, that 
they have to appear in order to qualify for the lowest unit rate. If 
they do not want the lowest unit rate, they can go about the business 
of having various anonymous groups and sources continue to attack their 
opponent. But I do not think there ought to be a constitutional right 
to a broadcasters subsidy--that is what we have today--and, 
fortunately, the Library of Congress agrees with me. I think candidates 
ought to stand by their ads. Candidates for public office in the future 
ought to have greater direct responsibility for their ads.
  The amendment Senator Bingaman and I have prepared would do just 
that. It is a complement to the proposal offered by Republican 
Congressman Gregg Walden in the other body. I hope my colleagues will 
look favorably on it. As one who comes to the floor today to talk about 
this negative ad question with personal experience, I will tell you I 
believe this issue, this question of the corrosive, ugly pettiness that 
has dominated so much of television advertising, ought to be at the top 
of the list of the reforms we pursue in this body. It ought to be at 
the top of our priority list, to look at ways to root out of American 
politics the negative nature of so much of this debate.
  We can have profound differences of opinion. We can have sharp and 
profound differences of opinion without letting politics fall into the 
gutter of the negative, petty, ugly kind of politicking, as we have 
seen so many good people--good people--get caught up in across this 
country.
  My colleague, Senator Bingaman, will have more to say about our joint 
proposal when he comes to the floor. I ask, again, when we get to this 
issue later in the debate, our colleagues look favorably on a proposal 
that I think will make a real difference in American politics and will 
begin to drain the swamp that has contaminated so much of our public 
dialog.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, is now recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise in support of campaign finance 
reform. I first commend my colleagues, Senators McCain and Feingold, 
for their tireless efforts in keeping campaign finance reform alive and 
forcing the Senate to deal with its responsibilities.
  The debate about campaign finance reform is one we need to have. All 
of us who have the high privilege to hold office have a responsibility 
to bring open and accountable government to the American people. This 
begins with an open and accountable campaign financing system. The 
American people must have confidence in such a system. Confidence in 
our political system is the essence of representative government. Our 
challenge has been to reform the excesses of the system while 
preserving the first amendment rights of all Americans to express 
themselves and engage in the political process.
  In recent years, this challenge has caused Congress to shrink from 
serious attempts at campaign finance reform. We are better than that. 
America deserves more than a vacuous sleepwalk through this debate.
  The Supreme Court has said Government can regulate how campaign 
finances are regulated as long as, No. 1, regulations are kept to a 
reasonable minimum, and, No. 2, they are designed to prevent corruption 
or the appearance of corruption. The appearance of corruption is a 
significant part of this debate.
  My colleagues are not a bunch of campaign finance bandits or thugs, 
but in a democracy where citizens freely choose their leaders, 
perception does matter because perception is directly connected to 
confidence. Voters lose faith in the integrity of the political system 
when they lose confidence in the system. As they become demoralized and 
detached, citizens lower their expectations and standards for public 
officeholders. That produces a problem that goes beyond any remedy we 
can offer here on the floor of the Senate.
  No amount of legislation can prevent scoundrels from exploiting 
campaign finance laws or any laws. We need to rise above partisan, 
ideological, personal rivalries and find common ground on campaign 
finance reform, elevate the debate, and enact relevant reforms.

[[Page 25629]]

  For me, disclosure is the core of campaign finance reform. The 
overriding purpose of the campaign finance reforms enacted in the 1970s 
was to increase transparency and accountability in the political 
system. Disclosure rules for all who participate in the political 
process need to be a part of whatever reform package we produce. The 
public needs to see who is writing the checks, and for how much. The 
voter needs to be aware of the flow of campaign dollars. We should not 
fear an educated and informed body politic. All elected officials have 
an obligation to be part of that educational process.
  In recent years, interest groups have come crashing into races in the 
home stretch, pouring huge amounts of money into radio and TV ads. All 
of us know stories of outside groups launching a late blitz of ads, 
moving poll numbers in the final weeks or days of a campaign, and then 
disappearing without the public knowing who they were and how much they 
spent for or against the candidate.
  It is time to end this type of political stealth raid on campaigns. 
If individuals and organizations are going to participate in the 
electoral process--and they should; we encourage all individuals and 
organizations to participate--then the extent of their participation 
should be revealed to the public. As long as the voter can see where 
the money is coming from, and where it is going, our system will retain 
its integrity. I trust the American people to elevate this debate and 
evaluate the flow of money in campaigns.
  In addition to the disclosure, we need to look at soft money 
contributions to national party committees. I appreciate the legitimate 
free speech and constitutional concerns in this area. Our purpose here 
is not to anticipate or resolve every hypothetical constitutional 
challenge. Our job here is to make policy. If complications or honest 
differences of interpretation and opinion result, that is why we have a 
judicial system.
  What I do know is this. The unaccountable status quo on soft money 
needs to be changed. Most constitutional experts say an outright ban on 
soft money probably is unconstitutional. Every court decision rendered 
so far on this issue has come down against an outright ban on soft 
money. But this unaccountable, unlimited flood of soft money cascading 
over America's politics should be checked. We have constitutional 
limits on individual contributions--so-called hard money. Why then 
should it be so outrageous to examine limits on soft money? What are we 
afraid of?
  We need to find a middle ground between the extremes of banning soft 
money and leaving it unlimited, a middle ground where compromise is 
possible. We should also raise limits on donations of hard money by 
individuals and political action committees. This can be done by 
indexing individual contributions to inflation.
  Raising the limits would have beneficial effects. Individual 
contributors would have an impact comparable to what Congress intended 
when reforms were first enacted in the 1970s. There would be more focus 
on individual participation in campaign financing. More campaign money 
would be under the direct control of candidates, making them more 
accountable for the spending and the conduct of their campaigns. 
Remember, this is hard money, accountable money.
  These are the general principles behind the amendment I wanted to 
talk about today. But before getting to the specifics of this 
amendment, I have to say a word about the current process. We need 
campaign finance reform, but we are not going to get it through the 
predicament in which we find ourselves today--limited opportunities for 
debate, no opportunities for additional amendments, and no votes on 
those amendments.
  My colleagues, Senators Abraham, DeWine, Gorton, and Thomas, and I 
had planned to offer amendments to McCain-Feingold today. Now we are 
left only with the opportunity to talk about the amendments we would 
have offered if we had been given a chance to do so.
  The amendments my colleagues and I intended to offer contained 
several significant changes in current campaign finance law. I will 
focus on the ones my colleagues and I believe are most important. Our 
amendment, first, would limit to $60,000 a year the total amount of 
soft money the national party committees combined could receive from an 
individual, PAC, corporation, or union.
  A donor could give all $60,000 to one committee or spread the $60,000 
over several committees. But the aggregate soft money donation could 
not exceed $60,000 per year. The limit would be indexed for inflation 
in future years. All union and corporate donations still would be 
treated as soft money to be used only for party-building activities. 
Union and corporate donations would not be treated as hard money for 
use in express advocacy or transfers to Federal candidates.
  This is not a ban on financial support of parties. It is a return to 
the original intent of the campaign finance reforms of the 1970s, which 
worked until they were exploited and abused by, I might add, both 
parties. Nor is this a ban on political speech. There would remain many 
options. Donors who wanted to give more money for political speech 
could contribute to third party organizations.
  I appreciate the legitimate free speech and constitutional concerns 
many of my colleagues and I have about these kinds of caps. This 
amendment offers a compromise that addresses the constitutional 
concerns while moving forward with reform legislation.
  If the cap were challenged in court within 30 days after taking 
effect, the cap would be suspended until the conclusion of the court 
challenge. It is time now to adjust and index hard money contributions 
to inflation. For an individual, contribution limits would increase, 
for example, from $1,000 to $3,000 per candidate per election--and so 
it would go, for PACs and all committees. In future years, all limits 
would be indexed for inflation.
  I have heard the argument that raising the hard money limits would 
give the wealthy too much influence and access. If we cap soft money 
and do not adjust the hard money limits, we will chase more money into 
the black hole of third party ads, where the public cannot view the 
flow of money. I want to bring more of that money into the sunlight, 
into the daylight, where the American people have access to who is 
giving money and how much. They can decide for themselves if a 
candidate has been ``bought'' by anyone.
  Financial disclosure is the core of any campaign finance reform. This 
amendment would take the rules on broadcast ads that apply now to 
candidates and extend them to all political broadcast ads.
  Under current Federal regulations, when a candidate places a 
political ad with a broadcaster, the broadcaster is required to keep a 
file on the ad that is open to any member of the public who wants to 
see it. In that file is a record of the following: The time the spots 
are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased, and the 
rates at which the ads were purchased. This information must be 
recorded immediately and made available for public inspection.
  Under current Federal regulations, when an interest group places a 
political ad with a broadcaster, it does not have to meet the same 
requirements. The public cannot find out: Who bought the ad, when the 
ad will run, how much time was purchased, and how much was paid for the 
ad. It is closed from public view.
  This amendment would require that interest group ads relating to any 
Federal candidate or issue also must go into the broadcaster's public 
file. For those types of ads, the broadcaster would be required to 
record the same information it does for ads by candidates and parties, 
including the amount spent on the ad.
  As with candidates and party ads, the information on these political 
ads would be recorded immediately and made available for public 
inspection. There would be no added burden on the broadcaster. The 
broadcaster would simply use the same form already used for candidate 
and party ads.
  Full disclosure should apply to a political ad by an interest group 
just as it

[[Page 25630]]

does for a political committee or candidate because the objectives, 
after all, of all the ads are the same.
  Let me make clear one thing this amendment does not do. It does not 
require unions, corporations, or any organization to identify 
individual donors or provide membership lists. This amendment preserves 
a reasonable balance between the public's right to know which groups 
are attempting to influence an election and the privacy rights of 
individual donors to an interest group.
  In conclusion, we have before us a unique opportunity to accomplish 
something relevant, reasonable, and meaningful. We have an opportunity 
to restore some of the confidence the American people have lost in 
their political system.
  All of us in this noble profession of politics have a responsibility 
to set high standards in American politics. Improving our system that 
selects American leaders--who formulate and implement Government policy 
that frames the governance of our Nation--is a worthy challenge. We can 
elevate the process and make it better--more open and more 
accountable--which leads to a more informed public through a more 
relevant public debate, leading to a more accountable Government. Let 
us not squander this opportunity or debase our responsibility.
  Before I yield the floor, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senator from Michigan be allowed to follow me.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Nebraska allow me to make a 
couple quick comments?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand I am to speak for 20 minutes following the 
speech of the Senator from Nebraska. Or does he have additional time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 7 minutes 
remaining. Was the Senator from Kentucky going to ask a question of the 
Senator from Nebraska or was he asking him to yield the floor?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from Nebraska agree with me that 
since he has 7 minutes left, it would not interfere unduly with the 
Senator from Wisconsin, who has spoken a number of times over the last 
few days, to allow his cosponsor, Senator Abraham, to have the 
remainder of his time? Would the Senator from Nebraska agree with the 
Senator from Kentucky that would be a good way to proceed?
  Mr. HAGEL. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky and yield my 
remaining 7 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. With that understanding, I have no objection. I want to 
be sure that we are not adding additional time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized for the remaining 7 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from Michigan give me a moment to 
make an observation?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I will withhold.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I assume this is off the time of the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I want to commend the Senator from Nebraska. Some day 
we are going to pass real campaign finance reform. I think the proposal 
that my friend from Nebraska has outlined is very close to what 
someday, I hope, the Congress will pass. I commend him for an 
outstanding amendment.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. May I inquire, in terms of the queue, what additional 
unanimous consent agreements have been entered into with respect to 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Following the approximately 5 minutes 15 
seconds remaining for the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Feingold will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. May I ask, before the 5:45 vote that is slated, are 
there any other unanimous consent agreements that have set aside time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are none.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he would be willing 
to enter into a unanimous consent agreement which would allow me to 
speak for up to 10 minutes and then have his 20 minutes following 
because we would still be within the timeframe for the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I am only interested in 
having about a minute right before the vote. Does the Senator from 
Wisconsin have any problem with that?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I have no objection to either request.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Then I ask unanimous consent that I have up to 10 
minutes, followed by 20 minutes for the Senator from Wisconsin, 
followed by 1 minute for the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank my colleagues for their consideration.
  I rise today in support of what I believe is a real, substantive 
solution to the vexing question of campaign finance reform. To my mind 
that question is this: how do we revive voter confidence in the 
electoral process without violating the fundamental guidelines laid 
down in our Constitution? The answer, I believe, lies in public 
exposure and voter knowledge. The more voters know about the sources of 
a particular candidate's campaign funding, the better able they will be 
to determine whether that funding has or will interfere with the 
candidate's ability to represent them.
  The solution I support is in the nature of a substitute amendment. I 
have cosponsored this amendment along with Senators Hagel, DeWine, 
Gorton, and Thomas.
  It was my hope that my colleagues and I would be able to introduce 
this substitute on the floor and call for a vote. However, procedural 
barriers have been created which have undermined meaningful debate on 
this issue. In the end, these procedural barriers have prevented my 
colleagues and I from submitting our substitute for a vote. However, 
because I believe campaign finance reform is a critical issue which 
will be with us for some time to come, I feel compelled to say a few 
words about the contents of the substitute.
  I believe that provisions in the substitute correct key, perceived 
problems in our campaign financing system. The first section of the 
substitute would increase disclosure. It would ensure that the public, 
and the candidates' constituents in particular, are made immediately 
and continuously aware the sources of candidates' financing. It also 
would ensure public notification of any candidate financing by an 
outside organization or interest seeking to influence the election.
  How would the substitute accomplish these ends? By requiring 
additional monthly and quarterly disclosure reports for federal 
candidates and for national political parties. The substitute would 
also require national party committees to disclose their receipts and 
disbursements from non-federal accounts--as they are currently required 
to do so for their federal accounts. A variety of other disclosure 
components is also included in the legislation.
  The second section of the substitute imposes reasonable restrictions 
on soft money. I am very concerned about the constitutional 
implications of a complete ban on soft money. Thus, our substitute 
would place a $60,000 cap on soft money, pending an expedited review by 
the Supreme Court. I believe this approach deals responsibly with the 
issue of soft money, without ignoring potentially serious conflicts 
with the first amendment.
  Also included within the substitute is a provision that would raise 
individual and PAC contribution limits to adjust for inflation. The 
present limits have been in place since 1974, when the first law 
regarding campaign finance was passed by the Congress. It is clearly 
justifiable that these limits be raised to reflect the present economic 
realities while maintaining the disclosure provisions so that the 
public can continue to be informed about the sources of financing.
  In addition, I would have liked to have been given the opportunity to

[[Page 25631]]

submit an additional amendment to campaign finance legislation. I would 
have introduce an amendment limiting non-constituent contributions to 
50 percent of the total raised by the candidate. This amendment would 
accomplish a multitude of goals. It would instill a guideline for the 
candidates, instill confidence in the voters, and would help dispel the 
all too common notion that candidates are improperly influenced by 
campaign contributions. In my view it is not difficult for a politician 
to arrange financing in a way that avoids the appearance as well as the 
reality of corruption.
  In the context of my amendment, all federal candidates would have to 
follow the same rules, dictating that they receive no more than 50 
percent of overall contributions from PACs and out of state donors. 
Political committees that do not have their national headquarters 
within the candidate's state would be considered ``out of state'' 
contributions for these purposes. Any individual who is not a legal 
resident of the candidate's state and contributes $200 or more to a 
candidate would also be considered an ``out of state'' donor.
  Why do I suggest such an approach? Because I don't think we are 
addressing the serious perception problems that exist with respect to 
campaign reform when we stand on the floor and focus all of the 
amendments on who gives money to the national parties.
  The fact is the party is not the individual who is on the floor of 
the Senate casting votes. It is the 100 Members of the Senate. I 
believe what is relevant is who supports us. Can we claim to represent 
constituents if more than 50 percent of the money we receive from our 
campaigns come from people we don't represent? I argue the answer to 
that is no.
  I think much more than contributions to the national parties 
undermines our constituents' confidence that when we are on the floor 
we are acting in the best interests of our constituents and our States. 
In my judgment, this type of amendment--one that, unfortunately, will 
not be voted on--is an important and integral part of any legitimate 
campaign reform proposal. I am certain Federal candidates would find 
that they can run successful campaigns with this 50-percent imposed 
limit. More importantly, these limits would increase politicians' 
accountability to their own constituents and decrease the appearance of 
out-of-State special interest influence.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of my proposed amendment be printed 
in the Record.

  There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

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

     ``SEC. 324. LIMIT ON OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--A candidate for nomination to, or 
     election to, the Senate or House of Representatives or the 
     candidate's authorized committees shall not accept an 
     aggregate amount of funds during an election cycle from 
     individuals that are not legal residents of and political 
     committees (other than a national political committee of a 
     political party or a Senatorial or Congressional Campaign 
     Committee of a national political party) that do not have 
     their national headquarters within the candidate's State in 
     excess of an amount equal to 50 percent of the total amount 
     of contributions accepted by the candidate and the 
     candidate's authorized committees during the election cycle.
       ``(b) Exception.--For purposes of the limit under 
     subsection (a), a contribution in an aggregate amount of less 
     than $200 in an election cycle from an individual who is not 
     a legal resident of the candidate's State shall not be taken 
     into account.
       ``(c) Time to Meet Requirement.--A candidate shall meet the 
     requirement of subsection (a) on the date for filing the 
     post-general election report under section 304(a)(2)(A)(ii).
       ``(d) National Headquarters.--In the case of a political 
     committee which is a separate segregated fund under section 
     316(b)(2)(C), the term `national headquarters' means the 
     national headquarters of the entity which establishes and 
     maintains such fund.''.
       (b) Definition of Election Cycle.--Section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Election cycle.--The term `election cycle' means the 
     period beginning on the day after the date of the most recent 
     general election for the specific office or seat that a 
     candidate is seeking and ending on the date of the next 
     general election for that office or seat.''.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. I believe the substitute, which I cosponsored with 
Senators Hagel and Thomas and Gorton and DeWine, along with my proposed 
amendment, is the better way to reform campaign financing. I think it 
strikes a reasonable balance between addressing the issues of 
corruption with the constitutional concerns. I only wish these 
amendments had been allowed to reach the floor. I can assure my 
colleagues that I will continue to support real constructive campaign 
finance reform.
  As I say, it is unfortunate that the structure of our procedures 
won't allow us to offer these variations. I think it is obvious to all 
Americans that right now we have an impasse.
  The reason we have an impasse is because we have essentially only one 
alternative that is being treated as the only option available with 
respect to campaign finance reform. Clearly, the way to break a 
legislative logjam is to consider other alternatives. That is what the 
Senator from Nebraska and I are trying to do. Perhaps it won't happen 
in the context of this year's debate, but I hope in future debates we 
will go beyond the simple all-or-nothing approach that we have had in 
recent debates and give the rest of us a chance to have our amendments 
considered and voted on. I think that is the only way we are going to 
get to a conclusion that does, in fact, change the process, and for the 
better.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a comment?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes. If there is time remaining, I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I commend the Senator from Michigan, one of the 
Members of this body who truly understands this issue. I think the 
amendment he and the Senator from Nebraska have offered is a very 
important step in the direction that I ultimately think we will take--
if we ever get serious about doing this on a bipartisan basis, rather 
than in a way that advantages one side and disadvantages another.
  So I wanted to commend the Senator from Michigan for his outstanding 
work.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I haven't used all of 
my time, so I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, in a few minutes, the Senate, for the 
first time--let me reiterate that--for the first time, the Senate will 
go on record on the central issue in this debate: Should the Senate ban 
soft money?
  It is a simple question that has a simple answer. And soon, finally, 
we will see where each Senator stands.
  The fact that our current campaign finance system has created an 
appearance of corruption justifies Congress acting to ban soft money. 
In fact, if we don't act, we create the appearance that we don't care 
about corruption. Creating a legislative record of the appearance of 
corruption is critical because the Supreme Court has held that not just 
actual corruption but an appearance of corruption is adequate reason 
for the restrictions on the speech represented by campaign contribution 
limits.
  Madam President, this is the central misunderstanding or flaw in the 
opposition's position. They have premised everything in this debate on 
the idea that you have to show individual Senators who are guilty of 
corruption. Well, of course, that isn't the standard at all. That isn't 
the law. Let me quote from the Supreme Court's opinion in Buckley v. 
Valeo because this is a crucial concept that opponents of reform often 
seek to ignore. The Court said:

       Of almost equal concern as the danger of actual quid pro 
     quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of 
     corruption stemming from public awareness of the 
     opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large 
     individual financial contributions.


[[Page 25632]]


  Madam President, I really don't think there is any doubt that our 
current system presents the appearance of corruption. And it isn't just 
soft money. We see it every day in the newspapers, and we hear it on 
television talk shows. It is portrayed as common knowledge, 
conventional wisdom, on radio talk shows that the votes of politicians 
are bought and paid for by special interests. When the Senator from 
Kentucky stands up and says that ``people contribute to our campaigns 
because they agree with what we are doing,'' I am sure he is sincere, 
but the public thinks there is something more than general feelings of 
support or like-mindedness at work when somebody hands over hundreds of 
thousands of dollars.
  Let me give some examples of news stories in just the last three 
weeks that drive this point home. All of them make it perfectly clear 
to me, and I think to almost any American, that political donations are 
generally a way of attempting to buy influence and access. All of them 
add to the record that there is an appearance of corruption out there 
that justifies the Congress taking action to ban soft money.
  Madam President, if this applies to hard money contributions, it 
surely must apply far more easily and obviously to soft money 
contributions.
  Exhibit A is a story from the National Journal of October 2, 1999. I 
ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the National Journal, Oct. 2, 1999]

                   Banking on Paxon's GOP Credentials

                          (By Peter H. Stone)

       It sure didn't take long for former Rep. Bill Paxon, R-
     N.Y., to shake up Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the home 
     of Democratic superstars Robert S. Strauss and Vernon E. 
     Jordan. At Paxon's behest, the blockbuster law and lobbying 
     firm has joined the Republican National Committee's elite 
     Team 100, whose members give $175,000 to the party every four 
     years.
       Since he joined Akin, Gump in January, after sifting 
     through a score of job offers, Paxon, the former chairman of 
     the National Republican Congressional Committee, has worked 
     diligently to boost the firm's standing in GOP circles. 
     Moreover, Paxon's arrival at Akin, Gump reflects the 
     determination of K Street firms loaded with Democratic ties 
     to adjust to the GOP's control of Congress.
       It was no secret that Akin, Gump needed a GOP star. After 
     the 1996 presidential elections, the firm courted Bob Dole, 
     the GOP nominee and a former Senate Majority Leader. But 
     instead he joined another heavily Democratic firm, Verner, 
     Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand. Two years later, 
     Akin, Gump recruited Paxon aggressively and nabbed him as a 
     ``senior advisor'' for an annual salary of about $750,000. 
     Paxon gets an office next to Strauss, to boot.
       Paxon, who was instrumental in the GOP's 1994 takeover of 
     the Congress, enhances Akin, Gump's credibility among 
     Republicans. After all, he has raised big bucks for House GOP 
     leaders, the party committees, and the leading presidential 
     contender George W. Bush, the Texas Governor. He has already 
     attracted roughly a dozen new clients to the firm, including 
     Americans for Affordable Electricity--a coalition of energy 
     producers, led by Enron Corp., and large users, such as the 
     chemical industry--which backs quick utility deregulation. 
     Paxon also earns his keep by advising several long-standing 
     Akin, Gump clients on lobbying strategy.
       Paxon conceded that Akin, Gump had a lot of fence-mending 
     to do with the GOP. ``The firm had a reputation as a 
     Democratic firm, unfairly so,'' he said. Despite the presence 
     of such GOP stalwarts as Donald C. Alexander, Smith W. Davis, 
     and Barney J. Skladany, the firm's superstars are former 
     Democratic National Committee Chairman Strauss and President 
     Clinton's golfing buddy Jordan. Joel Jankowsky, who heads the 
     firm's lobbying team, is also a Democrat. ``We have needed to 
     ratchet up our Republican profile to another level,'' Paxon 
     added.
       Paxon, 45 and a nonlawyer, is certainly trying. Since 
     coming on board, Paxon has helped host 20 fund-raisers for 
     House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, House Majority 
     Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, Senator Majority Whip Don Nickles of 
     Oklahoma, and others in the GOP. What's more, Paxon and his 
     colleagues raised more than $250,000 for an NRCC dinner 
     earlier this year and another $150,000 for a GOP Senate-House 
     dinner. In late August, Paxon helped Hastert during the 
     Speaker's successful fund-raising trip to Las Vegas.
       Not surprisingly, NRCC Chairman Tom Davis of Virginia is a 
     huge Paxon fan. ``Bill is still a very integral part of the 
     culture over here,'' said Davis, who talks to Paxon a couple 
     of times a week. ``He's been helpful in building bridges to 
     groups. I consider him a right arm up here.''
       Paxon is also one of a small number of K Streeters who meet 
     regularly with Hastert to discuss party strategy and to swap 
     information. He does the same with Chief Deputy Majority Whip 
     Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who holds weekly meetings with lobbyists. 
     During a recent session, Paxon maintained that the GOP should 
     not worry too much about its record on Capitol Hill this 
     year, because the party's generic poll numbers remain high as 
     a result of the public's ``fatigue'' with the Clinton 
     Administration and other factors.
       Nationally, Paxon has proved to be a key fund-raiser and 
     strategist for Gov. Bush. Paxon has raised more than $100,000 
     for Bush, with a major slice of the money coming from New 
     York state. On Oct. 4, Paxon will co-host events in Buffalo 
     and Rochester that are expected to pull in close to $500,000 
     for the Bush campaign. Campaign sources say that Paxon is 
     likely to be named a member of Bush's national finance 
     committee when the panel is expanded later this year.
       Paxon has helped to secure congressional endorsements for 
     Bush, whom he has visited three times in Austin. Paxon was 
     instrumental in lining up Blunt as the point man for the Bush 
     campaign in the House. In addition, he has advised the 
     campaign on tapping various House members for fund-raising 
     and other help.
       Paxon's fund-raising skills, plus the experience he gained 
     during five terms in Congress, have seemingly proved magnets 
     for new business. Although he is barred by ethics rules from 
     lobbying on Capitol Hill until next year, Paxon said he 
     offers clients a cornucopia of other services. ``I help 
     clients understand what kind of lobbying, grass-roots, and 
     PAC (political action committee) programs they need to be 
     effective in Washington.''
       As for clients, Paxon is doing well. Americans for 
     Affordable Electricity, for example, is paying the firm 
     approximately $500,000 a year for Paxon's services, according 
     to coalition sources. Paxon is the group's national chairman. 
     What does Paxon do to merit such fees? For the AAE, Paxon has 
     offered advice about how to approach members and what 
     arguments sell well on Capitol Hill. He has also helped 
     organize fund-raisers that the coalition has held for key 
     members of the House Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee, 
     including its chairman, Joe Barton, R-Texas. Paxon is a 
     former member of the panel.
       In late September, Paxon and Marc D. Yacker, a member of 
     the coalition's steering committee and a lobbyist for the 
     Electricity Consumers Resource Council, attended a luncheon 
     with aides to roughly a dozen Governors to discuss utility 
     deregulation. Paxon has helped at the coalition's press 
     conferences and been a guest on several radio talk shows. 
     Paxon's name is also featured in the coalition's advertising 
     campaign.
       Several coalition leaders give Paxon high marks. ``The very 
     fact that his name is on all the ads and that he's associated 
     with the issue and the cause is a major boost to the 
     coalition's legislative efforts,'' Yacker said.
       But another coalition source complained that Paxon has 
     failed to raise enough money to enable the coalition to 
     compete with the utility industry's lobbying and advertising 
     efforts.
       Paxon, a Buffalo native, has corralled new clients in areas 
     ranging from financial services to construction. Not 
     surprisingly, some of that business comes from the Empire 
     State. For instance, Paxon brought in the New York State 
     Health Facilities Association, which is seeking additional 
     Medicare reimbursement money. Moreover, Paxon is permitted to 
     lobby lawmakers outside Washington, and he has already done 
     some work in Albany, N.Y., for PG&E Generating Co., a unit of 
     Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
       Paxon also devotes a fair chunk of his time to helping the 
     firm's longtime clients, such as AT&T Corp. In late 
     September, Paxon participated in a morning press briefing 
     hosted by the Competitive Broadband Coalition--of which AT&T 
     is a key member--to introduce a multimillion-dollar 
     television ad drive that will run in about 23 states and 
     inside the Beltway. The coalition's ad message is aimed at 
     countering lobbying by some Baby Bells, which want to revise 
     the 1996 Telecommunications Act to allow them to provide 
     high-speed data services in the long-distance market. Paxon 
     will also advise the coalition on legislative strategy.
       The lobbying battle has a personal dimension for Paxon. His 
     wife, former Rep. Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., represents 
     iAdvance, a coalition that includes several Baby Bells. 
     ``Every now and then, we square off,'' quips Paxon. ``It's 
     not exactly (James) Carville and (Mary) Matalin.''
       According to Paxon, his move from Capitol Hill has proved 
     to be relatively smooth. ``In the leadership, we spent a lot 
     of time strategizing on legislative issues, working on the 
     public angles, and trying to keep an eye on the big 
     picture,'' he added. ``It's the same downtown.''
       Of course, Paxon's transformation from congressional leader 
     to thriving lobbyist, a success greased by plenty of campaign 
     cash, has provoked some indignation from longtime critics of 
     the money game. ``Bill Paxon may have changed jobs, but he 
     doesn't appear to have changed his role as a big-time

[[Page 25633]]

     player in the Washington influence-money game,'' said Fred 
     Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, a group that 
     advocates campaign finance reform.
       But at Akin, Gump, legendary lobbyist bob Strauss is 
     bursting with pride about the success of the firm's 
     Republican hire. ``He fit in from day one,'' crows Strauss. 
     ``He's a franchise player. He'll continue to make 
     contributions, not just to the business of the firm, but the 
     character and the culture of the firm.''
       Akin, Gump is banking on that.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this article reports that former 
Representative Bill Paxon, who retired last year, has signed with the 
law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld. Akin Gump is one of 
the powerhouse lobbying firms in Washington. Its partners include big 
name Democrats Robert Strauss and Vernon Jordan. Paxon is not a lawyer, 
so his title is ``senior advisor.'' What that means is that he will be 
a lobbyist and ``rainmaker'' for the firm.
  Apparently, Akin Gump, a firm known for its Democratic Party ties, 
hired Mr. Paxon to ``mend fences'' with the Republican Party. And how 
does Mr. Paxon do that? According to this article, the main thing he 
does is raise money for Republican Members of Congress and the 
Republican Party. The National Journal reports that Paxon has helped 
host 20 fundraisers for the Speaker of the House, the House majority 
whip, the assistant majority leader in the Senate, and other Republican 
office holders. He has also raised more than $250,000 for an NRCC 
dinner, and another $150,000 for a Republican House-Senate dinner this 
year. He has raised over $100,000 for Presidential candidate George W. 
Bush.
  Let me quote from the article:

       Not surprisingly, NRCC chairman, Tom Davis of Virginia, is 
     a huge Paxon fan. ``Bill is still a very integral part of the 
     culture over here,'' said Davis, who talks to Paxon a couple 
     of times a week. ``He's been helpful in building bridges to 
     groups. I consider him a right arm up here.''

  The article reports that Mr. Paxon participates in a weekly meeting 
that lobbyists hold with Majority Whip DeLay and meets regularly with 
Speaker Hastert.
  The article continues:

       Paxon's fundraising skills, plus the experience he gained 
     during five terms in Congress, have seemingly proved magnets 
     for new business. Although he is barred by ethics rules from 
     lobbying on Capitol Hill until next year, Paxon said he 
     offers clients a cornucopia of other services.

  Madam President, let's leave aside the revolving door problems in Mr. 
Paxon participating in weekly meetings that Mr. DeLay holds with 
lobbyists. Can there be any question that that is an appearance 
problem? Here we have a former Member of Congress whose stock in trade 
is raising big money for congressional leaders and candidates. Do we 
really blame the public for thinking he is getting special treatment 
for his clients?
  Mr. Davis calls him an integral part of the culture over here. Just 
what kind of culture is this? Certainly not the kind of culture I would 
be proud to tell my children and grandchildren about. Certainly not a 
culture that we should nourish and preserve for the future of our 
democracy.
  He is a right arm for the congressional leadership? The public might 
be excused for asking: Just who is the right arm for whom in this 
relationship?
  Exhibit B. On October 5, the day before the House considered the 
Patients' Bill of Rights, according to press reports, officials for 
Cigna, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and Aetna held a $1,000 per plate 
breakfast fundraiser for the Speaker of the House. Press reports the 
next day said that 15 or 17 health insurance industry lobbyists 
attended the event. Atlanta Constitution columnist Tom Baxter wrote the 
following:

       The condition of the political ground could be judged by 
     the keen attention of all the television networks to a 
     breakfast fund-raiser this week at which insurance lobbyists 
     arrived with checks for Hastert and others. Not that such 
     scenes aren't common these days, but the timing made this a 
     photo-op for campaign finance reform.

  Indeed. I remember seeing reports on the national TV news about this 
event. And I thought to myself: ``what can the average American 
watching on TV think about this scene?'' ``How can anyone not think 
this is wrong?'' Actual corruption? We will never know. The appearance 
of corruption? Without a doubt. The headline of this AP news story 
tells it all: ``Insurers Give Speaker Thousands on Eve of Vote.''
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this article from the 
Bergen County Record on this fundraiser be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Bergen County (NJ) Record, Oct. 6, 1999]

             Insurers Give Speaker Thousands on Eve of Vote

                            (By David Espo)

       One day before a closely watched vote on health care, House 
     Speaker Dennis Hastert attended a fund-raising breakfast 
     Tuesday with industry representatives who gave $1,000 apiece 
     to his political war chest.
       ``I'd like to ask them about sitting down with America's 
     families instead,'' President Clinton chided from the White 
     House as he sought to build support for legislation granting 
     patients the right to sue their health insurance companies.
       Hastert, who opposes the bill, defended his previously 
     scheduled meeting and sought to turn the tables on the White 
     House. ``Mr. President, I hope you will say no to helping 
     trial lawyers, and say yes to helping the 44 million 
     Americans who want health-care coverage,'' the Illinois 
     Republican said in a written statement.
       The exchange underscored the deep philosophical and 
     political gulf between the two parties on health care at a 
     time when government statistics show the number of uninsured 
     continues to increase.
       The White House, most Democrats, and some Republicans are 
     supporting legislation to strengthen patients hands in 
     dealing with their managed care companies. Among prerogatives 
     would be the ability to sue for damages when prescribed care 
     was denied.
       Republicans counter that such provisions will merely raise 
     the cost of insurance and prompt some employers who now offer 
     insurance to their workers to drop it.
       Facing a likely setback on that measure, the GOP leadership 
     is proposing a companion bill that provides numerous tax 
     breaks to make health insurance more affordable.
       Their ``access'' bill also includes a provision opposed by 
     many Democrats to expand a current small program allowing 
     medical savings accounts. Another would give small businesses 
     the option to buy health insurance under federal rather than 
     state regulation. That would exempt them from state mandates 
     that bigger self-insured companies avoid.
       ``It's not the severe poor who don't have health care,'' 
     Hastert told reporters. ``There are government programs that 
     reach out. It's working people today, who are working for 
     small business or who run their own shop or they go from job 
     to job, who need the ability to get health care.''
       Hastert pledged a ``fair and open debate of the health-care 
     issue'' today when the legislation reaches the House floor.
       The debate will come against a backdrop of a fresh 
     government report that estimates 44.3 million Americans, one 
     in six, had no health insurance coverage in 1998.
       The Census Bureau survey found the number without coverage 
     grew by nearly a million, but overall population growth kept 
     the rate about steady, 16.3 percent in 1998, compared with 
     16.1 percent in 1997. In 1996, 15.6 percent lacked coverage.
       Public opinion polls show the issue is high on the public's 
     list of priorities, and GOP leaders have struggled for months 
     in a narrowly divided House to keep control of it.
       Hastert held the fund-raising breakfast for his political 
     action committee a few blocks from the Capitol.
       Aides said it was scheduled several weeks ago. There was no 
     word on whether there was consideration of rescheduling the 
     event given the close proximity to the House's debate.
       ``I've listened to everybody in the health-care business 
     for a long time,'' the Speaker told reporters in the Capitol.
       ``The die is cast already on what the health legislation is 
     going to be. So there's no influence there whatsoever.''
       An invitation to the event was issued in the name of 
     officials of Cigna, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and Aetna.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, an article that appeared in the 
Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill on September 29. Here's another great 
headline: ``Why 30 top Democratic lobbyists attended GOP chairman's 
bash.''
  This article reports however, that 30 top Democratic lobbyists 
attended a fundraising dinner for a Republican committee chairman at 
the home of Democratic super-lobbyist Tommy Boggs.
  I bring this article to the attention of the Senate not to cast 
aspersions on any Senator. My interest in this article is in the views 
of lobbyists on fundraising, and the appearance it creates for the 
public that reads about it.

[[Page 25634]]

  Let me quote from the article: ``Indeed, it would be tantamount to 
political suicide for Democratic lobbyists--or Republican lobbyists for 
that matter--who specialize in the [the issues] that are the focus of 
[the chairman's] committee and the lifeblood of their corporate 
clients, if they desert him in his hour of need.''
  Here are a few quotes in this article from lobbyists who were 
questioned on the irony of Democratic lobbyists making contributions to 
a powerful Republican chairman of a Senate committee. One said: ``In 
situations like this, I tend to be a strong fan of incumbency.'' 
Another said, ``Most lobbyists know which side their bread is buttered 
on.'' And this is what a staffer on the House side had to say: ``Any 
time you have a chairman of [a committee] running for reelection, and 
you're lobbying . . . issues before the committee, you risk having your 
issue blown out of the water if you don't contribute to his campaign. 
The game in this town is to support the incumbent.
  Mr. President, I don't suggest that these lobbyists bearing gifts 
have swayed or will sway a chairman on substantive issues, but they 
sure are trying. And I have avoided using the Senator's name because I 
don't think he has been swayed. But we all have to admit that these 
kind of comments create a perception, an appearance, that campaign 
contributions are given because of the effect they will have on policy.
  Madam President, let me anticipate a question by the Senator from 
Kentucky. Most of the fundraising in these articles is hard money 
fundraising, isn't it? It is all legal under our system. Thousand-
dollar checks to candidates are permitted under the Federal election 
laws, aren't they? The answer, of course, is yes. But what strikes me 
is the obvious appearance of corruption that is present when a lobbyist 
specializes in throwing fundraisers for candidates or when members of 
Congress solicit even these relatively small donations from people with 
an interest in legislation, especially on the eve of a crucial vote.
  Madam President, can there be any doubt that an outrageous appearance 
of corruption arises when the same Members of Congress are involved in 
raising hundreds of thousands of dollars of soft money in a single 
phone call for the political parties? As Justice Souter said just a few 
weeks ago at the oral argument in the Missouri case--``Most people 
assume, and I do certainly, that someone making an extraordinarily 
large contribution gets something extraordinary in return.''
  That brings me to another exhibit in our legislative record of the 
appearance of corruption--a story that appeared yesterday in the 
Washington Post about the effort that the Democratic party--my party--
is making to raise soft money in order to retake the Congress. 
According to the article, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee 
increased its soft money fundraising from $5.1 million in 1994 to $16.6 
million in the '98 cycle. It is now going after the really big givers 
with an innovation called Team 2000. The Post story describes Team 2000 
as ``[A] new club for $100,000 and over donors who would be feted by 
the party at exclusive events, including a weekend of clambakes and 
sightseeing.''
  The article describes the wooing of Steven Wynn, owner of Mirage 
Resorts in Las Vegas, who gave a $250,000 contribution to the DCCC in 
May of this year. The article indicates that Wynn is angry about the 
impeachment of the President and with the Republican failure to stop 
the antigaming crusade of a Member of the House.
  Incidentally, this information is not included in this particular 
article, but I have learned that the Mirage Resorts gave an identical 
$250,000 amount to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign 
Committee in July of this year.
  So I guess Mr. Wynn got over his anger and realized that he had 
better play both sides of the fence, as many big soft money donors do.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this Washington Post story 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 17, 1999]

                 Democrats' Fast Track Is `Soft Money'

                         (By Susan B. Glasser)

       The House Democrats' courtship of Steve Wynn--owner of 
     Mirage Resorts, grandiose prophet of the new Las Vegas, and 
     major Republican donor--began four years ago with a cold call 
     from David Jones, Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt's top 
     fund-raiser.
       Wynn took the call, and soon Jones was flying out to 
     breakfast at his golf course mansion along with Rep. Charles 
     B. Rangel. The gravelly voiced New Yorker became the 
     Democratic point man, reciprocating Wynn's hospitality with a 
     tour of his Harlem district.
       By last February, when Jones and Rangel met with Wynn in 
     his Las Vegas office, they didn't even have to make their 
     pitch. Wynn had told friends he was angry at ``mean-
     spirited'' House Republicans for impeaching President 
     Clinton. Besides, he complained, they had neglected him, and 
     hadn't stopped Rep. Frank R. Wolf's (R-Va.) anti-gaming 
     crusade. He was ready, Wynn said, to help the Democrats 
     regain control of the House.
       How much, Wynn asked, do you need me to help raise out of 
     Nevada for the 2000 election? Jones knew that during the 
     entire 1998 election, the House Democrats' campaign arm had 
     only collected about $110,000 from Vegas, so his answer was 
     an audacious one: $1 million to $1.5 million. Done, Wynn 
     replied.
       The first installment--a $250,000 corporate check from 
     Mirage Resorts--was Wynn's downpayment on a bet that 
     Democrats will take back the House next year. It also 
     suggests one reason why they might succeed. With the 
     Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as their vehicle, 
     they are raising record amounts of money for next year's 
     races, trading on their new electoral competitiveness to 
     raise funds earlier and in larger amounts than ever before.
       ``Soft money''--the term of art for the unlimited 
     contributions that corporations, unions and wealthy 
     individuals can give for so-called ``party building''--has 
     fueled an explosive growth in fund-raising for both parties 
     since the 1996 elections, when campaign operatives figured 
     out a way to legally spend it on TV ads that focused on 
     individual candidates.
       But this year it is the House Democrats who have been most 
     aggressive in increasing the amount of soft money they raise, 
     even as they lead the campaign in Congress to eliminate it. 
     Driven by Gephardt and Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), the 
     chairman hand-picked by Gephardt, the DCCC is out to reverse 
     its traditional status ``at the bottom of the fund-raising 
     food chain,'' as former Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) put it.
       In just the first six months of this year, the DCCC raised 
     $17 million total--$9 million of that in soft money. That 
     marks a stunning 373 percent increase in soft money compared 
     with the first six months of 1997--the highest rate of growth 
     for any party committee. The fund-raising escalation 
     foreshadows an election season next year when both parties 
     will pour a million dollars or more into more than 30 House 
     races whose outcome will determine control of Congress.
       Some of the money is from businesses like Wynn's Mirage 
     Resorts; some is from well-heeled individuals giving $100,000 
     each, such as Slimfast founder S. Daniel Abraham, National 
     Enquirer heiress Lois Pope and Florida Marlins owner John W. 
     Henry. As of June 30, Democrats had attracted 21 six-figure 
     soft-money givers compared with 14 for Republicans, according 
     to data compiled by the Campaign Study Group. Those checks 
     came from groups or individuals who had never before made 
     such a financial commitment so early.
       Since individual members can't raise soft money for their 
     own campaigns, the DCCC and the National Republican 
     Congressional Committee do it for them. This embrace of soft 
     money--legally meant to go only for ``nonfederal'' purposes--
     is particularly ironic since the two campaign committees 
     exist for the sole purpose of electing federal candidates.
       In recent years, the soft money powerhouse on Capitol Hill 
     has been the NRCC. Since the beginning of 1997, a new Common 
     Cause study found, the House Republican committee has raised 
     more of it than any other congressional committee: a total of 
     $37.8 million. So far this year, the NRCC has outraised the 
     DCCC overall $27 million to $17 million. And in House 
     Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the subject of a story 
     Monday, the Republicans have the single most effective fund-
     raiser in Congress.
       But slightly less than a year before the congressional 
     elections, the House Democrats have significantly cut into 
     the GOP's fund-raising advantage.
       The DCCC is running essentially even with the NRCC in soft 
     money raised this year, and Democrats are ahead for the first 
     time ever in cash on hand: $10.7 million to the NRCC's $10.1 
     million.
       ``Republicans have experienced growth,'' said David 
     Plouffe, the Gephardt strategist who is now executive 
     director of the DCCC. ``We've experienced much greater 
     growth.'' By design, the Democratic growth strategy has 
     focused on soft money, seeking contributions from a new 
     club--``Team 2000''--for

[[Page 25635]]

     $100,000 givers, and on what several sources said was an 
     organized effort to get labor unions to ``frontload'' their 
     contributions by giving as much as possible early in the 
     election cycle.
       Republicans have hardly ignored big givers. After the 
     Democrats upped the ante, NRCC Chairman Tom Davis (Va.) 
     imitated them with his own $100,000 program--the ``Business 
     Leadership Trust,'' a name reflective of the GOP's financial 
     base. The GOP is also starting a new national finance 
     committee to recognize corporate CEOs and top lobbyists. And 
     when it comes to big checks, the NRCC lays claim to the 
     biggest single donation of the year: $300,000 from Chiquita 
     banana king Carl Lindner.
       ``Soft money follows power,'' said Davis, recognizing that 
     the Republicans' takeover of Congress in 1994 has 
     immeasurably boosted their fund-raising capacity. But he 
     argued that Democrats have benefited most, leveraging the 
     power of the presidency for their financial gain.


                          eroding the gop edge

       For decades, Democrats have gone into campaigns knowing 
     they would be outspent. Taking over the DCCC in 1981, when 
     Republicans had a fund-raising lead of 13 to one, Rep. Tony 
     Coelho (D-Cal.) cut into that edge by convincing businesses 
     they should invest in what was then the congressional 
     majority. Coelho, now Vice President Gore's campaign 
     chairman, also professionalized the DCCC, insisting for 
     example that a campaign hire pollsters before it could 
     receive a dime from the committee.
       But the game then was hard money--strictly limited 
     contributions of no more than $20,000 a year to party 
     committees. At the time, before a succession of court rulings 
     and Federal Election Commission cases, soft money was an add-
     on, used to finance building projects and television studios 
     but never contemplated as a thinly veiled way around the 
     contribution limits to specific races. And so the dollar 
     amounts were low, amazingly so compared with the current 
     checks.
       ``In retrospect, we were pikers,'' said one former Coelho 
     adviser. ``We thought we were pushing the envelope when we 
     were asking people for $5,000.''
       And yet Coelho was a transformative figure, his close ties 
     to S&L power brokers and aggressive style memorialized in a 
     book, ``Honest Graft,'' by journalist Brooks Jackson that 
     showed members how the DCCC and the NRCC could become fund-
     raising powerhouses and use that money to wield more 
     influence over campaigns. New York Republican Bill Paxon, who 
     took over an NRCC deeply mired in debt in 1993, said flatly, 
     ``Coelho was my model'' as he reinvented the committee in 
     time for House Republicans to win the majority for the first 
     time in 40 years.
       In 1994, the last election before soft money's rise, the 
     NRCC raised $7.4 million in soft money, compared to $5.1 
     million by the DCCC.
       When Texas Rep. Martin Frost became chairman of the DCCC in 
     1995, he knew the Democrats were going to have to raise money 
     differently. In the minority after four decades of power, 
     they no longer had the legislative club that Coelho had 
     taught them to wield with the K Street lobbyists who 
     controlled business giving.
       ``Once we went into the minority, we had to reach beyond 
     the PAC community in Washington,'' said Frost, who led the 
     DCCC in the 1996 and 1998 elections and is now the Democratic 
     Caucus chairman. ``We really had to work the rest of the 
     country aggressively.''
       Clinton and his advisers supplied the blueprint, using the 
     Democratic National Committee to fund an unprecedented $35 
     million ad campaign to boost his reelection and paying for 
     the ads with mix of hard and soft money. On Capitol Hill, 
     members quickly grasped the implications: soft money could 
     now be used to launch candidate-specific TV ads that were 
     legal as long as they avoided the magic words ``vote for'' or 
     ``vote against.''
       Frost was planning to raise more soft money--but only to 
     fund more traditional activities, like election-day turnout 
     and overhead expenses. To start, he had to confront a party 
     committee without much of a national donor base. ``We weren't 
     really thinking about soft money,'' said Matt Angle, Frost's 
     top aide. ``We were thinking about new money.
       When they arrived at the DCCC, Angle said, they found that 
     only 100 or so individuals had ever given more than $1,000 to 
     the DCCC. Democratic House members, still stunned by their 
     party's defeat, were reluctant to hit up their own big donors 
     for the committee. And most donors had never heard of the 
     DCCC, assuming it was an affiliate of the DNC.
       ``We had one guy who was a $100,000 giver,'' Frost said, 
     New Jersey businessman Grover Connell, a rice broker who 
     figured in the Koreagate scandal of the late 1970s and as 
     long ago as the Coelho days was already giving $50,000 a year 
     to the DCCC.'' ``He was the only one we ever had,'' Frost 
     said. ``I said, `Well, if Grover will give that much, we 
     should start asking other people for larger figures.' ''
       Meanwhile, the predicted switch in business giving was 
     coming to pass--Republicans, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-
     Ga.) and DeLay, made an aggressive push to shut down 
     Democratic money on K Street. By the 1998 election, about 65 
     percent of business funds were going to the House GOP.
       Overall, the DCCC raised $16.6 million in soft money to the 
     NRCC's $27.8 million for last year's election--225 percent 
     more for the Democrats and 274 percent more for the 
     Republicans since 1994.
       Gephardt was already a top fund-raiser, a master of ``the 
     big ask,'' and yet, said Frost, ``we didn't have 100 percent 
     of his attention.''
       But last fall's election, when Democrats shocked even 
     themselves by whittling the House GOP's majority to just six 
     seats, galvanized Gephardt, a believer in the power of 
     political soft money since his 1988 presidential campaign 
     sputtered to a finish on Super Tuesday, several million 
     dollars in debt.


                       gephardt aims for speaker

       Two days after last year's election, Gephardt convened his 
     top advisers and started planning for the 2000 campaign. His 
     goal, it was clear, was to become speaker--not to run for 
     president. While he didn't announce that decision until 
     February, Gephardt quickly began planning his DCCC strategy, 
     deciding to transfer virtually all his political operation to 
     the committee.
       As chairman, Kennedy would be Gephardt's ``director of 
     sales and marketing,'' in the words of banking lobbyist Tom 
     Quinn, a longtime Kennedy family backer. Unabashed about 
     trading on his family name, Kennedy was seen by Gephardt's 
     team as a financial asset. ``Patrick being chairman means an 
     additional $10 million to $20 million for the DCCC,'' argued 
     a leading party fund-raiser.
       Jones, Gephardt's top money man, was put on contract at the 
     DCCC. So was Richard J. Sullivan, the young lawyer who had 
     served as the DNC's finance director in the 1996 election and 
     was the lead-off witness in hearings held by Sen. Fred D. 
     Thompson (R-Tenn.) about the influx of foreign money to the 
     DNC in 1996.
       The idea was to personalize the committee, selling donors 
     on the future speaker. Kennedy said he often tells would-be 
     contributors: `` `This is the Dick Gephardt for Speaker 
     committee.' They get that. It personalizes it.''
       Gephardt himself calls big donors, not just to ask but also 
     to thank. ``He's the kind of guy who understands that in 
     order to get dessert, you have to eat your vegetables,'' said 
     Erik Smith, a Gephardt aide who is now the DCCC's 
     communications director.
       Determined to take advantage of the political momentum 
     generated by the November election gains--and to play off the 
     outrage felt by Democratic donors about the GOP House's 
     impeachmnent of Clinton--the DCCC decided to focus its 
     efforts on soft money and to push earlier than ever for major 
     checks.
       But Kennedy himself proposed the most audacious innovation, 
     according to his aides. Until then, the biggest dollar 
     program at the DCCC had been the Speaker's Club, price of 
     entry: $15,000 in hard money. Kennedy created ``Team 2000,'' 
     a new club for $100,000 and over donors who would be feted by 
     the party at exclusive events, including a weekend of 
     clambakes and sightseeing at the Kennedy family compound in 
     Hyannisport last month.
       Big donations began to roll in: $250,000 from the 
     Communications Workers of America, whose political director 
     considers herself Kennedy's ``fairy godmother'' in the labor 
     movement; $210,000 from AFSCME; $102,000 from AT&T $100,000 
     from Texas trial lawyer Walter Umphrey's firm, Price Club 
     founder Sol Price and others.
       The Democrats are eagerly keeping score: according to the 
     sheet handed out at each week's Democratic Caucus meeting, 
     Gephardt has already collected $6.8 million for the DCCC and 
     House candidates this year, followed by Kennedy at $6.2 
     million, aspiring Ways and Means Chairman Rangel at $1.9 
     million and Frost at $670,000.
       Contributors who have dramatically increased their help to 
     the House Democrats this year cite everything from personal 
     loyalty to Gephardt to disaffection with the Republicans to a 
     sense that the Democrats may lose the White House and 
     therefore need to go all-out to retake control of at least 
     one branch of government.
       Richard Medley, a Wall Street analyst and former 
     congressional aide, mentioned all three. ``I've been a friend 
     of Gephardt's for probably ten years,'' said Medley, who 
     hosted a July dinner in New York with former treasury 
     secretary Robert E. Rubin that raised $300,000. But he also 
     referred to pessimism about Vice President Gore's chances to 
     win next November: With GOP front-runner ``George W. Bush 
     doing so well, it's important to take out an insurance policy 
     hoping to have at least one branch controlled by Democrats.''
       Personal service from Gephardt and Kennedy also helps land 
     donors. That certainly was the case with the $100,000 check 
     from David Alameel, a wealthy Dallas dental clinic owner. 
     Alameel was already on the radar of Frost and his team, but 
     they had no idea he would become a six-figure contributor.
       Frost duly set up the meeting with Kennedy and, in the end, 
     he said, ``Patrick was the one who convinced him.'' The 
     $100,000 check came in on June 21.
       Indeed, Kennedy has produced a number of eye-popping checks 
     from unexpected sources,

[[Page 25636]]

     like the $100,000 from Lois Pope, the Palm Beach heiress to 
     the National Enquirer fortune. The wooing of Pope included 
     Kennedy flying to Florida to present her with an award for 
     her charity work.
       ``One of the great joys of my job is meeting people who 
     inspire me,'' Kennedy gushed as he presented her with a 
     ``distinguished service award'' from Citibank Private Bank of 
     Florida. ``I feel the energy that they feel for this country. 
     Those of you who know Lois know that energy comes through.'' 
     That was on April 7. On May 28, the DCCC received Pope's 
     $100,000 check.
       An even larger amount came as the result of his friendship 
     with John J. McConnell Jr., a trial lawyers for Ness Motley 
     Loadholt Richardson & Poole, a South Carolina-based firm that 
     has earned millions of dollars from representing states in 
     the tobacco settlement. Operating out of the firm's Rhode 
     Island office, McConnell worked hard to introduce Kennedy to 
     colleagues, flying him on the corporate jet so he could spend 
     time with senior partner Ronald L. Motley and hosting a 
     dinner on Capitol Hill for Kennedy, Gephardt and other trial 
     lawyers with deep pockets.
       On June 30, the courtship paid off--with a check for 
     $250,000. ``No question about it,'' McConnell said, ``that 
     was a personal contribution to Patrick.''


                          Spending in New Ways

       That check--and all the others--will go into a new pot of 
     soft money that the DCCC will be able to spend next year in 
     ways not envisioned by the 1974 election law, which restricts 
     the parties to direct and coordinated gifts to their House 
     candidates of only about $100,000 each. The idea behind the 
     law was ``to take fund-raising out of the hands of the party 
     committees and give control of it to candidates themselves,'' 
     as GOP pollster Brian Tringali put it.
       Instead, with soft money issue ads and sophisticated voter 
     identification programs, the parties are planning to spend 
     upwards of $500,000 or $1 million each in next year's key 
     districts. That gives the parties more say over how campaigns 
     are run, what they are saying and who they are saying it to.
       ``Practically speaking,'' said a top Democratic fund-
     raiser, ``you can take a race that is a $1 million House race 
     and turn it into a $3.5 million race with soft money. In a 
     day and age when parties themselves are not as strong, 
     individual party committees are stronger than ever.''
       For Kennedy and his staff, the new emphasis on soft money 
     is simple political pragmatism. ``You can really draw a 
     direct correlation between the amount of money in a campaign 
     committee and the impact it has in terms of getting members 
     elected,'' he argued.
       To win, Kennedy said, ``we need to raise an even greater 
     amount of money. In practical terms, that means we need to 
     raise it in bigger chunks.''

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, how can we close our eyes to the 
appearance of corruption that this enormous fundraising effort 
provides? How can we close our eyes to the appearance of corruption 
that the double givers list that I have shown on this floor a number of 
times represents? Mirage Resorts is now on the list. Companies give 
hundreds of thousands of dollars to both political parties--hundreds of 
thousands of dollars to both political parties. What game are they 
playing here?
  The Senator from Kentucky said on the floor last week, ``Well, they 
have a right to be duplicitous.'' Actually, Madam President, they are 
not being duplicitous. We all know they are giving to both sides. They 
are just playing by the rules as we have set them up. They are not 
doing anything that is dishonest. They are simply trying to cover their 
bases. Surely, the Senator from Kentucky doesn't think when AT&T gives 
a big contribution to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign 
Committee that it won't give money to the Senator from New Jersey's 
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as well.
  We all know why they do it, too--because in the candid words of a 
lobbyist, ``They know which side their bread is buttered on.'' Both 
sides--the bread is buttered on both sides. They play both sides of the 
fence so they can get their calls returned and their positions heard. 
That, my friends, is on its face an appearance of corruption. And if we 
are so caught up in this fundraising game that we can't see it, the 
disenchantment the public feels in its elected officials is well 
warranted.
  Last week, the Senator from Kentucky suggested that press reports 
about the connection between campaign donations and legislative actions 
arise from the desire of newspapers to sell more copies or talking 
heads to get air time. But the newspapers didn't create the appearance 
problem. We did.
  I am reminded of what the great Senator, Robert La Follette, from my 
home State of Wisconsin, said in response to those who argued that the 
press of his day--the early 1900s--was somehow spreading hysteria about 
the power of the railroads over Congress. La Follette said:
       It does not lie in the power of any or all of the magazines 
     of the country or of the press, great as it is, to destroy, 
     without justification, the confidence of the people in the 
     American Congress. . . . It rests solely with the United 
     States Senate to fix and maintain its own reputation for 
     fidelity to public trust. It will be judged by the record. It 
     can not repose in security upon its exalted position and the 
     glorious heritage of its traditions. It is worse than folly 
     to feel, or to profess to feel, indifferent with respect to 
     public judgment. If public confidence is wanting in Congress, 
     it is not of hasty growth, it is not the product of 
     ``jaundiced journalism.'' It is the result of years of 
     disappointment and defeat.

  Years of disappointment and defeat--that is what the American people 
have had as the soft money system has grown and Congress has done 
nothing about it. The system of soft money looks corrupt. Indeed, it is 
corrupt. And it makes us, as its beneficiaries, look corrupt.
  There is no other way to put it. There is an appearance of 
corruption. There is an appearance of cravenness. There is an 
appearance of a smug confidence that the American people will not laugh 
out loud in disgust at the assertion that there is no corruption near. 
There is an appearance of something terribly, terribly wrong that we 
refuse to fix.
  If that offends people in this Chamber, so be it. We had better get 
rid of this system so they won't be offended anymore because I am not 
going to stop talking about it until we do.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 19 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the Senator from North Carolina asked 
if I will yield.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I know the Senator has spent a great deal of time moving 
across his home State of Wisconsin. How many counties are in Wisconsin?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Seventy-two counties.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Seventy-two counties, and the Senator has been in every 
one.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I go to listening sessions in every one every year.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I wonder what the Senator would think what someone in 
rural Wisconsin, a farmer in rural Wisconsin, would believe in terms of 
their influence, vis-a-vis someone who gave $100,000 in soft money to, 
in our case as fellow Democrats to the Democratic Party, or to the 
DNCC, whether that rural farmer in Wisconsin would believe that they 
have the same voice in the Senate that a $100,000 soft money 
contributor has.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his 
question.
  The example of the farmer is a wonderful example, because of what has 
happened in Wisconsin in the last 18 years. We have lost something like 
18,000 dairy farmers, so farmers in my State are in no position to be 
giving even $10 or $25 contributions.
  When they hear, as the Senator is suggesting, that a person can give 
even $1,000, the possibility of doing that is pretty much off the 
charts. When they hear that somebody can actually for the first time in 
this century give $100,000, it is absolutely disappointing. And it must 
make them even more despondent. They have enough problems already.
  But to think they can't have their vote count for what it used to 
count--we always had in Wisconsin the notion that the farm vote kind of 
shifted the balance, it is the swing vote traditionally in Wisconsin. 
But in this kind of system where soft money ads can make a farce out of 
an election, they feel--I know from firsthand conversations--quite left 
out of the process and quite dispirited.
  Mr. EDWARDS. How does the Senator think that farmer would feel in his 
gut about whether this representative democracy is working the way it

[[Page 25637]]

ought to work in a situation where he or she has at best one vote, and 
that position vis-a-vis another individual who has given $100,000, when 
he is working on his farm on a day-to-day basis? Does the Senator think 
that farmer believes he has the same equal voice that he is supposed to 
have in his representative democracy as somebody who wrote a $100,000 
check.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I don't think there is any possibility that he feels 
his voice is as strong as it used to be. A typical farmer in Wisconsin 
with a certain amount of cows and a certain amount of acreage and a 
family, those are things that he had. He knew he had those things, and 
he had his vote counting the same as everybody else's. That is where 
the whole progressive movement in Wisconsin and the efforts of Robert 
La Follette came from--a lot of these farmers who were able to put 
their votes together to elect people who would really represent them.
  Mr. EDWARDS. If I could ask a followup question, there has been a lot 
of debate on the floor and a lot of private conversations about whether 
there is any usefulness associated with simply banning soft money.
  Let me ask the question again, using the example of this dairy farmer 
from Wisconsin. Does the Senator think it is important for the Senate 
to send a message to that farmer in rural Wisconsin that we are trying 
to do something real and meaningful to clean up campaign finance in 
this country?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. We absolutely have to. I don't know how we convinced 
ourselves in the end of the 20th century of something that was the 
opposite conclusion at the end of the 19th century, early 20th century; 
and that is that unlimited contributions corrupt the process and make 
the individual farmer or individual homemaker or any other person 
almost a nonfactor in the political process.
  We have to send this message and we have to do even better. We have 
to actually pass a ban on soft money as a first signal to that farmer 
that we will do the rest of the job and actually return the notion of 
one person-one vote to that farmer.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Will the Senator agree that even if we are not able in 
this Congress in this session to pass across-the-board comprehensive 
reform that it is critically important that we send a message to 
Americans all over this country that this Senate and this Congress is 
willing to take a strong and courageous step to do something real and 
meaningful in terms of cleaning up campaign finance and that one of 
those steps would be the banning of soft money?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. There is nothing more important than passing a ban on 
soft money in this Congress. In a few minutes we will have the first 
vote, I say to the Senator from North Carolina, the first vote ever on 
the question of whether we are going to allow party soft money or not. 
This is not one of these votes that you have every once in a while, a 
bed check vote on a Monday night. This is the real thing.
  I thank the Senator from North Carolina for distilling it down to the 
perspective of one farmer in Rice Lake, WI, who might be watching and 
saying: Are these guys going to clean this place up or not?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Let me ask the Senator one last question. I agree. One 
last question: In the Senator's mind, is this a party issue? Is this a 
Democratic or Republican issue?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Clearly not. In fact, the only thing that can defeat us 
on this is partisanship. That is why I worked for 5 years, not only 
with Senator McCain but I have gotten to know a number of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle--people such as Senator Thompson of 
Tennessee and Senator Collins of Maine. These are Republicans who I 
have grown to know and enjoy working with who together have worked to 
try to do something to ban soft money. So this is an example of how 
this institution can work well in terms of our cooperation and 
bipartisanship.
  Let's make sure that partisanship doesn't defeat our efforts.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and Senator McCain 
for their courageous leadership on this critical issue.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I certainly thank the Senator from North Carolina who 
in the few months he has been here has become a strong voice in the 
campaign finance reform debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the Senator 
from Kentucky correct that the Wellstone amendment and any other 
amendments that might be offered this evening would fall because they 
were not filed by 1 p.m., if we ultimately get cloture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture occurs tomorrow. Amendments not 
filed by 1 p.m. today would be out of order if they are first-degree 
amendments
  If cloture is invoked tomorrow, amendments not filed by 1 o'clock 
today would not be in order.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Since Friday, the open and fair process which was 
sought and agreed to has been derailed by parliamentary maneuvering.
  Let me say to all of my colleagues, particularly those on my side of 
the aisle who share the view of the majority leadership and myself on 
this issue, this motion to table is a meaningless vote and should 
reflect that fact. Consequently, I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against tabling on behalf of the majority leader, Senator Bennett, and 
myself.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. With the remaining minute, I say to my friend from 
Wisconsin who is still on the floor, I appreciate very much the 
Senator's attempt to make this a bipartisan issue. The fact is, 
Democrats have voted time, after time, after time to invoke cloture on 
campaign finance reform, and we have been thwarted by the majority; is 
that not true?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I say to the Senator from Nevada, we have not been 
thwarted by the majority, only thwarted by that portion of the majority 
which is actually a minority seeking to filibuster this issue and defy 
the will of the majority of the people, which, of course, involves more 
Democrats than Republicans.
  Mr. REID. By a considerable number, is that not true?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is true.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Reid amendment numbered 2299 to the Daschle amendment 
numbered 2298. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth), 
and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kohl), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily 
absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is absent because of family illness.
  The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 92, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 329 Leg.]

                                YEAS--1

       
     Hollings
       

                                NAYS--92

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms

[[Page 25638]]


     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Dodd
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Roth
     Smith (OR)
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to 
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ben 
Lawsky, a Judiciary Committee detailee in Senator Schumer's office, be 
granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 106th Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________