[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Page 114]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       THE HIGH COST OF CAMPAIGNS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, about a year ago, I was still celebrating my 
victory from the election of 1998. It was a tough election. The reason 
I mention that today is because in the small State of Nevada, with less 
than 2 million people, the two candidates running for the Senate spent 
over $20 million. We had less than 500,000 people who voted in that 
election but we spent over $20 million. We spent approximately $4 
million in our campaign accounts, and then each party spent about $6 
million. So it was a total of $20 million, plus an undisclosed amount 
of money that was spent by people who represented the National Rifle 
Association, the truckers' association, and other groups. These 
independent expenditures on both sides were something that added to the 
cost of that election in Nevada.
  The reason I mention this is when I first came to the Senate, I had 
an election I thought cost too much money. It cost about $3 million. In 
this election I spent over $10 million--that is, counting the money 
spent mostly on my behalf and on behalf of the others in that election 
cycle.
  Something has to be done to stop the amount of money being spent on 
these elections. We know that on the Presidential level, Senator 
McCain, who is running for the Republican nomination for the 
Presidency, is spending a lot of his time talking about the need for 
campaign finance reform. I admire and appreciate the work of Senator 
McCain in this regard. On the Democratic side, both Senators Bradley 
and Vice President Gore are talking about the need for campaign finance 
reform. Those who support campaign finance reform got a real boost, a 
real shot in the arm, in the last few days when the U.S. Supreme Court, 
in a case that came out of Missouri, rendered a 6-3 opinion. In effect, 
that opinion said in the case of Shrink v. Missouri Government that the 
Court had a right to set maximums as to how much somebody could spend. 
The Court held that the Missouri law imposing a little over a $1,000 
limit on contributions to State candidates did comply with the 
Constitution, despite a challenge claimed that the limit was so low it 
affected the ability of interested people to give to the candidate of 
his choice.
  The reason this case was so important is that everybody has been 
waiting for almost 25 years to determine what the Court would do about 
Buckley v. Valeo, were the Court held that political contributions are 
speech protected by the first amendment. Though certain limits could be 
enforced, the Government could not put too many restrictions on when 
and what a person could spend on political candidates. Some hoped and 
wished the Shrink case, cited by the Supreme Court, would throw out all 
the limitations and, in effect, there would be a free-for-all as to how 
much money could be raised, and there would be no restrictions as to 
from where the money would come. The Shrink case, while it didn't cite 
all the problems with campaign finance money, decided there could be 
limits established in campaign finance spending. That is an important 
step.
  I think what we need is to have elections that are shorter in time. 
We have to have limitations on how much people can spend on elections. 
We can't do anything in light of the present law with having 
individuals spend unlimited amounts of money until we pass a 
constitutional amendment, which has been pushed by Senator Fritz 
Hollings for many years. In spite of our being unable to stop people 
from spending personal moneys of unlimited amounts, the Court clearly 
said limits can be set. I think this should add impetus to the 
Presidential campaign now underway. What Senator McCain is saying is 
that we should go with the Feingold-McCain bill that is going to stop 
the flow of soft money, corporate money, in campaigns. That seems to be 
something that certainly can be done. We know in the past it has been 
done in Federal elections, and this should be reestablished.
  So I hope Senator McCain, Bill Bradley, and Vice President Gore will 
continue talking about this. I hope it becomes an issue in the 
Presidential campaign, which will be shortly upon us.
  I do appreciate the Supreme Court. There are some who come here and 
berate them very often. I think it is time we throw them a bouquet. 
This was a tough opinion, decided by a 6-3 margin. I think this is 
important. Justice Stevens noted:

       Money is not speech, it is property. Every American is 
     entitled to speak, but not every American has the same amount 
     of property.

  That is something I hope will be carried over into future discussions 
by the Supreme Court in reviewing Buckley v. Valeo, as to what it means 
regarding whether or not free speech is the ability to spend as much 
money as you want in a campaign. I don't think it is. I think the 
Supreme Court will agree with me.
  In short, the Supreme Court did the right thing. It should give us, 
as a body, the ability to change the law and revisit some of the things 
taking place in America today. What Senator Feingold and Senator McCain 
have tried to do is the right approach. We should do that. All the 
arguments made about how it would be unconstitutional to do that 
certainly fail in light of what the Supreme Court recently decided.

                          ____________________