[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Page 7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          THE NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC DECISION

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to inform the Senate 
that today the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Nixon v. Shrink 
Missouri Government PAC, upheld contribution limits in the campaign 
finance system of the United States.
  This was a victory for our democracy. It was a victory for the voters 
because, essentially, what the Court said is that elections in the 
United States are about votes, not about money. They affirmed the core 
holding of Buckley v. Valeo that reasonable contribution limits in 
Federal campaigns--and today, by extension, in State elections--are 
constitutionally permissible. I was very pleased with this decision.
  Several months ago, I organized an amicus curiae brief, which was 
submitted to the Supreme Court in this case, and advocated the position 
the Court adopted today--that contribution limits are, in fact, 
permissible under the Constitution of the United States.
  Again, this is a victory for those who would like to see elections be 
contests of ideas rather than clashes of special interests, amplified 
by huge amounts of money. Today is a victory for voters who, by their 
decreasing numbers, show their disenchantment with the political 
system. They feel the system is not about ideas or candidates' 
positions, but really about the candidates' treasure chests. This 
feeling is a corrosive force that undermines democracy in this country. 
Well, today, the Supreme Court held the line and declared that we can 
impose reasonable limits on campaign contributions.
  As Justice Souter said in his opinion, this is a situation in which 
the perception of corruption is as powerful as the reality of 
corruption. If voters perceive that the system is not benefiting them, 
but benefitting a special few who contribute, they will lose faith in 
the system. That loss of faith will ultimately disrupt our ability to 
conduct a democratic government here in the United States.
  The decision today also indicates that we have both the opportunity 
and, I argue, the obligation to move forward on broader campaign 
finance reform. Today, the court said that, in fact, we can limit 
direct contributions of hard dollars to campaigns. By extension, they 
give us, I hope, the impetus to go ahead and extend these limits to 
soft money, because we all recognize that soft money is dominating the 
political scene today. As we speak, an avalanche of soft money is 
entering into our political system as part of the Presidential campaign 
and various federal and state campaigns for office. Soft money 
contributions were 75 percent higher in 1999 than in the same period in 
1997. We can do something about this. The Supreme Court has confirmed 
our ability to legislate, and we should move very quickly and very 
forcefully to adopt, I believe, a total ban on soft money--but at the 
minimum to impose limits on soft money.
  If we don't do that, again we will undermine the faith and the trust 
of the people of this country in our electoral system. They trust and 
have faith that we are a nation ruled by votes and not by the size of 
political contributions.
  We have lots of work to do, and we should begin immediately. I sense, 
as many do, that one of the reasons we have been stalling on campaign 
finance reform in this body is because some people were able to offer 
up an easy excuse, that we should wait to see if contribution limits 
are going to be upheld by the Court as constitutional.
  The Supreme Court has now decided. They have spoken in a very strong 
voice today, by a vote of 6 to 3, and declared that reasonable limits 
on contributions are constitutionally appropriate. As a result, I 
believe we should take their decision Nixon v. Shrink Missouri 
Government PAC case and build on it by limiting soft money and other 
forms of indirect contributions.
  Let me quote from Justice Souter:

       . . . there is little reason to doubt that sometimes large 
     contributions will work actual corruption of our political 
     system, and no reason to question the existence of a 
     corresponding suspicion among voters.

  Today's decision is an anecdote to that suspicion, but the real cure 
will come when we adopt comprehensive campaign finance reform by 
outlawing soft money and placing other reasonable restrictions on the 
electoral process.
  Today the Court discharged their responsibility. Now it is time to 
take up ours. The Supreme Court declared that we can act. We should 
act. I hope this decision will be a source of energy for us this 
Congress, so that we can work together on a bipartisan basis for 
adoption of reasonable and sensible campaign finance reform.
  I thank the President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before Senator Reed leaves the floor, I 
wish to commend my colleague from Rhode Island for all of his 
leadership on this issue. I was proud to join him as one Member of this 
body on the brief. He has consistently talked about the need to drain 
the swamp that has become America's system of financing campaigns. I 
share his view.
  I note also Senator Hollings is here as well. Senator Hollings I 
think is absolutely right as well in saying that we probably ought to 
have a constitutional amendment to ensure we have comprehensive 
campaign finance reform. But the good news is that the Supreme Court 
today opened a window for meaningful reform opportunities and 
meaningful reform legislation.
  I commend my colleague from Rhode Island for all of his leadership.

                          ____________________