[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16345-16346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. McCONNELL. As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over the campaign finance issue, and one who has been 
rather closely identified with the spirited debate in this arena over 
the past decade, I wholeheartedly support putting S. 1816, the Hagel-
Kerrey bill, on the Senate Calendar.
  That is not to say I would vote ``aye'' were there a rollcall vote on 
the bill as it is currently drafted.
  Senator Hagel's legislation was the backdrop for a comprehensive 
series of hearings held by the Senate Rules Committee between March and 
May of this year. The final hearing featured the testimony of Senator 
Hagel, Senator Kerrey, Senator Abraham, Senator Hutchison, and Senator 
Landrieu. An impressive, to say the least, bipartisan lineup of 
Senators bravely stepping into the breach separating those who persist 
in trotting out the old, blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance 
schemes of the past, from others like myself who firmly believe that 
the first amendment is America's greatest political reform and must not 
be sacrificed to appease a self-interested editorial board at the New 
York Times.
  The Senator from Nebraska has taken what for the past couple of years 
has been the biggest bone of contention in the campaign finance fight 
in the Senate--party soft money--and essentially split the difference 
between the opposing camps. Rather than an unconstitutional and 
destructive provision to entirely prohibit non-federal activity by the 
national political parties, Senator Hagel has crafted a middle ground 
in which the party so-called ``soft'' money contributions would be 
capped. Yet, even a cap raises serious constitutional questions and 
would surely be challenged were one to be enacted into law. 
Nevertheless, the Hagel-Kerrey approach is more defensible and 
practicable than outright prohibition.
  Coupled with the party soft money cap in the Hagel-Kerrey bill is an 
ameliorative and common sense provision to update the hard-money side 
of the equation by simply adjusting the myriad hard money limits to 
reflect a quarter-century of inflation. An inflation adjustment of the 
hard money limits is twenty-five years overdue. Candidates, especially 
political outsiders who are challenging entrenched incumbents, are put 
at a huge disadvantage by hard money limits frozen in the 1970s.
  The lower the hard money limits are, the more that insiders with 
large contributor lists are advantaged. Incumbents and celebrities who 
benefit from the outset of a race with high name recognition among the 
electorate also start way ahead of the unknown challenger. The greatest 
beneficiary of low hard money limits are the millionaire and 
billionaire candidates who do not have to raise a dime for their 
campaigns because they can mortgage the family mansion, cash out part 
of their stock portfolio and write a personal check for the entire cost 
of a campaign.
  As hard money limits are eroded through inflation and non-wealthy 
candidates are further hampered, election outcomes are ever more likely 
to be determined by outside groups whose independent expenditures and 
issue advocacy are completely unlimited. That is ``non-party soft 
money.''
  Mr. President, absent from the attacks on party soft money is any 
acknowledgement by reformers that the proliferation is linked to 
antiquated hard money limits which control how much the parties can 
take from individuals and PACs to pay for federal election activities. 
It stands to reason that hard money limits frozen in 1974 and thereby 
doomed to antiquity are going to spawn an explosion of activity on the 
soft money side of the party ledger.
  It also is not coincidence that increased soft money activity in the 
past decade corresponded to vastly increased competition in the 
political arena. We are amidst the third fierce battle for control of 
the White House in the past decade And every two years America has 
witnessed extremely spirited contests over control of the Congress. 
Democrats who had been exiled from the White House since Jimmy Carter's 
administration at long last got to spend some quality time at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue and are not keen to give that up. Republicans, 
after four decades in the minority, got to savor the view from the 
Speaker's office in the House of Representatives and would like very 
much to keep it. And we have seen more than a little action on the 
Senate-side of the Capitol.
  Reformers look upon all this activity over the past decade in abject 
horror, seeing only dollar signs and venal ``special interests.'' I 
survey the same era and see an extraordinary period in which every 
election cycle featured a tremendous and beneficial national war of 
ideas over the best course for our nation to pursue in the coming years 
and which party could best lead America on that path.
  All signs, Mr. President, of a competitive, healthy, and vibrant 
democracy.
  While I strongly support the hard money adjustments in the Hagel-
Kerrey bill, I remain concerned by the bill's silence in an area sorely 
in need of reform: Big Labor soft money. The siphoning off of 
compulsory dues from union members for political activity with which 
many of them do not agree is a form of tyranny which must not be 
permitted to continue. Senate Republicans have fought hard, and 
unsuccessfully, to protect union workers from this abuse. Democrats are 
understandably and predictably loathe to risk any diminution of Big 
Labor's contributions which may result from freeing the rank-and-file 
union members from forced support of Democratic candidates and causes, 
but the absence of reform in this area is unacceptable. Big Labor soft 
money and involuntary political contributions must be part of

[[Page 16346]]

any comprehensive reform package which ultimately passes Congress.
  With those provisos and a few others, I will close by again 
commending the Senator from Nebraska from his willingness to wade in a 
big way into one of the most contentious issues before Congress--an 
issue in which all Members of Congress have a vested personal interest 
but that affects not just us but every American citizen and group that 
aspires to participate in the political process. That is why the U.S. 
Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of any campaign finance bill of 
consequence. And those are the reasons we should continue to be 
cautions and deliberative as the effort continues for a nonpartisan, 
constitutional campaign reform package.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today we have moved a step closer to 
implementing comprehensive campaign finance reform. With the help of 
Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, the 
Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000 will soon be placed 
on the Senate Calendar, ready for debate by the full Senate.
  I introduced the Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000 
along with Senators Bob Kerrey, Spence Abraham, Mike DeWine, Slade 
Gorton, Mary Landrieu, Craig Thomas, John Breaux, Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
and Gordon Smith as a bi-partisan approach to campaign finance reform 
because we felt it was a common sense, relevant and realistic approach. 
We offered it as a bipartisan compromise to break the deadlock on 
campaign finance reform and to bring forth a vehicle that could address 
the main holes in the net of our current system.
  The purpose of our legislation is to place more control and 
responsibility for the conduct of campaigns directly in the hands of 
the candidates. Our legislation is not the solution for all of the 
problems now facing us, but I believe it is a good solid beginning to 
accomplish meaningful campaign finance reform.
  After a series of hearings in the Senate Rules Committee this spring 
on campaign finance reform, we will now be able to put a bill on the 
Senate Calendar that has bipartisan support. If we are to accomplish 
comprehensive reform this year, bipartisan support is essential and our 
bill has that support.
  While I was very pleased with the recent vote in Congress to require 
disclosure for the `527' organizations, that bill is not a substitute 
for more comprehensive campaign finance reform. It is a solution for a 
small problem. We need to continue to fight for campaign finance reform 
that is broader and more comprehensive.
  I am hopeful that the full Senate will be able to debate 
comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation, including the Open 
and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000, this year. We have an 
opportunity to achieve something reasonable and responsible this year.
  Again, I would like to thank Senator McConnell for holding hearings 
in the Rules Committee on campaign finance reform and helping move the 
process along. I look forward to working with him and all Senators 
interested in advancing campaign finance reform.

                          ____________________