[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17049-17050]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 17049]]

                    TELEVISED POLITICAL ADVERTISING

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to address the Senate today on 
the question of the national elections and the rising interest by the 
American people in campaign finance reform. There is no better time to 
debate the intricacies of how we are financing and conducting national 
elections than


in the midst of the very contests themselves.
  Over the next 8 weeks, candidates for Federal office will spend more 
money than at anytime in American history to attempt to persuade the 
American people in the casting of their votes. There is one simple, 
compelling reason for this spiraling increase in campaign expenditures, 
and that is the cost of televised political advertising, the cost of 
being on the national television networks.
  This Congress has tangentially dealt with some of the campaign 
finance problems. It is obviously positive that Congress tightened 
regulations for the disclosure of contributions for section 527 
organizations. It was a small victory.
  We have, through the years, increased the number of votes in this 
institution, of which I am one, for comprehensive reform as envisioned 
by Mr. Feingold and Mr. McCain. But indeed, even if both of these 
provisions were enacted, the pressure for increased expenditures would 
not abate. With all of these reforms in place, the pressure to raise 
more money and spend more money would still dominate the system, which 
leads to the proposition that to deal with the costs of advertising on 
television, either this Congress must go beyond the current debate on 
campaign finance reform or others outside of the Congress must become 
part of the solution.
  Ironically, the principal critique of the campaign finance system is 
coming from the very people who are driving its costs--the television 
networks. A 30-second prime time advertisement in the New York City 
market now costs $50,000. In Chicago, the same advertisement can cost 
more than $20,000. This is the heart of the problem.
  The New York Times estimates the 2000 elections will cost $3 billion. 
This is a 50-percent increase over the 1996 elections. And $600 
million, or 20 percent of those expenditures, will be on political 
advertisements on television. This represents a 40-percent increase in 
only 4 years.
  During the Presidential primaries, both Gore and Bush spent 46 
percent of all of their campaign expenditures just on television ads, 
twice as much as any other category of expenditures. The evidence is 
overwhelming. What is driving this increase in expenditures, hence 
requiring the raising of these exorbitant, even obscene, amounts of 
money, is the cost of television advertising. It could not be clearer.
  Potentially the most expensive Senate race in American history is 
going to be the current Senate race in New Jersey. A study by the 
Alliance for Better Campaigns focused on last June's primary in my 
State. It came to the following conclusions:
  Local television stations in New York and Philadelphia took in a 
record $21 million from New Jersey Senate candidates, but these same 
television affiliates of the networks devoted an average of only 13 
seconds per night in the final 2 weeks of the Senate campaign to actual 
news.
  This chart illustrates what was available to the people of my State 
in choosing a Senator. In New York, a CBS affiliate--this is in the 
final 2 weeks of the campaign, only the last 14 days--devoted 10 
seconds to coverage of news on the campaign. In Philadelphia, one 
network gave an average of 1 second per night to actual news about the 
campaign.
  It is, therefore, not unpredictable that this would lead to 
candidates unable to communicate with voters through the news spending 
exorbitant amounts of money in advertisements. Indeed, during the final 
2 weeks of the New Jersey Senate primary, viewers in Philadelphia and 
New York markets were 10 times more likely to receive a communication 
from a candidate through a paid advertisement than they were through an 
actual news story. They were 10 times more likely, if they were 
watching the news, to see an ad rather than actually seeing a report 
from a reporter on the campaign.
  Paid advertisements have come to dominate sources of information over 
actual news reports in American political campaigns.
  During the last Presidential primary season, it was much the same. 
The typical local television station aired less than 1 minute of 
candidates discussing issues each night. During the month before the 
Super Tuesday primary on March 7, the national networks aired a nightly 
average of 36 seconds. The people of the United States were choosing 
their two nominees in the major national primary, and for the preceding 
month the television networks devoted 36 seconds to discussing issues. 
Of the 22 televised Presidential debates held during this year's 
primary season, 2 were aired on network television. ABC, CBS, and NBC 
reduced by two-thirds the amount of time that was then devoted to the 
national political conventions.
  This is the source of some obvious changes in the American political 
culture. Not only is this collapse of news coverage leading candidates 
to raise more money and buy more advertisements, it is obviously 
changing how the American people make their judgments.
  On average, since 1952, 22 percent of voters have said they decided 
how to vote based on their observation of political conventions. This 
is also in a state of collapse. People made judgments on hard news, 
they made judgments on political conventions, they watched for sources 
of news that were unbiased or professional, and that is being replaced 
by political advertisements, not by choice but because there is no 
choice.
  It is extraordinary, given this state of affairs, that the principal 
force driving allegedly for campaign finance reform has been in the 
media.
  The networks reduced the amount of news coverage, radically increased 
the cost of advertising, and then complained about campaign financing. 
It is an extraordinary state of affairs.
  Indeed, at this point, the television networks have political 
advertising as the third most lucrative source of their revenues--only 
behind the automobile companies and retail advertisers.
  Indeed, buying air time for political ads is now 10 percent of the 
revenues of the television networks. Hence, it will become clear why 
they may complain about the cost of political campaigns, 
appropriately--because we all want reform in this institution more than 
they--but one can see why they are leading by complaint, not by 
example, in doing anything about the costs. They are themselves living 
off of and profiting by the system. And it is accelerating.
  In the last decade, the percentage of political ads as a portion of 
total revenue of the television networks has gone from 3 percent of all 
revenue in political ads in 1992 to 9.2 percent this year and rising.
  During the last cycle, network broadcasters accepted $531 million in 
political advertising. This is a 33-percent increase since 1996 and 
over a 110-percent increase since a decade ago. It isn't just that they 
are charging exorbitant money; it is rising in multiples every year. 
They are driving the cost of American political campaigns.
  Candidates have been living, for the last 25 years, with the same 
$1,000 limit in raising hard Federal dollars--$1,000 per American per 
election. But the networks are up 110 percent in how much they are 
taking in, meaning that candidates are spending more and more time, 
going to more and more people, raising more and more money to 
communicate with the same voters.
  I do not know how we get this Congress to enact campaign finance 
reform. I trust at some point it will happen. I do not know what else 
the Democratic Party can do. We have had 45 seats in the Senate for the 
last 2 years, and every single Democrat has voted for campaign finance 
reform.
  But even if we were to have succeeded in those votes, it would not 
have solved this problem. We would limit how much would be raised, 
perhaps, but we would not deal with these expenditures. Ultimately, it 
is these expenditures that must be addressed.
  As my friend, Senator McConnell, stated many times on the floor of 
this Senate, the Nation does not suffer from too much political debate. 
It probably suffers from too little. If we lower the amount that can be 
raised, and the networks keep raising the amount that is required to be 
spent, all we are going

[[Page 17050]]

to accomplish is less discussion of issues. If the networks were 
devoting more time to the impartial discussion of issues, debates, news 
coverage, conventions, it would be a good substitute for political 
advertising. But the amount of news coverage is collapsing while the 
costs go up.
  If we control the expenditures, the net result will simply be this: 
The American people, making vital decisions about the Nation's future, 
with less and less and less information.
  The hypocrisy of this gets worse. It is not just that networks charge 
more money and have less news coverage. For those of us who believe 
there should be a requirement for free or reduced-rate air time over 
the public airwaves, to reduce the need to raise this money, guess who 
is working against us. The very people who employ Mr. Brokaw, Mr. 
Rather, and Mr. Jennings, who, every night, are complaining about the 
cost of political advertising. Their employers are lobbying to stop the 
reforms. The National Association of Broadcasters, the lobbying arm of 
the television networks, spent $2.8 million lobbying Congress in 1998.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. In the year 2000, they have already spent $1.4 
million.
  As the Washington Post reported on May 2, when it comes to helping 
solve the political fundraising problem, the broadcasting industry 
``doesn't see beyond its own bottom line.'' Exactly.
  They are for campaign finance reform, unless they have to make a 
contribution. They are the principal component of this problem. Every 
person in this institution is spending time raising money when they 
should be working on legislation--compromising public confidence in the 
Congress by raising exorbitant amounts of money to feed the television 
networks that do not meet their own responsibility in reporting the 
news, no less in reducing the costs.
  This is everybody's problem. The principal burden of solving it is in 
this Senate. I do not excuse that. The principal burden is here. We 
should be requiring free or low-cost television. But it is not our 
problem alone. Everyone in America can make a contribution to this. And 
it begins with the networks. You have a public license. The airwaves of 
the United States belong to the American people. In no other democracy 
in the world does the cost approach what we require for political 
candidates to raise money to use the public airwaves to communicate 
with our own constituents--sold at a profit.
  I believe this Senate should require the FCC to have the networks 
offer a reasonable amount of free or reduced-rate advertising to 
candidates for Federal office as a matter of law. But until we do, the 
networks, as a matter of public responsibility, need to evaluate how 
much time they are devoting to political news so the American people 
are informed, recognizing that is the only way for democracy to reach 
sound judgments, and to unilaterally meet their responsibility and 
reduce these costs unless or until this Congress takes action. I 
believe this is the heart of the campaign finance problem.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, once again, for 
allowing me the time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________