[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2068-2069]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when I was a little boy, I lived in the town 
of Searchlight, NV. One of my brothers, who is 10 years older than I, 
worked for Standard Stations. He was assigned to a place called 
Ashfork, AZ, which to me could have been as far away as New York City 
because I had never traveled anyplace.
  When I was a young boy of 11 years, he allowed me to spend a week 
with him in Ashfork, AZ. My brother had a girlfriend. The thing I 
remember most about my journey to Ashfork, AZ. The girlfriend had a 
brother about my age, or a year or so older. We would play games. I 
never won a single game, not because I should not have, but because he 
kept changing the rules in the middle of the game. It does not matter 
what the game was; as I started to win, he would change the rules. So I 
returned from Ashfork never having won anything, even though I should 
have won everything.
  The reason I mention that today is that is kind of what campaign 
finance is all about in America. The rules keep changing, not for the 
better, but for the worse. They are complicated. They are impossible to 
understand.
  I was recently criticized because I did not disclose the names of 
people who gave to my leadership fund. Why didn't I? The reason I did 
not is that I did not legally have to. The most important reason, 
however, is that people who gave to my fund said: Do you have to 
disclose my name? And I said no, which was true. That is the law; I did 
not have to.
  Over the last several weeks, there have been a number of people 
writing about the fact I have not disclosed who gave me the money and 
how much it was. I made a decision that even though it was unnecessary 
legally for me to do that, I would disclose those names. I could not do 
that, however, until I went back to the people whom I told I would not 
make a disclosure and got their permission to do so. I am happy to 
report I was able to do that. Everyone understood, and they said: Go 
ahead, I would rather you did not do it, but you have told me why you 
have to do it; go ahead and do that.
  That goes right to the heart of what is wrong with the campaign 
finance system in America today. There is no end to what is politically 
correct, but yet if a person follows the legal rules, it still may not 
be politically correct. It is a Catch-22. No matter what one does in 
the system, it is wrong; people of goodwill trying to do the right 
thing are criticized.
  We have to do something. Everything I have done with my Searchlight 
fund, as it is called, is totally legal. I have not done anything 
wrong. It has been checked with lawyers and accountants. In fact, when 
people came to me and said, do you have to disclose my name? I checked 
to make sure I was giving them the right information when I said no.
  I thought it was important to follow the law, and I have done that. 
It was important for me to keep my word. Where I grew up, there was not 
a church and there was not a courthouse; everything was done based on 
people's word. If you shook hands with someone or you told them you 
were going to do something, that was the way it had to be, and that is 
the way I felt about disclosing these names.
  It was very hard for me and somewhat embarrassing to go back to these 
people, and say: May I have your permission to disclose your name, even 
if you did not want it done? Even though they consented, it was not an 
easy thing to do.
  I have disclosed these names and the money. The problem is the system 
is simply broken. There are traps set up all along the way for people 
who are trying to comply with the law. If we comply with the law, 
sometimes we lose the confidence of the public, who come to believe we 
are all in the grip of wealthy special interests whose cash carves out 
ordinary Americans from the system.
  Under our current system, money is the largest single factor, some 
say, in winning a Federal political election, and a lot of times that 
is true. The dilemma we face is: Too little money, and you may very 
well lose your political position; too much money, and the public 
thinks you are in someone's pocket, for lack of a better description.
  I finished an election last year. The State of Nevada at the time of 
that election had a population of fewer than 2 million people. My 
opponent and I spent the same amount in State party money and funds 
from our campaigns. We each spent over $10 million for a total of $20 
million in a State of less than 2 million people. That does not count 
all the money spent in that election because there were independent 
expenditures also. We do not know the amount because there is no legal 
reason they be disclosed, but I estimate another $3 million at least.
  In the State of Nevada, a State of fewer than 2 million people, we 
had spent $23 million. If that is not an example of why we need 
campaign finance reform, there is not an example. We need to do 
something now.
  I have talked about the State of Nevada, but there are other States 
in which more money is spent. It is not unusual or uncommon to hear 
about races costing more money than the $20 million spent in the State 
of Nevada.

[[Page 2069]]

Most of those States have more population, but that is still lot of 
money.
  We know presently there is a controversy in the election that is 
going to be held in New York tomorrow. Why? In the Republican primary, 
there has been an independent expenditure of $2.5 million berating John 
McCain for his environmental record and for not being supportive of 
breast cancer research.
  Every candidate who is running for President of the United States is 
for breast cancer research. I have already given one example of how 
much it costs in the State of Nevada and why we need to do something 
about campaign finance reform. Certainly, in New York, because of 
independent expenditures, we need to do something. They are gross; they 
are absurd; they are obscene--$2.5 million to distort the record of a 
fine person, John McCain, indicating that he is opposed to breast 
cancer research. I am not going to belabor the point and talk about his 
environmental record, but if one compares it to whom he is running 
against, it is not that bad. These independent expenditures are wrong, 
and we should do something about them.
  I repeat, our current system is broken and it needs to be fixed.
  I have spoken many times in this chamber, going back more than 12 
years, about the need to reform the system. I have sponsored and 
cosponsored many bills for reforming the system, including variations 
of the McCain-Feingold bill. These bills have never even had a decent 
debate in this body, let alone passed. We have never been able to 
invoke cloture.
  Those of us who represent our States and want to accomplish good and 
meaningful things, who want to make this country work better, have to 
work within the system the way it is, not the way we wish it were.
  As the example shows that I just gave, that is difficult. I follow 
the law; someone comes to me and says: I want to give you some money. 
Do you have to disclose it? I say: No. The answer is accurate legally, 
but I later have to go to that person and say: Well, is it OK if I 
disclose this?
  This is a bad system and it should be changed.
  The criticism that has occurred as a result of campaign finance 
generally should cause us to do a better job. We at least should debate 
the issues, and ultimately change the law. Should we have campaign 
ceilings? Do you only spend so much money? Shouldn't we shorten the 
election cycle somewhat? Can't we do better than what we have? Can't we 
make it easier for people to register to vote?
  I repeat, for the fourth time, the system is broken. It is up to us 
to save it before people are totally turned off by American politics.
  I yield the floor and apologize to my friends for taking so much 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Before he leaves, I commend the distinguished minority 
whip for speaking out on some of these excesses in campaign finance. He 
mentions his small State spending more than $20 million.
  Mr. REID. If I can interrupt and ask the Senator to yield, in my 
State we only have two media markets, only two places to spend the 
money.
  Mr. WYDEN. I think the Senator makes an extremely important point. I 
recall in the campaign with my friend and colleague, Senator Gordon 
Smith, to succeed former Senator Packwood--we are from a small State as 
well, a little bigger than Nevada--Senator Smith and I, between us, 
went through pretty close to $10 million in about 5 months.
  Before the minority whip leaves the floor, I want to tell him I so 
appreciate him speaking out on this issue.
  Certainly in Europe, for example, they are doing some of the things 
the distinguished minority whip is talking about: shortening the 
election cycle trying to generate interest in the elections because the 
campaign is over a short period of time. I think we can do that in this 
country and require, for example, that the campaign funds be disclosed 
online, which many of our colleagues have proposed on both sides of the 
aisle.
  I want the Senator to know, before he leaves the floor, I very much 
appreciate his leadership in speaking out on this campaign finance 
issue, because we saw in Oregon much of what the Senator saw in Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Oregon, I think one of the things 
that is happening in Oregon is exemplary; that is, people can vote at 
home. That was an experiment in the Senator's election. We were all 
worried it would not work out right, but it worked out fine. But that 
is something we need to do: Make it easier for people to vote.
  We have a Presidential election that is heating up now. But you know, 
people are talking about getting ready to run in the next election 
already. This is not good for the system. As the Senator has said, we 
have to do something to shorten the election cycle so people have more 
condensed elections.
  There are many different ways to communicate now. We have all this 
cable, and we have to look for a better way of doing it, and making it 
so money is not the predominant factor in the political race.
  Mr. WYDEN. What the minority whip has essentially said is: We have 
what amounts to a permanent campaign. You have the election the first 
Tuesday in November; people sleep in on Wednesday; and then the whole 
thing starts all over again on Thursday.
  It is time, in effect, to turn off this treadmill and, heaven forbid, 
come to the floor and talk about issues, such as prescription drugs, 
which I have tried to focus on for a number of months now. Many of our 
colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, want to talk about that, and 
the Patients' Bill of Rights, and education. To the extent that 
campaign finance dominates so much of the American political focus, it 
detracts from those issues.
  I commend the minority whip. I thank him for his excellent 
presentation.

                          ____________________