[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9008-9009]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 9008]]

                      NOMINATION OF BRADLEY SMITH

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President I also want to address the matter 
concerning Bradley Smith. I know there will be time allocated for his 
nomination later on this afternoon. I will simply take time as if in 
morning business using the quorum call to address his nomination at 
this time.
  As I have stated before, I have come to the conclusion that I must 
oppose this nomination. For me, this is not just a vote on a particular 
nominee with whom I don't agree, this vote is about whether or not we 
will prove the cynics in America wrong in demonstrating our commitment 
to strong campaign finance laws.
  Yesterday morning in the Washington Post, a Republican strategist who 
advises Governor Bush and the Republican National Committee said the 
following:

       There are no rules any more . . . There were few if any to 
     begin with but there are virtually none today. They know it, 
     we know it, everybody knows it.

  That wasn't Common Cause or Ralph Nader. That was an adviser to Texas 
Governor George W. Bush.
  Governor Bush's adviser is right. In many ways, we have entered the 
post-Federal Election Campaign Act era. It is the Wild West of ``soft 
money,'' issue advocacy ads and secret donors.
  The system is broken, and everybody knows it. A vote in favor of this 
nomination will simply confirm what we already know. It doesn't have to 
be this way. It shouldn't be this way.
  I know very few Members of the House and the Senate, of either party, 
who like our current campaign finance system. I know very few members 
of either party who prefer raising money to meeting with constituents 
and working on issues. I know very few members of either party who 
enjoy the fact that, every time they face reelection, the amount of 
money that has to be raised to be competitive has risen exponentially. 
And frankly, I know very few members of either party who don't resent 
the fact that so many of our legislative activities are scrutinized 
solely in the context of donations--which groups backed which said of 
the argument, and whose money prevailed.
  I am irritated by that. I am frustrated by that. That screen should 
not be the consideration. Even in the media, it shouldn't be the frame 
within which we view the debate on issues. But that is exactly how it 
is framed on the Sunday talk shows and in the newspapers.
  If we think the current system is unacceptable, that is nothing 
compared to the way our constituents feel.
  Our constituents don't like the current campaign finance system. They 
don't think it puts their interests first. But they also don't think 
we'll ever really change it.
  In fact, they are convinced of it. Poll after poll showed the 
American people responding in single digits--not double digits, but 
single digits--to the question: Do you think Congress will ever change 
the campaign finance laws? Overwhelmingly, over 90 percent say no.
  Today, it seems to me, the Senate can take the first step toward 
restoring at least a modicum of public trust in American political 
campaigns.
  One thing we can do to promote greater confidence in our electoral 
system is to ask a simple question before we confirm the men and women 
who will serve on the Federal Election Commission. It seems to me that 
fundamental question ought to be: whether those who may be interested 
in serving believe in the laws on the books today? Do you believe you 
can objectively enforce the laws? We are asked that question every time 
we are sworn in. Will you uphold the Constitution? It seems to me 
upholding the Constitution and all the statutes and the compendium of 
laws that have been created as a result of our fundamental freedoms 
established in the Constitution is a prerequisite for serving in public 
office.
  The men and women who, as Commissioners, would have the courage to 
issue clearer guidelines about what is permissible, and would have the 
courage to enforce those guidelines are the people whom we should 
encourage to serve on this and all bodies.
  Brad Smith, it is clear to me, does not fit that description. Rather 
than decrying the weaknesses of our current campaign laws, Mr. Smith 
has made a career out of criticizing the utility of our federal 
election law scheme. He has argued for the repeal of the Federal 
Elections Campaign Act, and he denies that money has a corrupting 
influence on the political system.
  Simply put, when it comes to campaign finance laws, Brad Smith is an 
anarchist. This is not the marshal who will save the day in Dodge City. 
Confirming Brad Smith is more like asking Billy the Kid to preserve 
peace.
  Let's be clear. Putting reform-minded FEC Commissioners in place is 
not enough by itself. We created the FEC and our inaction has created 
some of the problems within the FEC with respect to enforcing the laws 
we have today. Congress has a responsibility to act today to close 
loopholes, clarify the law, and do everything possible to stem the 
endless chase of money in which we all engage.
  We should pass McCain-Feingold immediately. We should end the abuse 
of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code immediately.
  Our Constitution doesn't stand in the way. The only thing standing in 
the way of our taking these modest steps is the reluctance to tamper 
with the system that we know and that has gotten us elected, even if we 
don't like it.
  We are worried our careers won't survive. It seems to me we should be 
more worried about whether faith in our system will survive.
  The trends are ominous. The soft money accounts in both parties' 
coffers are at record levels. In the first 15 months of the 2000 
election cycle, the national Democratic and Republican Party committees 
have raised over $160 million in soft money. Mr. President, $160 
million in corporate, union, and large individual contributions. Is 
there any real question why Americans are losing faith in our elections 
system?
  Every election cycle, the cost of campaigns goes up and the number of 
people who vote goes down. If we really want to increase voter 
participation, we have to address that reality. The reality is, there 
is simply too much money in politics. We all know, whether we admit it 
or not, that the current system is broken. We have a choice: Do we 
reduce the influence of special interests money in Washington? Do we 
want to wink and nod at the few flimsy campaign laws we have?
  Today we have an opportunity to answer that question. It seems to me 
that if we defeat Brad Smith's nomination and demand we be presented a 
nominee who will work with us to regain public confidence in our 
campaign laws, we will be taking the first step. Then we could pass 
campaign finance reform, the McCain-Feingold bill, and put an end to 
the flood of soft money into campaigns once and for all, and then shut 
down the so-called 527 loophole. Those three steps would go a long way 
in this election cycle, in this session of Congress, to do the right 
thing. They are things we can and should do. The currency of politics 
should be ideas, not cash.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Before I begin, I commend the distinguished Democratic 
leader, the minority leader, for his very eloquent statement and 
comments, particularly in regard to the need for this body to take up 
the issue of campaign finance reform. I could not agree more. We have 
had a series of hearings at the Rules Committee on the campaign finance 
system. We have heard from all sides, but we heard a little more from 
one side than another.
  I tried to arrange for our good friends, Senator Feingold and Senator 
McCain, to testify. I talked to my colleague from Wisconsin about this 
so we could hear about the McCain-Feingold bill. I hope our colleagues 
and others heard the remarks. This is a very important issue. Nothing 
is more fundamental than trying to get a handle on this process that 
has gone wild. It is absolutely out of control, and it is getting worse 
by the day.
  While there is obviously a great need to deal with other issues, 
nothing is more fundamental than how people get here, where their 
attention is spent,

[[Page 9009]]

their time and effort, how it is allocated. Until we change the system, 
in my view, it will only get worse.
  I applaud my leader for his comments. I know he reflects the views of 
the overwhelming majority on this side of the aisle and some on the 
other side. More importantly, I think the Senator reflects the views of 
the American public. There may be differences on details, but 
fundamentally the American public understands this system is not 
working well at all. The point that we spend more money each year on 
campaigns, while voter participation seems to be heading in the 
opposite direction, paints a very clear picture of what the American 
public thinks. I associate myself with those remarks and commend the 
Senator for those remarks.

                          ____________________