[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9678-9679]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, this Senate has been engaged in more 
than a decade of discussion about reforming the campaign finance system 
in the United States. Indeed, the Senate has not only debated the issue 
but has focused attention on McCain-Feingold, attention that brought 
about a national debate about how to change this system. The Senate may 
be on the verge of yet another discussion in the coming days.
  I take the floor today because, while I praise Senator McCain and 
Senator Feingold and, indeed, once again pledge my vote for their 
reform legislation, I believe it is a disservice for the Senate to 
believe there are no other contributions that can be made to solving 
the campaign finance dilemma.
  McCain-Feingold, and the former comprehensive legislation, would be 
the best answer. It is not the only answer. There are a variety of very 
real problems to enacting this legislation that begin with legitimate 
constitutional problems, decisions by the Federal courts, legitimate 
differences on philosophical questions about how to conduct elections 
in America, and some real political problems. The reality is that 
whether I believe in McCain-Feingold or not, whether the entire 
Democratic caucus votes for it or not, it is not going to be enacted. 
That leads many to believe that simply, then, nothing will happen; 
there can be no change because there are not enough votes.
  I believe that is not necessary, that does not have to be the final 
word.
  Yesterday's primary election in the State of New Jersey, now setting 
a record of $31 million in expenditures in a single partisan primary, 
again focuses the Nation on the problem. Our campaign finance laws in 
the United States are recognized in the breach. There is no national 
governing system of campaign finance laws. They are misunderstood, 
violated, contradictory, and incomplete. Regrettably, there is a 
failure to look at the contributions that others can make and the 
alternatives that exist in law given the current deadlock in this 
Senate acting on campaign finance.
  Indeed, to listen to the network anchors each evening--Mr. Rather, 
Mr. Brokaw, and Mr. Jennings--one would believe there are no other 
answers; this is simply a case of political candidates raising as much 
as can be raised in a complete vacuum of other considerations.
  I believe that until this Congress acts and there is a majority for 
campaign finance reform, there are things that others can do and, 
indeed, it begins with the media itself. The costs of these campaigns 
are staggering, but I have never met a candidate for political office 
who wanted to raise money beyond what was actually required to win the 
race. It is not only a question of how much is being raised; it is how 
much the campaigns cost.
  As my friend, Mitch McConnell, has pointed out on a variety of 
occasions, America is not suffering from too much political discussion. 
There is not too much debate. Campaigns are simply too expensive. That 
begins with an analysis of where the money is going.
  In New York City today, a 30-second prime time advertisement can cost 
$50,000. In Chicago, the same advertisement is $20,000. A 30-second ad 
on the late news in New York is $6,000; in Chicago, $4,500. The effect 
of this is obvious.
  Year in and year out, the networks charge more money for the same 
advertisements for the use of the public airwaves, and an endless 
spiral of costs is driving campaign fundraising in America. Indeed, the 
same network anchors who rail against campaign fundraising almost every 
night are the principal beneficiaries of the campaign fundraiser. I do 
not know any candidate in America who wants to raise this money 
voluntarily if they had a choice. There is no other means of 
communicating with the American people but to buy network television 
advertising, and I have never seen the cost of advertising go down.
  The New York Times estimates that the 2000 elections in the United 
States will cost $3 billion. That is a 50-percent increase over 1996. 
Mr. President, $600 million of that advertising, or 20 percent, will be 
spent directly on network television advertising. That is a 40-percent 
increase over what the networks absorbed only 4 years ago.
  Isolating the Presidential campaign in 1996, President Clinton and 
Senator Dole spent $113 million on television ads. Half of all the 
money they spent went to network television. This is done for a reason. 
It is not only the spiraling cost of network advertising far beyond the 
rate of inflation; far beyond the rate of increase of the cost of 
anything else in political campaigns is the networks themselves. They 
are the principal generating force in the rising cost of campaign 
finance.
  They are part of the problem not in one dimension but in two. From 
Labor Day through election day in 1998, ABC, CBS, and NBC aired 73 
percent fewer election stories than they did in the same period in 
1994. The amount of advertising is going up and the cost is going up 
because candidates' ability to communicate with the American people 
through legitimate news stories is going down. It is not going down 
marginally; it is not going down significantly; it is going down 
overwhelmingly. There is a 73 percent reduction in the amount of 
legitimate news stories aired over the public airwaves to inform the 
American electorate.
  What, Mr. Rather, Mr. Jennings, and Mr. Brokaw, are candidates for 
elective

[[Page 9679]]

office in the Democratic and Republican Parties to do? The amount of 
legitimate free news stories to inform the electorate is in a state of 
collapse. The number of Americans reading newspapers is declining. 
There is a similar reduction in the amount of newsprint for legitimate 
news stories, and your rates are skyrocketing.
  The result is clear: Costs of campaigns are soaring. Indeed, there is 
a solution. The most obvious solution is we could change the national 
campaign finance laws. For constitutional reasons, philosophical 
reasons, and political reasons I have suggested, that is not about to 
happen. I suggest the networks, therefore, look at themselves and their 
own ability unilaterally to reduce the cost of advertising on the 
public airwaves. After all, the public airwaves are not their own 
province. It is not something for which they paid and own exclusively. 
These are the public airwaves, licensed to ABC, CBS, and NBC, with a 
public responsibility to the American people, a responsibility they do 
not meet.
  No other democracy in the Western world allows private corporations 
to use the public airwaves exclusively for their own benefit charging 
candidates for national office what approach commercial rates to 
communicate with the people themselves. Use the people's airwaves, 
charge exorbitant rates to candidates for public office to communicate 
in a national election--it would not happen in Canada, and it does not 
happen in Britain, Germany, Italy, or France. It happens nowhere, but 
it happens here.
  While we wait for this Congress to act, I challenge the network 
executives: Be part of the solution, not the principal cause of the 
problem. Act unilaterally until this Congress can act. But they do not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator from Nevada yield me an additional 5 
minutes?
  Mr. REID. According to Senator Warner, we have 45 minutes. We have 
used 31. That will be appropriate. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from New Jersey be allowed to speak for another 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  One can recognize why the networks are in this extraordinary 
hypocrisy. They are for campaign finance reform. They are against 
spending in national political campaigns increasing. Indeed, we all 
share that concern, but they are also the principal beneficiaries.
  In 1998, automotive ads were 25 percent of all national advertising. 
Retail sales were 15 percent. Political advertising was 10 percent of 
all revenues. They are offended at the cost of national political 
campaigns, but it is the third largest source of their funding.
  Similarly, it is not a stable problem. Political ads are a rapidly 
rising, indeed, the largest increasing, source of network revenues, 
from 3 percent in 1990 to approaching 10 percent of all network 
revenues in the year 2000. What an extraordinary hypocrisy.
  But it gets worse. They are for campaign finance reform, but they 
want the advertising revenues. What could be worse? The National 
Association of Broadcasters last year spent $260,000 in PAC money and 
soft money, often supporting candidates who are against campaign 
finance reform, and hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying to 
protect their right to use the public airwaves at retail costs for 
people who need to communicate with the American electorate.
  I applaud Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for coming to this 
floor and fighting for campaign finance reform. I applaud my colleagues 
who have the courage to stand for it and fight for it. I always will. 
But changing the American political system in America to reduce money 
in the equation is not our fight; it is everybody's fight.
  I could understand it if the networks were to be neutral, but to 
engage in this headlong daily criticism of the process while they 
profit by it is inexcusable.
  My friends in the networks, join the fight. Help us reform the 
system. Lead by example. Reduce the costs of the public airwaves for 
the public good. Allow candidates to communicate ideas without 
exorbitant costs. And meet your public responsibilities by dedicating 
more--not less--time to discussions of the issues. Make that a 
legitimate discussion of real choices before the American people--not 
horse races, an accounting simply of expenditures in races. Be 
positive, be responsible, and be part of the process of change.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________