[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3852-3890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, S. 27 is discharged 
from the Committee on Rules and Administration, and the clerk will 
report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 27) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time 
between 1 and 3:15 p.m. today be equally divided for debate only 
between the chairman and ranking member. I further ask unanimous 
consent that at 3:15 today I be recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object--I will 
not object--that would not in any way preclude Members from coming down 
for opening statements. We want to make sure everyone can make their 
opening statements. I know there are a lot of Members who would like to 
make opening statements on the bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I believe that is what the time is 
for. I concur with the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. There may be more than 2 hours, and Members may come down 
afterwards since some Members are coming back late this afternoon. I 
would like to make that clear.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, reserving the right to object--I will not 
object--I urge Members who have opening statements to make on this bill 
to come to the floor between now and 3:15.

[[Page 3853]]

Obviously, later in the day during consideration of amendments Members 
can make whatever statements they wish. But to have some coherency to 
the remarks, this would be the appropriate time to do so. We urge 
Members to come to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I am 
wondering if anyone knows that there is going to be a vote this 
afternoon. That was talked about last week.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is my understanding that there was 
a plan to have a vote at 6:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to any of the requests? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we are in business for opening 
statements, if anyone would like to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I say to my distinguished colleague, 
my statement would be 5 minutes long.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. As always, I defer to my commander on this, the senior 
Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend, Senator Feingold, for 
his partnership and for his friendship.
  Today we begin the first open Senate debate in many years on whether 
or not we should substantially reform our campaign finance laws. I want 
to thank Senators Lott and Daschle for their commitment to allowing a 
fair and open debate, and for their assurance that the Senate will be 
allowed to exercise its will on this matter and vote on the legislation 
that emerges at the end of the amendment process.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, may I ask my friend to yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. No.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am into my statement. After 5 minutes, I will be 
privileged to do so.
  Madam President, I want to thank as well, Senator McConnell, our 
steadfast and all-too-capable opponent, who honestly and bravely 
defends his beliefs, for agreeing to the terms of this debate, a debate 
that we hope may settle many of the questions, held by advocates and 
opponents of reform, that have yet to be resolved by this body.
  I, of course, want to thank from the bottom of my heart, all the co-
sponsors of this legislation for their steadfast support, and for 
proving to be far more able and persuasive advocates of our cause than 
I have had the skill to be.
  Most particularly, I want to thank my partner in this long endeavor, 
Senator Russ Feingold, a man of rare courage and decency, who has 
risked his own career and ambitions for the sake of his principles. To 
me, Madam President, that seem a pretty good definition of patriotism.
  I want to thank the President of the United States for engaging in 
this debate, and for his oft stated willingness to seek a fair 
resolution of our differences on this issue for the purpose of 
providing the people we serve greater confidence in the integrity of 
their public institutions. Too often, as this debate approached, our 
differences on this issue have been viewed as an extension of our 
former rivalry. I regret that very much. For he is not my rival. He is 
my President, and he retains my confidence that the country we love 
will be a better place because of his leadership.
  Lastly, I wish to thank every Member of the Senate--especially 
Senator Hagel, my friend yesterday, my friend today, my friend 
tomorrow--for their cooperation in allowing this debate to occur so 
early in what will surely be one of the busier congressional sessions 
in recent memory. I thank all my colleagues for their patience, a 
patience that has been tried by my own numerous faults far too often, 
as I beg their indulgence again. Please accept my assurance that no 
matter our various differences on this issue, and my own failings in 
arguing those differences, my purpose is limited solely to enacting 
those reforms that we believe are necessary to defend the government's 
public trust, and not to seek a personal advantage at any colleague's 
expense.
  I sincerely hope that our debate, contentious though it will be, will 
also be free of acrimony and rancor, and that the quality of our 
deliberations will impress the public as evidence of the good faith 
that sustains our resolve.
  The many sponsors of this legislation have but one purpose: to enact 
fair, bipartisan campaign finance reform that seeks no special 
advantage for one party or another, but that helps change the public's 
widespread belief that politicians have no greater purpose than our own 
reelection. And to that end, we will respond disproportionately to the 
needs of those interests that can best finance our ambition, even if 
those interests conflict with the public interest and with the 
governing philosophy we once sought office to advance.
  The sad truth is that most Americans do believe that we conspire to 
hold onto every single political advantage we have, lest we jeopardize 
our incumbency by a single lost vote. Most Americans believe that we 
would let this Nation pay any price, bear any burden for the sake of 
securing our own ambitions, no matter how injurious the effect might be 
to the national interest. And who can blame them? As long as the 
wealthiest Americans and richest organized interests can make the six 
and seven figure donations to political parties and gain the special 
access to power that such generosity confers on the donor, most 
Americans will dismiss the most virtuous politician's claim of 
patriotism.
  The opponents of reform will ask if the public so distrusts us and so 
dislikes our current campaign finance system why is there no great cry 
in the country to throw us all out of office? they will contend--and 
this point is disputable--that no one has ever lost or won an election 
because of their opposition to or support for campaign finance reform. 
Yet public opinion polls consistently show that the vast majorities of 
our constituents want reform, and believe our current system of 
campaign financing is terribly harmful to the public good. But, the 
opponents observe, they do not rank reform among the national 
priorities they expect their Government to urgently address. That is 
true, but why is it so?
  Simply put, they don't believe it will ever be done. They don't 
expect us to adopt real reforms and they defensively keep their hopes 
from being raised and their inevitable disappointment from being worse.
  The public just doesn't believe that either an incumbent opposing 
reform or a challenger supporting it will honestly work to repair this 
system once he or she has been elected under the rules, or lack 
thereof, that govern it. They distrust both. They believe that whether 
we publicly advocate or oppose reform, we are all working either openly 
or deceitfully to prevent even the slightest repair of a system they 
believe is corrupt.
  So they avoid investing too much hope in the possibility that we 
could surprise them. And they accommodate their disappointment by 
basing their pride in their country on their own patriotism and that of 
their neighbors, on the civilization that they have built and defended, 
and not on the hope that politicians will ever take courage from our 
convictions and not our campaign treasuries.
  Our former colleague, Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, recently 
reminded me of a poll that Time magazine has conducted over many years. 
In 1961, 76 percent of Americans said yes to the question, ``Do you 
trust your government to do the right thing?'' This year, only 19 
percent of Americans still believe that. Many events have occurred in 
the last 30 years to fuel their distrust. Assassinations, Vietnam, 
Watergate, and many subsequent public scandals have squandered the 
public's faith in us, and have led more and more Americans from even 
taking responsibility for our election. But surely frequent campaign 
finance scandals and

[[Page 3854]]

their real or assumed connection to misfeasance by public officials are 
a major part of the problem.
  Why should they not be? Any voter with a healthy understanding of the 
flaws of human nature and who notices the vast amounts of money 
solicited and received by politicians cannot help but believe that we 
are unduly influenced by our benefactors' generosity.
  Why can't we all agree to this very simple, very obvious truth: that 
campaign contributions from a single source that run into the hundreds 
of thousands or millions of dollars are not healthy to a democracy? Is 
that not self-evident? Is it to the people, Madam President. It is to 
the people.
  Some will argue that there isn't too much money in politics. They 
will argue there is not enough. They will argue that soft money, the 
huge, unregulated revenue stream into political party coffers, is 
necessary to ensure the strength of the two-party system. I find this 
last point hard to understand considering that in the 15 years or so 
that soft money has become the dominant force in our elections the 
parties have grown appreciably weaker as independents become the fast 
growing voter registration group in the country.
  Some will observe that we spend more money to advertise toothpaste 
and yogurt in this country than to conduct campaigns for public office. 
I don't care, Madam President. I am not concerned with the costs of 
toothpaste and yogurt. We aren't selling those commodities to the 
public. We are offering our integrity and our principles, and the means 
we use to market them should not cause the consumer to doubt the value 
of the product.
  Some will argue that the first amendment of the Constitution renders 
unlawful any restrictions on the right of anyone to raise unlimited 
amounts of money for political campaigns. Which drafter of the 
Constitution believed or anticipated that the first amendment would be 
exercised in political campaigns by the relatively few at the expense 
of the many?
  We have restrictions now that have been upheld by the courts; they 
have simply been circumvented by the rather recent exploitation of the 
so-called soft money loophole. Teddy Roosevelt signed a law banning 
corporate contributions. Harry Truman signed a law banning 
contributions from labor unions. In 1974, we enacted a law to limit 
contributions from individuals and political action committees directly 
to the candidates. Those laws were not found unconstitutional and 
vacated by the courts. They were judged lawful for the purpose of 
preventing political corruption or the appearance of corruption.
  Those laws were rendered ineffectual not unlawful by the ingenuity of 
politicians determined to get around them who used an allowance in the 
law that placed no restrictions on what once was intended essentially 
to be a building fund for the State parties. That fund has run to the 
billions of dollars, and I haven't noticed the buildings that serve as 
our local and State party headquarters becoming quite that magnificent.
  Ah, say the opponents, if politicians will always find a way of 
circumventing campaign finance laws, what is the point of passing new 
laws? Do I believe that any law will prove effective over time? No, I 
do not. Were we to pass this legislation today, I am sure that at some 
time in the future, hopefully many years from now, we will need to 
address some new circumvention. So what. So we have to debate this 
matter again. Is that such a burden on us or our successors that we 
should simply be indifferent to the abundant evidence of at least the 
appearance of corruption and to the public's ever growing alienation 
from the Government of this great Nation, problems that this system has 
engendered? I hope not, Madam President. I hope not.
  The supporters of this legislation have had differences about what 
constitutes the ideal reform, but we have subordinated those 
differences to the common good, in the hope that we might enact those 
basic reforms that Members of both parties could agree on. It is not 
perfect reform. There is no perfect reform. It could be improved, and 
we hope it will be during this debate. We have tried to exclude any 
provision that could be viewed as placing one party or the other at a 
disadvantage. Our intention is to pass the best, most balanced, most 
important reforms we can. All we ask of our colleagues is that they 
approach this debate with the same purpose in mind.
  I beg my colleagues not to propose amendments intended only to kill 
this legislation or to seize on any change in this legislation that 
serves our basic goal as an excuse to withdraw your support. The 
sponsors want to have votes on all relevant issues involved in campaign 
finance reform and will support amendments that strengthen the 
bipartisan majority in favor of reform and that do not prevent us from 
achieving our fundamental goal of substantially reducing the influence 
of big money on our political system.
  If we cannot agree on every aspect of reform; if we have differences 
about what constitutes genuine and necessary reform, and we hold those 
differences honestly--so be it. Let us try to come to terms with those 
differences fairly. That is what the sponsors of this legislation have 
tried to do, and we welcome anyone's help to improve upon our efforts 
as long as that help is sincere and intended to reach the common goal 
of genuine campaign finance reform.
  I hope we will, for the moment, forget our partisan imperatives and 
take a risk for our country. Perhaps that is a hopelessly naive 
aspiration. It need not be. I think the good men and women I am 
privileged to serve with are perfectly capable of surprising a 
skeptical public, and maybe ourselves, by taking on this challenge to 
the honor of the profession of which we are willing and proud members.
  Real campaign finance reform will not cure all public cynicism about 
modern politics. Nor will it completely free politics from influence 
peddling or the appearance of it. But I believe it will cause many 
Americans who are at present quite disaffected from the machinations of 
politics to begin to see that their elected officials value their 
reputations more than their incumbency. And maybe that recognition will 
cause them to exercise their franchise more faithfully, to identify 
more closely with political parties, to raise their expectations for 
the work we do. Maybe it will even encourage more of them to seek 
public office, not for the privileges bestowed upon election winners, 
but for the honor of serving a great Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains of the original 
request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty minutes remain under the original 
request.
  Mr. DODD. My colleague from Wisconsin, I believe, yielded time to the 
Senator from Arizona. Of the 30 minutes that were yielded to the 
Senator from Wisconsin, 15 minutes remain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield my time to the Senator from Connecticut and 
then ask if I could speak after him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, today the Senate begins debate on a 
defining issue in American politics--the question of whether unlimited, 
unregulated contributions to political campaigns are forwarding 
democracy or undermining it.
  In this Senator's mind, the answer to that question is quite clear: 
no democracy can thrive--if indeed survive--if it is awash in massive 
quantities of money:
  Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of 
average means; money that creates the appearance that a wealthy few 
have a disproportionate say over public policy; and money that places 
extensive demands on the time of candidates--time that they and the 
voters believe is better spent discussing and debating the issues of 
the day.
  The McCain-Feingold legislation before the Senate today is a good 
first start toward reform of a campaign system that is broken, plain 
and simple. I,

[[Page 3855]]

for one, would like to have public financing of our Federal Campaigns. 
I would like to see free or reduced-rate TV and radio time for 
candidates during the peak of the campaign season. I would like for any 
negative ad to display the face and voice of the candidate on whose 
behalf that ad is aired.
  The McCain-Feingold legislation is not as comprehensive as some of us 
would prefer. But it does address two of the most pressing deficiencies 
in our system of campaign finance: Undisclosed soft money 
contributions, and sham issue ads.
  I have consistently supported this legislation. Today I call on my 
colleagues, and President Bush, to work with us to restore 
accountability to our system of campaign finance and confidence in our 
system of representative democracy.
  Let me be absolutely clear on one essential point. Unlike previous 
debates, this time we have an opportunity to pass meaningful campaign 
finance reform.
  We can reclaim our system of financing campaigns by cutting off the 
flow of unregulated and unlimited soft-money. We must end it, and not 
just mend it.
  Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I feel 
strongly about the need for reform, and I am frustrated at this body's 
continued inability to move forward with legislation to address this 
problem.
  Time and again we have seen thoughtful, appropriate and, I must 
emphasize, bipartisan efforts to stop the spiraling money chase that 
afflicts our political system, only to see a minority of the Senate 
block further consideration of the issue.
  It is almost as if the opponents of reform are heeding the humorous 
advice of Mark Twain, who once said, ``Do not put off until tomorrow 
what you can put off until the day after tomorrow.''
  It is now long past the day after tomorrow, and we simply cannot 
afford to wait any longer to do something about the tidal wave of money 
that is drowning our system of government and eroding the public's 
confidence in the integrity of our democracy.
  With that said, I strongly support S. 27, known as the McCain-
Feingold legislation. Why do I support it? Because it is ``real'' 
reform, not ``sham'' reform. And I congratulate my two colleagues for 
their persistence and tenacity in pursuing it.
  This bill accomplishes critically important goals. It closes the most 
serious loopholes in our current campaign finance system. The bill 
shuts down the system of unlimited, unregulated, and undisclosed soft 
money; bans direct or indirect contributions from foreign nationals; 
requires disclosure of electioneering communications mas- querading as 
issue ads; and prohibits fund-raising by Federal officials on Federal 
property.
  There are those of my colleagues who would argue that when it comes 
to political campaigns, money is speech and speech should be unlimited.
  Let me be clear--I cannot agree more that political speech should be 
unlimited. The free flow of information and ideas is the hallmark of a 
democracy. But to equate speech with money is not only a false 
equation, it is also a dangerous one to our democracy.
  When that speech and those ideas are paid for overwhelmingly by a few 
wealthy individuals or groups or foreign nationals or anonymous groups 
or by undisclosed contributors, the speech is neither free nor 
democratic. It is encumbered by the unknown special interests who have 
paid for it. And it minimizes or excludes the speech of those who lack 
substantial resources to counter it.
  This special interest speech--paid for with unlimited, undisclosed 
soft money--creates, at a minimum, the appearance of undue influence, 
if not an implied quid pro quo by the contributor.
  Does anyone seriously believe that corporations and associations 
contribute millions of dollars in soft money just because they are good 
citizens and want to encourage free speech? Let us be serious.
  It cannot be argued that such special interest soft money 
contributions were made to promote political speech and better public 
policy without any expectation of consideration in return.
  That expectation of special consideration, or an unspoken quid pro 
quo, is the very appearance of undue influence that the Supreme Court 
has repeatedly upheld as a compelling reason for limiting campaign 
contributions.
  Unlimited contributions simply do not equate to free speech. Although 
the final statistics on the total amount of money contributed in the 
2000 election cycle is not yet complete, we do know the overall 
estimate for expenditures on federal elections in the 1999-2000 
election cycle is between $2.4 and $2.5 billion. That is a conservative 
total.
  Let me put that in perspective for my colleagues. The average 
expenditures necessary for a winning Senate candidate increased from 
$609,000 in 1976 to over $7 million in the 1999-2000 election cycle. At 
that amount, the average Senate candidate would have to raise the 
equivalent of $3,000 per day, seven days a week, for the entire six-
year Senate term.
  It is past time to restore sanity, and accountability, to our system 
of financing elections.
  I welcome this debate and look forward to amendments offered to both 
improve the McCain-Feingold legislation and restore the integrity of 
the manner in which we finance elections.
  This debate is one of the most significant and important ones we will 
have, not only in this session of Congress but at any time in recent 
memory. I welcome the debate and look forward to the arguments.
  How much time have we consumed of that 30 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 7 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I will withhold my time. Does the Senator want 7 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 7 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 43 minutes of time.
  Mr. DODD. I yielded 30 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin and 
yielded time to the Senator from Arizona. I am told the Senator from 
Arizona used about 15 minutes of that. I presumed----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will yield back my time to the 
Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, in 1986 I was elected to the Senate. I can 
remember during the last week or 2, maybe 3 weeks of that campaign, I 
woke up one morning to learn that all over the State of Nevada there 
were signs placed by my opponent--4-by-8 signs. I thought, how foolish 
for him to be spending these dollars on this--money for signs. It had 
to cost tens of thousands of dollars to put those signs all over 
Nevada.
  Little did I realize this was the beginning, from my perspective, of 
the loosening of campaign laws, because I learned that if you looked at 
these signs, they were paid for by the State Republican Party--
thousands and thousands of dollars spent by the State Republican Party 
which benefited my opponent. Had my opponent had to pay for those out 
of the money he raised, he could not have afforded it.
  I filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, and many 
months later they were saying it was OK. That was confirmed sometime 
later by the U.S. Supreme Court, saying there is, in effect, unlimited 
money that can be spent by State parties.
  As we know, these issue advocacy ads all over the country have become 
part of the way it is done in America today. That is how campaigns are 
run.
  The State of Nevada then was a very small State, with about a million 
people. I got up on the Senate floor in 1987 and talked about what 
happened to me and how this must not take place in the future. I could 
not believe we would not change the law, and we have not changed the 
law. It has gotten worse every year. I have been through two reelection 
cycles, and it has gotten worse. In 1998, Nevada was a State with fewer 
than 2 million people--about a million and a half people. In that race,

[[Page 3856]]

my good friend John Ensign and I spent over $20 million--$4 million 
with our campaign money and $6 million issue advocacy ads by the State 
Republican Party and the Republican Party--a State as small as Nevada, 
$20 million. And that doesn't count the independent expenditures that 
were made.
  In Nevada, probably $23 million was spent in the race between Senator 
Reid and Senator Ensign. Neither spent more money than the other. We 
both spent a lot of money. The independent expenditures were run 
against John Ensign and were run against me.
  I say to my friend from Wisconsin, I am depending on him to try to 
work through all this. I think I understand the law, what is being 
done. He has been a master at this. I admire and appreciate very much 
what he has done. I have said to my staff and to my friends, it can't 
be any worse than what it is now. We need to change the law. How in the 
world can you spend in the State of Nevada more than $23 million? 
People don't like to acknowledge it, but, of course, we are involved in 
raising the soft money, going to people and asking them for these huge 
amounts of money.
  So I commend and applaud my friend from Wisconsin. I admire his 
tenacity, his courage, and I admire his ability to persevere through 
big obstacles. But also he should recognize that we as Democrats have 
stuck with him through thick and thin. I was here when Senator Byrd--I 
think we hold the record for attempts to invoke cloture: seven times on 
campaign finance. When Senator Byrd was leader, he tried to do that. I 
also say I am glad to see some Republicans coming aboard now. 
Previously, it was basically Senator McCain alone on campaign finance 
reform; now there are others.
  I know there is a lot of talk about, do we really need campaign 
finance reform. I want this record to pronounce to everyone within the 
sound of my voice, things cannot be worse than what they are now. We 
need to get back to the way it used to be, where you had to raise money 
from individuals and they would give you money unsolicited. This 
present system is not working, in my opinion, and it should be changed.
  Mr. DODD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 2 minutes of 
the original 30.
  Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, in the beginning, when nobody jumped 
for the ball, I was happy to commence my talk. But it is music to my 
ears to hear leaders such as Senators Dodd and Reid come out here in 
the beginning of the debate and talk about the importance of this 
issue. They have been with us every step of the way.
  As Senator Reid has indicated, I am extremely grateful for the kind 
of support we have had. This is when we need it, more than any other 
time. This is a great way to begin. I will give my longer statement 
later. It is better to get into the process.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I commend Russ Feingold and John McCain. 
This has been a long battle, going back years now. Nobody is claiming 
perfection. We are sailing into uncharted waters when we engage in the 
reform of a campaign financing system, but I underscore what Senator 
Reid of Nevada has said: A system that has over $23 million spent to 
win the votes of a State with a million and a half people is a system 
totally out of control.
  These two Senators have taken the lead. I think America appreciates 
what they are trying to do. Our fervent hope is that before this debate 
concludes, either later this week or at the end of next week, this 
body, for the first time in more than a quarter century, will have 
substantially reformed a political process--not made it perfect. We 
should not hold that out as a possibility, but we can certainly make it 
better than it presently is.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I assure my colleagues on the other 
side of this debate that we are not going to be too restrictive about 
time. There are more speakers on the other side, which is often the 
case in this debate. I want to make sure Senator Hagel gets the time he 
needs. I will take the time I need. Unless someone else in our general 
orbit here on this subject comes, we will try to accommodate people on 
the other side. I know Senator Cochran is looking for an opportunity to 
speak. I hope we can accommodate him out of my time.
  Having said that, Madam President, how much does the Senator from 
Nebraska desire?
  Mr. HAGEL. I would like 15 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, the Senate is about to engage in an open 
and full debate on campaign finance reform. It is time for this debate.
  My friends, John McCain and Russ Feingold, deserve much credit for 
getting the Senate to this point. They have been passionate in their 
efforts to reform the system. If the Senate passes a campaign finance 
reform bill--and I believe we can--it will be largely due to their 
efforts and leadership.
  We have an opportunity to achieve something relevant and meaningful. 
My hope, my goal, for the outcome of these 2 weeks is to get a 
bipartisan bill approved by the Senate that brings reform to the 
system, is constitutional, and that President Bush will sign.
  Whatever we do, we must look to expand, not constrict, opportunities 
for people to participate in our democratic process.
  We must be careful not to abridge the rights of Americans to 
participate in our political system and have their voices heard. 
Political parties, individuals, and organizations that represent 
millions of Americans all have rights guaranteed by the first amendment 
to the Constitution. These rights guarantee that they can express 
themselves politically and participate in the electoral process.
  Democracy is messy. We are going to hear a number of examples of how 
messy and unfair democracy is over the next 2 weeks. Our system is 
imperfect, but our Government works because of the rights of all people 
to participate in this democracy. We should take steps to encourage 
greater participation in the process. We should expand the ability of 
the American people to get involved. We must not weaken political 
parties or other important political institutions of our system.
  Over the next 2 weeks, we will need to guard against taking actions 
that will have unintended consequences. The answer to reforming our 
system is not to shut people out or diminish the abilities of our 
institutions and individuals to participate in the process.
  We must also guard against impugning each other's motives on the 
floor of the Senate. No Senator has the high moral ground over any 
other Senator. There are and will be differences on campaign finance 
reform. Let us debate these differences without assigning sinister 
motives to our opponents. The Nation and the world will be peeking in 
through their television windows to witness this Senate debate. Will 
they see dignity, respect for others' opinions, honest discourse, and 
elevated debate? I believe so. Our country deserves it, and we owe it 
to our fellow citizens.
  This is a historic moment for the Senate to rise above the shrill 
political rhetoric of our time. How do we best change our campaign 
finance system? For me, the core of campaign finance reform must begin 
with accountability, openness, and disclosure. These are the essential 
components of reform.
  I start from a fundamental premise that the problem in the system is 
not the political party; the problem is not the candidate's campaign; 
the problem is the unaccountable, unlimited outside moneys and 
influence that flows into the system where there is either little or no 
disclosure. That is the core of the issue we will debate beginning 
today.
  The political parties are and have been a vital component for our 
system, especially for a challenger to take on a well-financed, 
entrenched incumbent. Who else is there to support that challenger, be 
that challenger a Democrat or a Republican, unless the challenger is 
self-financed? It is the party who activates the base and gets out the 
vote and helps give that challenger a forum

[[Page 3857]]

to get his or her message out. That is good. That is helpful. That is 
important to democracy.
  Political parties encourage participation. They promote 
participation. They are about participation. They educate the public. 
They ensure the viability of all in the system. Their activities are 
open, accountable, and disclosed.
  Have there been abuses? Oh, yes, there have been abuses. By the way, 
abuses in the political system did not just begin with so-called soft 
money or non-Federal money. It is instructive for all of America to go 
back into the mid-1800s and look at some of the Harper's Weekly 
magazines.
  Ask yourself the question: Is our political system cleaner today, is 
it more open today, is it more honest today than it was in the 1800s, 
early 1900s? Oh, yes, it is; absolutely it is. So there must be some 
frame of reference that we come from with an educated debate on 
campaign finance reform.
  Any reform that weakens the parties will weaken the system. It will 
lead to a less accountable system. It will lead to a system less 
responsive to and accessible by the American people.
  Why do we want to ban soft money to political parties, that funding 
which is now accountable and reportable? This ban would weaken the 
parties and put more money and control in the hands of wealthy 
individuals and independent groups who are accountable to no one.
  If any one of us in America wishes to find out who is running a 
television or a radio spot for a candidate or against a candidate, you 
cannot now find that information. Why is that? Because it is not 
disclosable. I know that is difficult for many in this country to 
believe but that is the case.
  When you take power away from one group, it will expand power for 
another group. I do not believe, as well, that our problems lie with 
candidates for public office and their campaigns. Their campaigns are 
fully open to the public. All dollars raised and expended are 
disclosed. The voters can hold them responsible and should and must 
hold candidates accountable.
  Have we had bad players in the system? Do we have bad players now in 
the system? The American public will make that judgment.
  Recent years have been ripe with accounts of those who dance on the 
pin head of technicality and who skirt the law because there is no 
controlling legal authority, but I do not know how you legislate 
ethical behavior. Of course, if it was just a matter of laws and 
regulations, then we would have no crime in America. Why? Because we 
have laws against murder, we have laws against robbery, we have laws 
against everything. If it was that simple--just pass another law--the 
world would be just fine.
  We cannot allow our outrage at the morally questionable actions of a 
few lead us to tamp down the system so tightly that we shut out the 
involvement of the overwhelming majority. What sense does that make?
  The more money that is pushed outside the reportable system of 
candidates and political parties, the less control candidates will have 
over their own campaigns. Voters can hold candidates responsible for 
their conduct. They cannot hold outside groups and wealthy individuals 
accountable.
  I believe the greatest threat to our political system today is those 
who operate outside the bounds of openness and accountability, not 
those who operate inside the bounds of accountability and reportability 
and disclosure.
  In recent years, we have seen an explosion of multimillion-dollar 
advertising buys by outside organizations. These groups and wealthy 
individuals come into an election, spend unlimited sums of money, and 
leave without anyone knowing who they are or how much they spent or 
why. They can have a major impact on the outcome of any election--any 
election--especially in small States.
  Do they have a right to participate? Of course they have a right to 
participate, but their actions must be disclosed.
  In the fall of 1999, I introduced a bipartisan bill to reform our 
campaign finance system. I reintroduced that legislation this year with 
several Democratic and Republican colleagues. I am pleased to report 
that more and more of my colleagues have come on as cosponsors to this 
legislation in the last couple of days.
  The components of our legislation will genuinely improve the way 
Federal campaigns are financed. We increase disclosure requirements for 
candidates, parties, independent groups, and individuals. The current 
system provides no disclosure for the activities of outside groups or 
individuals. We ensure that the name of the individual, the 
organization, its officers, addresses, phone numbers, and the amount of 
money spent are all made public immediately.
  Our legislation limits soft money contributions to political parties 
to $60,000 per year. That is far below the unlimited millions--
unlimited millions--that are now pouring into the system with no 
accountability, no disclosure. This is a significant limit.
  The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that two-thirds of all the 
soft money contributions in the last election cycle came from those who 
gave more than the $120,000 limit for a 2-year cycle, which is part of 
our bill. Two-thirds of the soft money contributors in the last cycle 
would have been subject to this cap. I say to those who question the 
cap, whether it is relevant, important, or whether it does anything, I 
think the Wall Street Journal numbers address that issue. We limit soft 
money but do not ban it so political parties are not disadvantaged by 
wealthy individuals and independent organizations. This is particularly 
important because it is at the State level of our politics, State party 
organizations that have the responsibility of getting out the vote, of 
organizing the vote, the registration drives, the grassroots 
participation. In the process, that very vitality is the core of 
representative government. Why cut that off, that accountable 
disclosure of money, to make the system more a part of every citizen's 
opportunity to participate?
  As originally provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1974, soft money, non-Federal money, in fact, can be used by political 
parties for various activities over the course of an electoral process. 
I hear some talk that this is a new phenomenon. If this is new, why, 
since 1974, has the Federal Election Commission had 7 pages of 
regulations as to how to use soft money? It isn't new. These are 
legitimate, worthy, and important functions of the political parties 
and should not be inhibited by a total ban on soft money. I do believe 
we need to tighten the definition on the uses of soft money. This 
should be part of any reform bill we pass, and we can do that and 
should.
  Today's hard money contribution limits are worth less than one-third 
of their value when the 1974 act was passed. This funding goes directly 
to candidates' campaigns and political parties and is the most 
accountable method of political financing. Every dollar contributed, 
every dollar spent, is fully reported to the Federal Election 
Commission. Everybody knows who is making that contribution. The 
individual limit of $1,000 in 1974 equates to $3,300 today. Our bill 
raises this limit to $3,000 and indexes it for inflation. By doing 
this, we ensure individuals have the same ability to participate as 
they were granted in the groundbreaking 1974 legislation.
  Furthermore, we believe our campaign finance reform proposals would 
all pass constitutional muster. This is a legitimate concern--whether, 
in fact, we pass a bill that will withstand appropriate constitutional 
scrutiny and protect the rights of the first amendment.
  I believe the constitutional issues are as critical as any we will 
debate over the next 2 weeks. The Constitution is the foundational 
document of our Nation. The rights guaranteed within that document 
cannot be dismissed because of political expediency, regardless of how 
noble the motive of the reform effort. Our system is imperfect. 
Representative government is imperfect, but certainly we can expect a 
higher standard from our political leaders than we have seen in the 
past.

[[Page 3858]]

Personal accountability is the core of political accountability.
  Congress has a genuine opportunity to work with President Bush to 
achieve real reform. The President supports campaign finance reform. I 
look forward to working with all my colleagues during this debate to 
get a constitutional, bipartisan campaign finance reform bill passed, 
one that the President will sign, that will genuinely reform our 
system. That would be an achievement of which we all would be proud.
  Mr. McConnell. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Kentucky 
controls 43 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for 
outlining the alternative he will be offering some time during the 
course of this debate. There is no question this is a constitutional 
amendment. There is no question the changes it seeks to achieve are 
constitutional. It is very thoughtful. I congratulate him for his fine 
statement.
  I congratulate the Senator from Arizona. We are all in the business 
of looking at public opinion. We know the American people are 
interested in the energy crisis; they are interested in education; they 
are interested in tax relief. They are not particularly interested in 
campaign finance reform. I have often said it ranks with static cling 
as one of the great concerns among the American people. Through the 
sheer tenacity of the senior Senator from Arizona, we are here today 
beginning a debate over the next 2 weeks on a subject of very little 
interest to the American people. I give him credit for his tenacity and 
aggressiveness in pushing this item forward on the floor of the Senate 
early in this new administration.
  I like the tone of the discussion I have heard so far. I have noticed 
there hasn't been any discussion about corruption. We had that 
discussion a year and a half ago and there has not been a single bit of 
proof offered. I like the restraint I sense in the Chamber today. 
Hopefully we will not have any unsubstantiated charges of corruption. 
Hopefully any Senator who makes such a charge will prove it. The 
absence of unsubstantiated charges of corruption, it seems to me, is 
also a step in the right direction in having a civil debate, and 
lowering our voices and pursuing this discussion in the way the 
President would like for us to pursue it with lower voices and in a 
civil manner.
  The self-styled and media-pronounced reformers are captives of a 
Catch-22 that is titled ``campaign finance reform.'' By the way, my 
favorite definition of ``special interest'' is a group against what I 
am trying to do. I love those groups that are for what I am trying to 
do. That is a group of outstanding Americans trying to achieve a 
worthwhile purpose. To truly achieve their professed goals, reduction 
of special interests means foreclosing all opportunities for 
participation in politics. Some of our Democratic allies have actually 
done that. I remember 10 years or so ago when we thought the Japanese 
had done everything right. We were afraid they were buying up all of 
the American property and there was a great fear that the Japanese 
somehow had gotten the better of us in world competition. In Japan, 
they have been concerned about the influence of money and politics and 
they have squeezed it all the way out. In Japan, where they are 
unimpeded, unfettered by anything such as the First Amendment we have, 
the Japanese Government limits the number of days you can campaign, the 
number of speeches you can give, the types of places you can speak, the 
number of handbills and bumper stickers you can print, and the number 
of megaphones you can buy--one. Each candidate is entitled to one 
megaphone.
  This was passed in order to deal with money in politics. They wanted 
to get it all out of politics, and they have. In the desire to get 
money out of politics, it was designed to improve the image of the 
politicians and the Parliament, so they squeezed all the money out of 
politics, got them down to one megaphone per candidate, and ``no 
confidence'' in the legislators has risen to 70 percent and voter 
turnout has continued to decline.
  That is just one example. There are others of our democratic allies 
around the world who have been into this issue much further than we 
have gone, at least so far, and they have all had the same results: 
Squeeze the money out of politics, quiet all the voices, the cynicism 
continues to rise, the turnout continues to go down; and the reason for 
that of course is that cynicism and turnout are not related to this 
issue at all; they are related to whether or not there is a belief that 
the legislators are tackling the real challenges confronting the 
country.
  The original recipe of McCain-Feingold, back in 1995 and 1997, tried 
to do a lot of what I have just described they have done in Japan: It 
had candidate spending limits; it had a ban on PACs--eliminate them; it 
had a bundling ban; it had a party soft money ban and an all-
encompassing restriction on citizens groups who engaged in issue 
advocacy and independent expenditures. In other words, the entire 
universe of political participation--with, of course, the glaring 
exception of the media, where political activism is conveniently carved 
out of the existing campaign finance law under which we operate today, 
as well as on page 15 of the current McCain-Feingold bill. The media we 
always sort of carve out of these restrictions because the presumption, 
I guess, is they have a greater right to the First Amendment than any 
of us.
  In 1997, McCain-Feingold sponsors capitulated on the crown jewel of 
campaign reformers, and that was spending limits on campaigns 
themselves. Thus, those of us who approached this issue as the Supreme 
Court does, from a constitutional perspective, considered that a battle 
won. Candidate spending limits were gone. It was the belief--certainly 
my belief--that members of my party would be strenuously disadvantaged 
by spending limits, so we were happy they were gone. But prior to that, 
we had been told time and time again there could be no reform without 
spending limits. But candidate spending limits are gone. I am glad 
about that, and we consider that a victory.
  Since that time, those advocating reform have been in retreat in one 
form or another. Having first waved the white flag on these previously 
nonnegotiable candidate spending limits, we stand here today with a 
very different kind of bill and, I must say, a brighter outlook than 8 
years ago at the outset of the last big floor engagement, when we had 
lots and lots of amendments.
  Eight years ago, campaign spending limits were on the verge of 
enactment and would have extinguished any chance of sustained success 
of my party in congressional elections. We Republicans have to spend 
millions every election just to get a fair shake and counter the 
liberal bias so prevalent in the news and entertainment media.
  So candidate spending limits mercifully are off the table. That means 
our direct campaigns are not on the hook, and we rejoice in that.
  The PAC and bundling bans were jettisoned from McCain-Feingold as 
well, and I must say I am happy about that. I don't think there is 
anything wrong with people banding together in order to pool their 
resources and support candidates of their choice. That is as 
constitutional as apple pie and ought not to be restricted.
  A few months later, in 1998, the citizens group restrictions were 
altered and a new--and, I would argue, also unconstitutional--bright 
line was drawn by the Snowe-Jeffords provision where an 
unconstitutionally vague line had been in the original McCain-Feingold. 
But that did not get anywhere either, inviting vehement opposition from 
citizens groups who would be affected, and disdained and ridiculed by 
constitutional experts who would litigate if it were ever enacted, such 
restrictions already having been struck down in Federal court over 20 
times.
  Let me just take a moment on this. None of us really likes the degree 
to which outside groups get involved in our campaigns. We don't like 
it. We would like to control these campaigns. But under the First 
Amendment, the

[[Page 3859]]

campaign is not ours to control, and be it ever so irritating when some 
group who hates us comes in and starts talking about us in proximity to 
an election, that doesn't mean we can legislate it out of existence 
through our votes in this Chamber.
  It irritates us, but there are a lot of things you have to endure in 
public life, from media criticism to outside issue groups who irritate 
us. But just because it irritates us doesn't mean there is any 
constitutional basis for eliminating it. In fact, the courts over 20 
times since Buckley--over 20 times since Buckley--have struck down 
various efforts by State and local governments to hamper, inhibit, make 
it more difficult for outside groups to criticize us in proximity to an 
election. So the chances of that being upheld are slim to none.
  In 1999, McCain-Feingold was peeled back even further, and the last 
vote we had on this issue provided only two features: A party soft 
money ban and what we would have to charitably call a bogus Beck 
provision which actually eviscerates current worker protections rather 
than codifies them as the McCain-Feingold subtitle purports.
  So the last time we had a vote on this issue in the Senate, a cloture 
vote, was on a party soft money ban only, with a bogus Beck provision. 
What we have before us now is a beefed-up McCain-Feingold, again with 
the party soft money ban plus various efforts to restrict the voices of 
outside groups.
  One of the issues we are going to be dealing with here in the course 
of the debate is the so-called nonseverability clause. It is in the 
President's statement of principles. Why is it there? It is there 
because we have an obligation not to pass laws that are clearly 
unconstitutional.
  I hear that some of the proponents of this year's version of McCain-
Feingold oppose a nonseverability clause, and I really find that 
mystifying. If they are so confident that the bill is constitutional, 
what is wrong with a nonseverability clause to guarantee that the bill 
either rises or falls together? They should have had a nonseverability 
clause back in 1974. What happened then was legislation passed that had 
spending limits for campaigns and contribution limits for individuals. 
The spending limits got struck down, the contribution limits got 
upheld, were not indexed, and we have today a situation in which we are 
left with $1,000 contribution limits set at a time when a Mustang cost 
$2,700 and candidates, particularly in big States, who were not 
fortunate enough to be wealthy, have to spend--well, there is not 
enough time. There is not enough time. If you are running in California 
and you do not have the advantage of being already well known or 
extraordinarily rich, 2 years is not long enough to pool together 
enough resources at $1,000 a contributor to be competitive.
  One of the single biggest problems we have is the failure to index 
the hard money contribution limit back in the 1970s. Why do you think 
parties are relying more on soft money? Because there isn't enough hard 
money. Nobody capped the cost of the media at the 1974 level. I hear 
that we may have an amendment to deal with the question of availability 
of media. I think that is a good idea. I look forward to taking a look 
at the details of it.
  We ought to be dealing with the real problem here. The real problem 
is not that there is too much money in politics; there is too little 
money in politics--particularly hard money--all of which is limited and 
disclosed and it is given directly to parties and candidates to 
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. Yet nobody on 
the so-called ``reform side'' is trying to deal with the single biggest 
problem that we have. I hope during the course of this debate that 
problem will be taken care of.
  The only way to get at the core of this problem, if Senators believe 
the influence of money and politics is so pernicious, is to change the 
First Amendment.
  You have to go right to the core of the problem. The junior Senator 
from South Carolina, Mr. Fritz Hollings, will offer that amendment at 
some point as he has periodically over the years. He deserves a lot of 
credit for understanding the nub of the problem. The nub of the problem 
is you can't do most of these things as long as the First Amendment 
remains as it is.
  So Senator Hollings, at some point, I think under the consent 
agreement, will probably at the end of the debate offer a 
constitutional amendment so the Federal and all 50 State governments 
can have the unfettered latitude to regulate, restrict, and even 
prohibit any expenditures ``by, in support of, or in opposition to a 
candidate for public office.'' It would carve and etch out of the First 
Amendment, for the first time since the founding of our country and the 
passage of the Bill of Rights, giving to the government at the Federal 
and State level the ability to control political speech in this 
country. It is worth noting that would also apply to the media.
  One of the world's largest defense contractors, such as General 
Electric, could even be prohibited from owning America's No. 1 
television station such as NBC, and a news anchor, such as Tom Brokaw, 
could even be prohibited from mentioning a candidate's name within 60 
days of an election. This is a serious proposal. This will be offered 
once again on the floor of the Senate.
  Barring such a wholesale repeal of constitutional freedom, a lot of 
what we are going to be doing in the next 2 weeks will probably fall 
well short of the constitutional mark. But I hope that Senators will 
take their responsibilities seriously and not just vote for anything, 
hoping the courts will at some point save us from ourselves.
  A good deal of this is not in question. Virtually the exact language 
of the so-called Snowe-Jeffords language designed to make it more 
difficult for outside groups to criticize any of us in proximity to an 
election has been struck down within the last year and a half.
  That is pretty clear evidence that this particular language is not 
constitutional.
  As we go through these amendments, if they are clearly Federal court 
cases on point, I hope Members of the Senate will not ignore that. We 
swore to uphold the Constitution. I know sometimes it is hard to figure 
out what that means in the context of a given vote. But on some of 
these issues, it is not that unclear. There will be a decision on 
point.
  I want to make another point about non-Federal money.
  Senator Hagel was talking about his proposal to cap but not 
completely eliminate non-Federal money. I do not know what I think 
about that. But I think it is important to get the record straight 
about non-Federal money.
  The average soft money contribution to the Republican Senatorial 
Committee last cycle was $520. That is less than one-tenth of 1 percent 
of the money that the Republican Senatorial Committee raised.
  If you look at the Republican National Committee and the Republican 
Senatorial Committee, the largest contribution either of us got during 
the course of the year was $250,000. Admittedly, that is a very large 
contribution, but any one of those $250,000 contributions would have 
represented less than one-half of 1 percent of the total money raised 
by either the Republican Senatorial Committee or the Republican 
National Committee.
  You can make a case, as Senator Hagel has made and will make again 
when he offers his substitute, that it ought to be capped. But I think 
you can't make a case that it ought to be eliminated. Why should the 
Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee have 
to finance their efforts on behalf of mayoral candidates in Omaha, NE, 
with Federal dollars? This is a Federal system. Under McCain-Feingold, 
the Republican Governors' Association would be obliterated, eliminated, 
gone; the Democratic Governors' Association, gone. Why? Because they 
don't operate with Federal money.
  We have national political parties. We already have a scarcity of 
Federal hard dollars even to do the job for our Federal candidates. And 
under this proposal with that same sort of finite source of Federal 
hard dollars, the great national party committees would have to operate 
on behalf of Federal

[[Page 3860]]

candidates and everybody else out of the same pool of resources. 
Regretfully, the bill does not take the money out of politics. It takes 
the parties out of politics. In what way is that a step in the right 
direction?
  Yesterday, the Washington Post had a big article that included soft 
money contributions to the national political parties. It was pretty 
significant--the suggestion being that if we pass McCain-Feingold that 
money wouldn't be spent.
  It would be spent all right. It just wouldn't be given to the 
parties.
  Each of those interests who care about what we are doing here, who 
believe that it may have an impact on their business or their interest, 
cannot be constitutionally restricted from speaking. Maybe some court 
somewhere would let us completely federalize the national parties and 
completely eliminate their ability to operate in State and local races 
with Federal dollars. Maybe some court would let us do that. But no 
Federal court in America is going to let us quiet the voices of all 
these interests that have a perfect right to go out and engage in issue 
advocacy up to and including the day of the election. There isn't any 
serious person who knows anything about the First Amendment who 
believes that we could do that.
  The proposal before us is designed to inhibit the ability of the 
political parties and would have no impact whatsoever on outside 
groups, nor should it.
  They are entitled in this free society to have their say.
  Mr. President, I have a series of newspaper editorials and columns 
from columnist George Will that I want to have printed in the Record. 
He has been particularly active in writing about this subject. I ask 
unanimous consent to have them all printed seriatim in the Record. I 
will add to the record in the next few days additional articles on this 
subject.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Newsweek, Mar. 19, 2001]

                        James Madison Remembered


  madisonian doctrine today has its opposite--call it mc cainism, an 
                         antipluralist populism

                          (By George F. Will)

       There is no monument to James Madison in Washington, There 
     is a tall, austere monument to the tall (6'2''), austere man 
     for whom the city is named, a man of Roman virtues and 
     eloquent reticence. There is a Greek-revival memorial to 
     Madison's boon companion, the tall (6'2'') elegant, eloquent 
     Jefferson, who is to subsequent generations the most 
     charismatic of the Founders. But there is no monument to the 
     smallest (5'4") but subtlest of the Founders, without whose 
     mind Jefferson's Declaration and Washington's generalship 
     could not have resulted in this republic.
       So this Friday, as an insufficiently grateful nation gives 
     scant notice to the 250th anniversary of Madison's birth, 
     pause to consider what he wrought, such as the Constitution, 
     and the first 10 amendments, called the Bill of Rights. 
     Pretty good work, that, but not more impressive than 
     Madison's thinking that was the Constitution's necessary 
     precursor. He became the Father of the Constitution only 
     because he was the founder of modern democratic thought.
       Before Madison produced his revolution in democratic 
     theory, there had been a pessimistic consensus among 
     political philosophers: If democracy were to be possible, it 
     would be only in small societies akin to Pericles' Athens or 
     Rousseau's Geneva--``face to face'' societies sufficiently 
     small and homogeneous to avoid the supposed threats to 
     freedom--``factions.'' In turning this notion upside down--
     that is what a revolution does--Madison taught the world a 
     new catechism of popular government:
       What is the worst result of politics? Tyranny. To what form 
     of tyranny is democracy prey? Tyranny of the majority. How 
     can that be avoided? By preventing the existence of 
     majorities that are homogenous, and therefore stable, durable 
     and potentially tyrannical. How can that be prevented? By 
     cultivating factions, so that majorities will be unstable and 
     short-lived coalitions of minorities. Cultivation of factions 
     is a function of an ``extensive'' republic.
       Which brings us to what can be called Madison's sociology 
     of freedom, explained in his contributions to the most 
     penetrating and influential newspaper columns ever penned--
     the Federalist Papers, to which Alexander Hamilton and John 
     Jay also contributed.
       In Federalist 10 Madison wrote that ``the extent'' of the 
     nation would help provide ``a republican remedy for the 
     diseases most incident to republican government.'' He said: 
     ``Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of 
     parties and interests; you make it less probable that a 
     majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the 
     rights of other citizens.'' Because ``the most common and 
     durable source of factions'' is ``the various and unequal 
     distribution of property,'' the ``first object of 
     government'' is ``protection of different and unequal 
     faculties of acquiring property.''
       The maelstrom of interestedness that is characteristic of 
     Madisonian democracy often is not a pretty spectacle. 
     However, Madison knew better than to judge politics by 
     esthetic standards. He saw reality steadily and saw it whole, 
     and in Federalist 51 he said people could trace ``through the 
     whole system of human affairs'' the ``policy of supplying by 
     opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives.''
       Madison's 250th birthday comes at a melancholy moment. A 
     banal and middle-headed populism--call it McCainism--is 
     fueling an assault this month on Madison's First Amendment 
     freedoms of speech and association. In the name of political 
     hygiene, advocates of ``campaign-finance reform'' are waging 
     war against the Madisonian pluralism of American politics.
       Madisonian doctrine considers factions inevitable and 
     potentially healthy and useful. McCainism stigmatizes 
     factions as ``special interests'' whose rights to associate 
     and speak politically for their interests should be strictly 
     limited and closely regulated by government. Madison's First 
     Amendment says, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging 
     the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people . . . 
     to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' 
     McCainism advocates speech rationing by the multiplication of 
     government-imposed limits on the right of individuals and 
     groups to spend money for the dissemination of political 
     speech.
       McCainism says money ``taints'' politics. Madisonian theory 
     asks: What would politics consist of if it were ``untainted'' 
     by the vigorous, unfettered participation of factions on 
     whose interests government impinges? McCainism aims to crimp 
     the activities of political parties by banning contributions 
     of ``soft money'' (used for party building, not for 
     particular candidates' campaigns or for expressly advocating 
     the election of defeat of specific candidates).
       The Founders did not anticipate the necessity of political 
     parties. However, Madison quickly came to think that parties 
     could moderate factions by channeling and disciplining them. 
     Campaign-finance reformers are always unpleasantly surprised 
     by the unintended consequences of their reforms. Were they to 
     succeed in banning soft money, they would be startled by an 
     utterly predictable result of the hydraulics of political 
     money: Money banned from the parties would flow instead to 
     other--often wilder--factions.
       Then the reformers, who cannot see a freedom without 
     calling it a ``loophole'' that needs closing, would try to 
     extend government regulation of political speech to the 
     speech of those factions. Madison, wise about the untidiness 
     of freedom, would respond by reminding the reformers of his 
     reform--the First Amendment.
       Madison undertook the thankless task of explaining the 
     implications for democracy of the unflattering fact that men 
     are not angels, and posterity has not thanked him with the 
     sort of adulation bestowed upon Jefferson. However, in 1981 
     the Library of Congress, which began with Jefferson's 
     donation of his library, needed a new building and named it 
     after the most supple intellect among the Founders--the James 
     Madison Memorial Building. Perhaps that would suffice as a 
     monument to Madison. Or maybe his monument is our 
     constitutional government, which proves the possibility of 
     liberty under law in an extensive--a continental--republic.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2001]

                         . . . Let Us Hope Not

                          (By George F. Will)

       Disquieting rumors persist that some of President Bush's 
     advisers are eager to sign a campaign finance ``reform'' 
     bill, or at least to avoid vetoing one. Bush should beware of 
     what Edmund Burke called ``the irresistible operation of 
     feeble councils.''
       And he should be aware of the Colorado case argued before 
     the Supreme Court last Wednesday. If the court affirms the 
     judgment of two lower courts in that case, the McCain-
     Feingold bill is patently unconstitutional.
       Although a plain statement of the salient fact seems 
     preposterous, the unvarnished truth is that McCain-Feingold's 
     premise is: There is something inherently corrupt about the 
     relationship between political parties and their candidates. 
     Thus the bill would ban ``soft money'' contributions to 
     parties--unregulated money that can be spent for party-
     building, voter turnout, issue advocacy and other purposes, 
     but not to ``directly influence'' the election of candidates 
     for federal offices.
       Last week, a quarter of a century after the Buckley v. 
     Valeo ruling, which struck down much of the 1974 campaign 
     finance law, the court for the first time heard arguments 
     about whether it is constitutional for the

[[Page 3861]]

     government to limit a party's direct expenditures--``hard 
     dollars''--for its candidates. In Buckley, the court held 
     that limits on political money--contributions and 
     expenditures--implicate ``the most fundamental First 
     Amendment activities,'' and therefore government bears a 
     heavy burden of demonstrating a compelling need to limit 
     those activities. The only such justification the court 
     considers sufficient is the need to prevent corruption or the 
     appearance thereof.
       Well. In 1986 the Colorado Republic Party ran ads 
     criticizing a Democratic congressman who was considering 
     running for the Senate. It did this before the Republican 
     Senate candidate had been chosen. Nevertheless, the Federal 
     Election Commission charged that this expenditure violated 
     federal limits on party expenditures for candidates. Ten 
     years later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the FEC, 
     saying the ads were ``independent expenditures'' and thus not 
     subject to the ``hard dollar'' limits.
       The Supreme Court remanded the case for the lower courts to 
     consider whether those ``hard dollar'' limits themselves are 
     constitutional at all. In response, the district court and 
     the 10th Circuit have both said they are not. Last Wednesday 
     the FEC asked the Supreme Court to say they are. But how can 
     it without saying preposterously, that there is a substantial 
     risk of parties corrupting their own candidates by supporting 
     them?
       As the district court said on remand: ``The FEC seeks to 
     broaden the definition of corruption to the point that it 
     intersects with the very framework of representative 
     government.''
       The FEC is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies have a metabolic 
     urge to maximize their missions. The FEC's mission is to 
     regulate political discourse. A president's primary mission, 
     stated in his oath of office, is different--to defend the 
     Constitution. Bush understands the conflict between his duty 
     and the FEC's urge.
       Around 7 a.m., Jan. 23, 2000, the day before the Iowa 
     caucuses, candidate Bush was in Des Moines preparing to 
     appear on ABC's ``This Week.'' One of those who was to 
     question him (this columnist), not wanting to ambush him with 
     unfamiliar material, and wanting from him a considered 
     judgment, took the unusual step of telling Bush he would be 
     asked if he agreed with a particular proposition from an 
     opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The proposition, 
     given to Bush on a 3-by-5 card, was:
       ``There is no constitutionally significant distinction 
     between campaign contributions and expenditures. Both forms 
     of speech are central to the First Amendment.''
       Asked if he agreed that there is something ``inherently 
     hostile to the First Amendment'' in limiting participation in 
     politics by means of contributions by individuals (Bush 
     favors banning ``collective speech'' by corporations, or by 
     unions without members' prior written consent), he briskly 
     replied: ``I agree.'' And asked if he thinks a president has 
     a duty to make an independent judgment about the 
     constitutionality of bills and to veto those he considers 
     unconstitutional, he replied: ``I do.''
       This puts Bush on a collision course with much of the 
     political class and most of the media. It may become the 
     first disruption of his serene relations with them, but there 
     eventually must be a first, and the stake--the First 
     Amendment--is worth a fight.
       Bush has served himself and the country well by his 
     congeniality efforts, but he will serve neither by continuing 
     them until it costs him respect. It will cost him that if he 
     signs McCain-Feingold.
       Genius, said Bismarck, involves knowing when to stop. He 
     had in mind waging war, but the same is true of waging 
     niceness.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 8, 2001]

                    Second Thoughts About Soft Money

                          (By George F. Will)

       In ``Murder in the Cathedral,'' T.S. Eliot, a better poet 
     than moral philosopher, has a character say,
       The last temptation is the greatest treason:
       To do the right thing for the wrong reason.
       Actually, in Washington it is good enough when people do 
     the right thing for any reason. So it is gratifying, if not 
     notably noble, that some Democrats, having recalibrated their 
     self-interest in the light of last year's elections, are 
     rethinking their enthusiasm for eviscerating the First 
     Amendment in the name of campaign finance reform.
       Prior to the last election cycle, they favored banning 
     ``soft'' money--the money contributed to political parties 
     for uses other than for particular federal candidates, and 
     not used expressly to advocate the election or defeat of a 
     candidate. However, having done well in the 1999-2000 soft-
     money sweepstakes, and lagging behind Republicans in hard 
     dollars--conditions to political parties that are limited but 
     can be spent for particular candidates--Democrats are having 
     second thoughts.
       Those Democrats whose controlling principle is the pursuit 
     of short-term party advantage will have third thoughts if 
     convinced that their party's success at raising soft money 
     was contingent on control of the presidency. But some Bush 
     advisers may begin favoring a ban on soft money if many 
     Democrats become wary of a ban. Tactical considerations 
     always dominate when the political class writes laws limiting 
     communication about--and competition against--itself.
       In 1897 Nebraska, Tennessee, Missouri and Florida banned 
     corporate contributions because, in the 1896 presidential 
     race, such contributions helped William McKinley defeat the 
     man who carried those states, William Jennings Bryan. In 1974 
     Congress enacted spending limits (declared unconstitutional 
     by the Supreme Court in 1976) for House races of $75,000 
     (about $200,000 in today's dollars), far below what 
     challengers must spend to threaten an incumbent. The Senate 
     limits, also declared unconstitutional, would have protected 
     incumbents. The limits started at a base of $250,000 and 
     varied with a state's population, and included not just the 
     candidate's direct spending but any spending ``relative to a 
     clearly identified candidate.''
       Arguments for more regulation of political speech are 
     fueled by hyperbole about supposed ``torrents'' of money 
     pouring into politics. Such hyperbole probably has been heard 
     ever since George Washington, at age 25, first ran for the 
     Virginia House of Burgesses in 1757, spending 39 pounds for 
     160 gallons of rum and other beverages for the 391 eligible 
     voters--more than a quart of drink, at a cost of (in today's 
     currency) $2, per voter.
       However, since the Voting Rights Act (1965) and the 26th 
     Amendment (1971) greatly expanded the electorate, spending 
     per eligible voter in congressional races, in today's 
     dollars, has hovered in a range from approximately $2.50 to 
     $3.50 per eligible voter, inching up slightly in the highly 
     competitive elections of 1994 and 1996 and reaching 
     approximately $4 in the competitive elections of 1998--a bit 
     more than the cost of one video rental.
       If spending in the two-year 1999-2000 cycle for all 
     candidates for all offices--federal, state and local--reached 
     the ``obscene'' (as critics call it) total of $3 billion, 
     that was $15 per eligible voter, And $3 billion--$2 billion 
     less than Americans spend annually on Halloween snacks--is 
     five-one-hundredths of one percent of GDP.
       So writes Bradley Smith in ``Unfree Speech: The Folly of 
     Campaign Finance Reform'' (Princeton University Press), which 
     surely will be this year's most important book on governance, 
     Smith, now serving on the Federal Election Commission, warns 
     that if reformers succeed in getting the First Amendment 
     thought of as a mere ``loophole'' in a comprehensive regime 
     of speech rationing, they will have legitimized perpetual 
     tinkering with the regulation of political speech for 
     partisan advantage after every election cycle has been 
     analyzed.
       It is arguable whether, or how much, the First Amendment 
     should protect obscenity, pornography, this or that 
     ``expressive activity'' (e.g., topless dancing, flag 
     burning), ``fighting words'' or commercial speech. However, 
     no serious person disputes that the amendment's core concerns 
     is political speech. And the Supreme Court says, 
     incontrovertibly, that in modern society, political speech 
     depends on political spending.
       As to whether limits on political spending abridge freedom 
     of political speech, consider the Supreme Court's analogy: 
     Would the constitutional right to travel be abridged if 
     government limited everyone to spending only enough for one 
     tank of gasoline? Or would the First Amendment right of free 
     exercise of religion be abridged if government limited the 
     right to spend money for church construction or for 
     proselytizing?
       The First Amendment--freedom--is the right reason for 
     opposing ``reforms'' designed to regulate, and diminish, 
     political discourse. But if only tactical considerations can 
     cause Democrats to do the right thing, the wrong reason will 
     be welcome.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 11, 2001]

                     Fending Off the Speech Police

                          [By George F. Will)

       The coming debate on campaign finance ``reforms'' that 
     would vastly expand government regulation of political 
     communication will measure just how much jeopardy the First 
     Amendment, and hence political freedom, faces. Recent 
     evidence is ominous.
       In 1997, 38 senators voted to amend the First Amendment to 
     empower government to impose ``reasonable'' restrictions on 
     political speech. Dick Gephardt has said, ``What we have is 
     two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech 
     and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy 
     democracy.'' Bill Bradley has proposed suppressing issue 
     advocacy ads of independent groups by imposing a 100 percent 
     tax on such ads. John McCain has said he wishes he could 
     constitutionally ban negative ads--ads critical of 
     politicians.
       The basis of political-speech regulation is the 1971 
     Federal Election Campaign Act. Bradley Smith, a member of the 
     Federal Election Commission and author of ``Unfree Speech: 
     The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform,'' calls the act ``one 
     of the most radical laws ever passed in the United States.'' 
     Because of it, for the first time Americans were required to 
     register with the government before spending money to 
     disseminate criticism of its officeholders.
       Liberals eager for more regulation of political speech 
     should note the pedigree of their project. The act's first 
     enforcement action

[[Page 3862]]

     came in 1972, when some citizens organized as the National 
     Committee for Impeachment paid $17,850 to run a New York 
     Times ad criticizing President Nixon. His Justice Department 
     got a court to enjoin the committee from further spending to 
     disseminate its beliefs. Justice said the committee had not 
     properly registered with the government and the committee's 
     activities might ``affect'' the 1972 election, so it was 
     barred from spending more than $1,000 to communicate its 
     opinions. After the expense of reaching a federal appellate 
     court, the committee defeated the FEC, but only because the 
     committee had not engaged in ``express advocacy'' by 
     explicitly urging people to vote for or against a specific 
     candidate.
       In 1976 some citizens formed the Central Long Island Tax 
     Reform Immediately Committee, which spent $135 to distribute 
     the voting record of a congressman who displeased them. Two 
     years later this dissemination of truthful information 
     brought a suit from the Federal Election Commission's speech 
     police, who said the committee's speech was illegal because 
     the committee had not fulfilled all the registering and 
     reporting the campaign act requires of those who engage in 
     independent expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate. 
     The committee won in a federal appellate court, but only 
     because it had not engaged in ``express advocacy.''
       In 1998, with impeachment approaching, Leo Smith, a 
     Connecticut voter, designed a Web site urging support for 
     Clinton and defeat of Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) When the 
     campaign of Johnson's opponent contacted Smith, worried that 
     his site put him and their campaign in violation of the act, 
     he sought a commission advisory opinion.
       Although Smith neither received nor expended money to 
     create this particular Web site, the Commission said the 
     law's definition of a political expenditure includes a gift 
     of ``something of value,'' and the commission noted that his 
     site was ``administered and maintained'' by his personal 
     computer, which cost money. And that the ``domain named Web 
     site'' was registered in 1996 for $100 for two years and for 
     $35 a year thereafter. And ``costs associated with the 
     creation and maintaining'' of the site are considered an 
     expenditure because the site uses the words that bring on the 
     speech police--it ``expressly advocates'' the election of one 
     candidate and the defeat of another.
       The commission advised Smith that if his site really was 
     independent, he would be ``required to file reports with the 
     commission if the total value of your expenditures exceeds 
     $250 during 1998.'' If his activity were not truly 
     independent, his ``expenditures'' would have to be reported 
     as an in-kind contribution to Johnson's opponent. Smith 
     ignored the commission, which, perhaps too busy policing 
     speech elsewhere, let him get away with free speech.
       Today Internet pornography is protected from regulation, 
     but not Internet political speech. And campaign finance 
     ``reformers'' aspire to much, much more regulation because, 
     they say, there is ``too much money in politics.''
       Actually, too much money that could fund political 
     discourse is spent on complying with the act's speech 
     regulations. To cover compliance costs, the Bush and Gore 
     campaigns combined raised more than $15 million. And Bradley 
     Smith notes that because of the law's ambiguities and the 
     commission's vast discretion, litigation has become a 
     campaign weapon: Candidates file charges to embarrass 
     opponents and force them to expend resources fending off the 
     speech police. Consider this legacy of ``reforms'' during 
     this month's debate about adding to them.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2001]

                 Skirting What the First Amendment Says

                          (By George F. Will)

       With this week's beginning of Senate debate on campaign 
     finance reform, we will reach the most pivotal moment in the 
     history of American freedom since the civil rights revolution 
     3\1/2\ decades ago. The debate concerns John McCain's plan to 
     broaden government limitations on political spending in order 
     to intensify government supervision of political speech, 
     which depends on that spending.
       McCain's attempt to expand government abridgement of the 
     First Amendment's core concern comes in the context of 
     rapidly multiplying rationales for vitiating First Amendment 
     protection of political speech. In recent years law school 
     journals have featured many professors' theories about why 
     the amendment--``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging 
     the freedom of speech''--should not be read as a limit on 
     government. Rather, they argue, the amendment empowers--
     indeed, in today's world it requires--government to regulate, 
     limit and even ``enhance'' political speech.
       Consider a symptomatic new book, ``Republic.com,'' by 
     University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, whose 
     ingenuity deserves better employment. He vigorously attacks a 
     nonexistent problem, to which he proposes a solution that is 
     only, but very, useful as an illustration of the hostility 
     that a portion of the professoriate has toward the plain text 
     of the First Amendment.
       The supposed problem that Sunstein wants government to 
     address is a maldistribution of information and opinion. He 
     begins with a truism, that a heterogeneous society needs the 
     glue of a certain level of common experiences. Then he 
     postulates a problem. It is that the very richness of today's 
     information and opinion environment--the Internet, cable, 
     etc.--allows people to design a personalized menu of 
     communications, deciding what they want to encounter and what 
     they want to filter out of ``a communications universe of 
     their own choosing.''
       Sunstein says unplanned, unanticipated, even--perhaps 
     especially--unwanted encounters are ``central to democracy.'' 
     They help us understand one another and prevent social 
     fragmentation and the extremism that ferments in closed 
     cohorts of the like-minded hearing only ``louder echoes of 
     their own voices.'' Sunstein worries especially that the 
     Internet, by bestowing on individuals the power to customize 
     what they encounter, enables people to bypass ``general 
     interest intermediaries'' such as newspapers and magazines.
       Not so long ago, intellectuals worried that mass media were 
     homogenizing American culture into uniform blandness. Now 
     Sunstein worries about new technologies allowing people to 
     ``wall themselves off'' from differences of opinion, forming 
     isolated enclaves.
       What makes Sunstein's book pertinent to campaign finance 
     reformers' current assaults on the First Amendment is not the 
     plausibility of his diagnosis--who in cacophonous 
     contemporary America feels insufficiently exposed to 
     differences? But note the audacity of his prescription. He 
     would have government use various measures--from ``must 
     carry'' requirements for broadcasters to mandatory links 
     connecting Web sites to others promoting different views--to 
     manage ``the scarce commodity'' of the public's attention. 
     Government, he thinks, should actively ``promote exposure to 
     materials that people would not have chosen in advance.''
       Now, never mind the many practical problems implicit in 
     Sunstein's theory, such as how government will decide which 
     views are insufficiently noticed, and how government will 
     ``trigger'' (Sunstein's word) public interest in them. But 
     mind this:
       Sunstein is an ardent campaign finance reformer for the 
     same reason he recommends government management of the 
     information system. He thinks the First Amendment mandates 
     this. He does not read the amendments as a ``shall not'' 
     stipulation that proscribes government interference with 
     individual rights. Rather, he reads it as a mandate for 
     active government management of the public's ``attention.''
       To Sunstein, and to many similar academic advocates of 
     speech-management through campaign finance reform, what is 
     important about the First Amendment is not its text but the 
     ``values'' they say the amendment represents. They say those 
     values--vigorous debate; deliberative democracy; political 
     heterodoxy--require that the amendment's text be ignored as 
     an anachronism that modern life (the Internet, the costs of 
     campaigning in the age of broadcasting, etc.) has rendered 
     inimical to the amendment's values.
       Politicians who, in the name of campaign finance reform, 
     favor increased government supervision of political 
     communication are not motivated by such recondite reasoning. 
     They simply want to tilt the system even more toward the 
     protection of incumbents, or of their ideological interests, 
     or of their ability to control their campaigns by controlling 
     the ability of others to intervene in the political 
     discourse.
       However, campaign finance reformers depend on academic 
     theories about why it is acceptable to act as though the 
     First Amendment does not mean what it says.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just wrap it up for the time being by imagining 
for a moment the world envisioned by this legislation before us. That 
is a world where political parties are attacked by their own, beaten 
down, stripped of their constitutional rights, and ultimately left as 
shells of their former selves.
  In his book ``The Party's Just Begun,'' University of Virginia 
political science professor Larry Sabato writes a section entitled ``A 
World Without Parties'' where he imagines a world with weak and feeble 
parties. The national parties today are stronger than they have ever 
been in my lifetime. They may have been stronger in the previous 
century--the 19th century--but they are now stronger than they have 
ever been and more useful for services provided to candidates up and 
down the Federal scale than ever. What would life be like without a 
strong two-party system? Surely even the parties' severest critics 
would agree that our politics would be poorer from any further 
weakening of the party system. We have only to look at who and what 
gains as parties decline in influence. The first big gainers: Special 
interest groups and PACs. Their

[[Page 3863]]

money, labels, and organizational power can serve as a substitute for 
parties. Yet instead of fealty to national interest or a broad 
coalition party platform, the candidate's loyalties would be pledged to 
narrow special interest agendas.
  Bear in mind what he is talking about here.
  When a PAC contributes to a party, that money then becomes part of 
the broad party appeal. But a PAC, operating only on its own, has a 
very narrow concern. Who else gains? Wealthy candidates and celebrity 
candidates gain. Their financial resources or their fame can provide 
name identification or, for that matter, simply replace party 
affiliation as a voting cue. Already, at least a third of the Senate 
seats are filled by millionaires. And the number of inexperienced but 
successful candidates drawn from the entertainment and sports worlds 
seems to grow each year.
  So again, as you reduce the influence of parties, who benefits? 
Special interests and PACs, wealthy candidates, celebrity candidates.
  Who else gains? Why, incumbents, of course. The value of incumbency 
increases where party labels are absent or less important since the 
free exposure incumbents receive raises their name identification 
level. There would also be extra value for candidates endorsed by 
incumbents or those who ran on slates with incumbents.
  Who else benefits as the parties decline in influence? The news 
media, particularly television news, gains. Party affiliation is one of 
the most powerful checks on the news media, not only because the voting 
cue of the party label is in itself a countervailing force but also 
because the perceptual screen erected by party identification filters 
media commentary.
  Who else gains? Why, political consultants gain. The independent 
entrepreneurs of the new campaign technologies--such as polling, 
television advertising, and direct mail--secure more influence in any 
system when the parties decline. Already they have become, along with 
some large PACs, the main institutional rivals of the parties, luring 
candidates away from their party moorings and using the campaign 
technologies to supplant parties as the intermediary between candidates 
and volunteers.
  I say to my colleagues, that is not a pretty picture. That is not a 
pretty picture. Remember, as I conclude my remarks here for the moment, 
that this bill before us at the beginning of this debate targets 
political parties. It purports to do a few other things, but no serious 
constitutional scholars believe that that can be done or, if we did, it 
would be upheld in court.
  So make no mistake about it, this targets the political parties. Of 
what value is it, in our American political system, to weaken the 
parties, the one entity out there that will always support challengers, 
no matter what?
  Boy, I tell you, there are some advantages to incumbency. PACs tend 
to like you. Individual contributors tend to like you. You get more 
coverage. On whom can a challenger depend? Either his own pocketbook, 
if he is lucky enough to have a lot of money, or the political party, 
the one entity there to go to bat for a challenger in American 
political competition.
  So I welcome the debate. This is going to be an interesting debate. 
None of us has any real idea how it is going to end, which makes this a 
good deal different from the discussions we have had on this issue in 
recent years. We are going to have a lot of fine amendments. The first 
amendment will be offered by Senator Domenici of New Mexico. It will be 
laid down at 3:15.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I see my colleague from Mississippi here.
  How much time does the distinguished Senator need? Five minutes?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 5 minutes would be ample.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the principal 
sponsors of this bill, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. 
McCain, and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for 
their leadership and for their perseverance.
  This day has been a long time coming, but the time has finally come 
for campaign finance reform. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this 
bill as it was reintroduced at the beginning of this Congress in 
January. I am convinced it is time for the Senate to take action to 
reform the way Federal election campaigns are financed which are, in 
effect, overwhelmingly dominated by the huge amounts of unregulated and 
undisclosed money being spent by organizations, unions, corporations, 
and wealthy individuals to influence the outcome of Federal election 
campaigns.
  It is time to ensure that those who do try to influence the outcome 
of Federal elections will have to report their expenditures so the 
general public will know who is trying to influence the outcome of 
political campaigns and how they are spending their money to do so.
  I also commend the Senate leaders, Mr. Lott and Mr. Daschle, for 
scheduling the debate on this bill so the Senate has an opportunity to 
work its will. Amendments can be offered by any Senator, with ample 
time for debate and consideration of any suggestions for changing or 
improving this legislation.
  This bill, S. 27, in my view, strikes the right balance that we are 
trying to accomplish. I may support some of the amendments that are 
offered. As a matter of fact, I am hopeful that I will be able to offer 
an amendment of my own to strengthen the disclosure requirements. I 
think it will improve the bill as it now stands. I think the public has 
a right to know clearly who is spending the money that affects the 
outcome of Federal elections and how they are spending it.
  We all see the ads. We are overwhelmed by the total number of 
television ads and other mailings that are sent out during a political 
campaign these days in House races, in Senate races, and even the 
Presidential election this past year. Voters have to be confused. Who 
is running the ads? It says ``The Good Government Committee,'' but who 
is that? Or it says something else that sounds really good, as though 
they are on the side of right and justice and right thinking. So they 
put the ad up that suggests or insinuates that one or the other of the 
candidates isn't on the right track, either on one subject or just 
generally speaking, it isn't good for the State or the district or the 
country, or suggests that there may be something in the background of 
the candidate that is suspicious, that needs to be looked at very 
carefully. The insinuation, the misleading tone, the negative aspect of 
political campaigns is fueled by the huge amounts, the juggernaut, an 
almost imperceptible amount of influence being brought to bear on these 
campaigns by who knows what source, who knows who is behind the 
spending.
  I am hopeful we will work hard to get a bill reported out and passed 
by the Senate. We have a wonderful opportunity to do so. The time to 
act is now. Some of the raising and spending of the money, I am 
prepared to suggest, looks more like money laundering operations than 
aboveboard political campaigns that would reflect credit on the 
political system of our country. That needs to be changed. This is the 
vehicle to change it.
  I am hopeful the Senate will work its will and pass this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 30 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 25 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, coauthor 
of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from 
Connecticut. I am extremely pleased to come to the floor today to begin 
the debate on the McCain-Feingold-Cochran bill. Of course, the Senator 
from

[[Page 3864]]

Arizona has been the original inspiration on this issue and the person 
who was able to make this issue and this bill, in particular, something 
of national attention and something that actually was important in the 
discussions in the Presidential debates last year. I have greatly 
enjoyed these 6 years of working with John McCain on this issue.
  Let me also say, if I could have picked one Senator from the other 
side to sort of put us over the top, to change the dynamic of this, 
somebody whom I have always respected, although we have rarely agreed 
on the issues, that person is Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi. His 
credibility and the respect of the Members of this body for him are so 
profound that when he became a major sponsor of this bill, it made it 
possible for us to have this debate. It is because he joined us, and I 
am grateful.
  This debate has been a long time coming. It is our first truly open 
debate on campaign finance reform in many years. We are no longer 
limited to a few days of speeches or parliamentary wrangling and a 
cloture vote or two. Instead, we are going to have an open amending 
process, a vigorous debate, and, in the end, I think we can pass a bill 
for which this body and the country can be proud.
  We have a rare opportunity before us. We also face a great test. The 
opportunity is clear. In the next few weeks we can take a major step 
toward closing the loopholes that have made a mockery of our campaign 
finance laws. We have the power to close these loopholes, and we have 
the duty to close them. The American people will be watching this floor 
over the coming days and weeks. They want to know whether we can 
finally do what is right. Can we finally close the door on the soft 
money system that leaves us so vulnerable to the appearance of 
corruption.
  The Senator from Kentucky was happy that so far in the debate the 
word ``corruption'' had not been mentioned. I am sorry, but the choice 
of the word ``corruption'' is not my choice. It is the standard that 
the U.S. Supreme Court has said we have to deal with if we are going to 
legislate in this area. It is not John McCain's word. It is not my 
word. It is the word of the Court. The Court said, in Nixon v. Shrink 
Missouri Government PAC:

       Buckley demonstrates that the dangers of large, corrupt 
     contributions and the suspicion that large contributions are 
     corrupt are neither novel nor implausible. The opinion noted 
     that the deeply disturbing examples surfacing after the 1972 
     election demonstrate that the problem of corruption is not an 
     illusory one.

  I am sorry the Senator from Kentucky does not want us to talk about 
it, but the Court says we can't do a bill about it unless we do talk 
about it. So we are going to talk about it. We are going to talk about 
corruption, but, more importantly, what is much more obvious and much 
more relevant is the appearance of corruption. It is what it does to 
our Government and our system when people think there may be corruption 
even if it may not exist.
  Can we finally say, together, as legislators, as representatives of 
the people, that soft money isn't worth that risk, that it isn't worth 
risking the appearance of corruption to keep this big soft money 
system? That is the test we are about to take. This debate will test 
whether we can pull back from the soft money status quo to which we 
have become so accustomed over the past few years. This debate will ask 
whether we think this is really how our democracy is supposed to be.
  The public has already answered that question. The vast majority of 
Americans are outraged by the soft money system. They look at us and 
wonder why year after year, Congress after Congress, we let the soft 
money system chip away at our integrity. Day by day, with every vote we 
cast, people wonder was it the money. They doubt us, and we all know 
that. We see it every day. We open up the newspaper and read another 
story about how a powerful industry pushed through this bill or a union 
used a contribution to win this provision or a wealthy individual got 
special treatment on an amendment. It is getting to the point where it 
is difficult to debate any issue, any issue at all where these 
questions are not raised.
  Our parties raise unlimited money with one hand, and we cast our 
votes with the other. And we dare the public to doubt us every time we 
miss an opportunity to fix this system such as the one before us today. 
We cannot afford to keep taking this risk with the public's trust. The 
public's patience is not limitless, and it should not be. We have a 
moment here, a rare moment, to regain the public's trust. I know it 
won't be easy. Real change never is. But the time is right and the will 
of the people is behind this reform.
  All eyes are on this Senate. Either we rise to the occasion and meet 
the test before us or we let the American people down again. Either we 
finally ban soft money in the next few weeks or we let them conclude 
that we are so addicted to this system, so tainted by corruption or at 
least the appearance of corruption that, once again, we cannot change.
  As my colleagues know, the centerpiece of this bill is the ban on 
soft money. In this regard, let me especially thank my colleague, the 
Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for her tireless effort in working 
with me to meet with individual Senators to persuade them to join us on 
the bill and with some significant success. As she and I know, the rise 
of soft money has been so recent and so rapid that one has to sort of 
take a minute and look at how rapid it has been.
  When I came to the Senate in 1992, I wasn't even sure what soft money 
was, or at least I didn't know everything that could be done with it. 
After a tough race against a very well-financed incumbent who spent 
twice as much as I did, I was mostly concerned when I came here with 
the difficulties of people running for office who were not wealthy. I 
am still concerned about that and still think we need to address it, 
and we should get on to it after we do this.
  My commitment to campaign finance reform was forged from that 
experience. Since I came to this distinguished institution, soft money 
has exploded, with far-reaching consequences for our elections and the 
functioning of the Congress.
  As the chart I have shows, soft money first arrived on the scene of 
our national elections in the 1980 elections after a 1978 FEC ruling 
opened the door for parties to accept contributions from corporations 
and unions who are barred from contributing to Federal elections. The 
ruling intended these donations to be used for what the FEC termed 
``party building,'' meaning purposes that are unrelated to influencing 
Federal elections. The best available estimate is that the parties 
raised under $20 million in soft money in the 1980 cycle, and it didn't 
change much in 1984. The loophole remained pretty much dormant.
  In 1988, soft money nearly doubled when both parties began raising 
$100,000 contributions for both the Bush and the Dukakis campaigns, an 
amount that was unheard of prior to 1988. By the 1992 election, the 
year I was elected to this body, soft money fundraising by the major 
parties had doubled yet again, rising to $86 million. Of course, the 
$86 million raised in 1992 was a lot of money. It was nearly as much as 
the $110 million that the two Presidential candidates were given in 
1992 in public financing from the U.S. Treasury. There was growing 
concern about how the money was spent.
  Despite the FEC's decision that soft money could be used for 
activities such as ``get out the vote'' and voter registration 
campaigns without violating the Federal election law's prohibition on 
corporate and union contributions in connection with Federal elections, 
the parties sent much of their soft money to be spent in States where 
the Presidential election between George Bush and Bill Clinton was 
close or where there were key contested Senate races. Still, even in 
1992, soft money was far from the central issue in our debate over 
campaign finance reform in 1993 and 1994. And then in 1995, when 
Senator McCain and I first introduced the McCain-Feingold bill, our 
bill included a ban on soft money, but it wasn't even close to being 
the most

[[Page 3865]]

controversial provision of our bill, and actually nobody paid any 
attention to it in 1995.
  Then, as we all know, came the 1996 election and the enormous 
explosion of soft money fueled by the parties' decision to use the 
money on phony issue ads supporting their Presidential candidates. As 
you can see from the chart, the total soft money fundraising 
skyrocketed as a result of that judgment. When the parties had raised 
$262 million in soft money in 1996, that was appropriately considered 
an incredible sum. And it was. There were 219 people who gave $200,000 
or more in soft money in that cycle, 1996.
  But today, if you can believe it, only 4 years later, 1996 looks like 
a small-time operation compared to the 2000 cycle. I think they are 
still counting from the year 2000. But I believe we know now that the 
parties raised $487.5 million in soft money in the year 2000. That 
dwarfs the amount raised in 1992, and it comes close to doubling the 
amount raised in 1996. The Wall Street Journal reported the other day--
and I say this in response to the comments of the Senator from Kentucky 
about the average soft money contribution being $500--that nearly two-
thirds of that gigantic total I showed you of nearly $500 million was 
given by just 800 donors who gave at least $120,000 each. That is a far 
cry from an average of $500--800 donors, giving an average of $120,000 
each. That is what was the core of the last election.
  This chart shows the huge growth of the megadonors over time. It is 
exponential. A select group of wealthy people, unions, and corporations 
whom the parties have come to depend on for these huge sums of money is 
who is dominating this fundraising.
  That brings us right back to the item we have to talk about--even 
though some don't want us to talk about it--and that is the perception 
of corruption. People are uncomfortable with the parties and, by 
extension, all of us, relying on a concentrated group of wealthy donors 
for a significant part of our fundraising. The American people are 
troubled by that, and so are many of us.
  Recently, our colleague, Senator Miller from Georgia, wrote an 
opinion piece in the Washington Post on his deep misgivings about the 
current fundraising system. He wrote that he doesn't sleep as easy as 
he used to when campaigns weren't defined by how money can be raised 
and spent.
  I would like to read a passage from Senator Miller's op-ed, where he 
describes what fundraising is like today:

       I locked myself in a room with an aide, a telephone, and a 
     list of potential contributors. The aide would get the 
     ``mark'' on the phone, then hand me a card with the spouse's 
     name, the contributor's main interest, and a reminder to 
     ``appear chatty.'' I'd remind the agribusinessman that I was 
     on the Agriculture Committee; I'd remind the banker I was on 
     the Banking Committee.
       And then I'd make a plaintive plea for soft money--that 
     armpit of today's fundraising. I'd always mention some local 
     project I gotten--or hoped to get--for the person I was 
     talking to. Most large contributors understand only two 
     things: what you can do for them and what you can do to them.
       I always left that room feeling like a cheap prostitute 
     who'd had a busy day.

  These are Senator Miller's words. Those are powerful words, and they 
are hard to stomach. I deeply admire the Senator from Georgia for many 
reasons, but especially for being willing to write what we all know to 
be true. Many colleagues have told me privately they are uncomfortable 
with this system. One Senator told me here on the floor that he felt 
like taking a shower after he had made a call for a $250,000 
contribution.
  We have Senators who can't sleep; we have Senators who feel they have 
to take a shower after doing fundraising calls. We have a pretty 
bizarre system. This system cheapens all of us. The people in this body 
are good people; I know that. They care deeply for this country. We 
have to get rid of this soft money system before it drives the good 
people away from public service and drives the public even further away 
from its elected leaders.
  Senator Miller also wrote in his op-ed that while he supports McCain-
Feingold, he thinks it is not enough, that it is only a step in the 
right direction. I agree. After we pass this bill, I hope we will do 
more, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia and 
others on broader reform.
  Senator Miller's words are brutally honest. I think when we are 
honest with ourselves about what our system has become, real change 
can't be far behind. Money should not define this democracy, and it 
doesn't have to. We don't have to pick up the paper and read headlines 
such as ``Influence Market: Industries that Backed Bush Are Now Seeking 
Return On Investment.'' That headline ran in the March 6 Wall Street 
Journal. I think we all know what that means, and so does everyone 
else.
  The assumption that we can be bought, or that the President of the 
United States can be bought, has completely permeated our culture. The 
lead of this article reads:

       For the businesses that invested more money than ever 
     before in George W. Bush's costly campaign for the 
     Presidency, the returns have already begun.

  This is a new administration. It is a new start. And then you have to 
read that, which is quite an accusation. But it is one that people 
don't hesitate to make these days. Whether we are Democrat or 
Republican, we should all be saddened by such an accusation, perhaps 
angry at it, but we can't ignore it or just blame the media for it.
  There is an appearance problem here, Mr. President. No one can deny 
that. But the newspapers didn't create it; we did. I am reminded what 
the great Senator Robert La Follette, from my home State of Wisconsin, 
said in response to those who argued that the press of his day, the 
early 1900s, was spreading hysteria about the power of the railroads 
over the Congress. He said:

       It does not lie in the power of any or all of the magazines 
     of the country or of the press, great as it is, to destroy, 
     without justification, the confidence of the people in the 
     American Congress. It rests solely with the United States 
     Senate to fix and maintain its own reputation for fidelity to 
     the public trust. It will be judged by the record. It can not 
     repose in security upon its exalted position and the glorious 
     heritage of its traditions. It is worse than folly to feel, 
     or to profess to feel, indifferent with respect to public 
     judgment. If public confidence is wanting in Congress, it is 
     not of hasty growth, it is not the product of ``jaundiced 
     journalism.'' It is the result of years of disappointment and 
     defeat.

  Mr. President, I think Senator La Follette had it right. It is not 
the media or the public's fault if what goes on here looks corrupt. It 
is our fault. We have to do something about it. In the next 2 weeks, we 
have a golden opportunity to do something about it.
  Here's another recent example of the public's distrust of our work: 
``Tougher Bankruptcy Laws--Compliments of MBNA?'' That headline 
appeared in Business Week magazine on February 26th. The article goes 
on to say, ``MBNA is about to hit pay dirt. New bankruptcy legislation 
is on a fast track. Judiciary panels in the House and Senate have held 
perfunctory hearings, and a bill could be on the House and Senate 
floors as early as late February.'' Again, the implication is clear. It 
is widely assumed that the credit card issuers called the shots on the 
substance of the bankruptcy bill that we passed last Thursday. Isn't it 
troubling that people are so quick to assume the worst about the work 
we do here on this floor? I think it's a real crisis of confidence in 
our system. And that's why we are taking up this bill--because we have 
to repair some of that public trust. Our reputation is on the line. We 
aren't going to get a pass from the American people on this one, and we 
don't deserve one.
  The appearance of corruption is rampant in our system, and it touches 
virtually every issue that comes before us. that's why I have Called 
the Bankroll on this floor 30 times in less than two years. Because I 
think it's important for us to acknowledge that millions of dollars are 
given in an attempt to influence what we do. Because that's why people 
give soft money, and I don't think anyone would even try to dispute 
that. I won't detail every bankroll here--because that would take all 
day. But let me just review some of the issues they addressed, to show 
how far reaching this problem really is.
  I have Called the Bankroll on mining on public lands, the gun show 
loophole, the defense industry's support of the

[[Page 3866]]

Super Hornet and the F-22, the Y2 K Liability Act, the Passengers' Bill 
of Rights, MFN for China, PNTR for China, and the tobacco industry. I 
have talked about agriculture interests lobbying on an agriculture 
appropriations bill, telecommunications interest lobbying on a tower-
siting bill, and railroad interests lobbying on a transportation 
appropriations bill. I have talked about contributions surrounding the 
Financial Services Modernization Act, nuclear waste policy, the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, and the ergonomics issue. I have also Called 
the Bankroll on the Patients' Bill of Rights--twice, the Africa trade 
bill--twice, the oil royalties amendment to the fiscal year 2000 
Interior appropriations bill--twice, and I have Called the Bankroll on 
three tax bills, and four separate times on the bankruptcy reform 
legislation that we just passed.
  People give soft money to influence the outcome of these issues, 
plain and simple. And as long as we allow soft money to exist, we risk 
damaging our credibility when we make the decisions about the issues 
that the people elected us to make. They sent us here to wrestle with 
some very tough issues. They have vested us with the power to make 
decisions that have a profound impact on their lives. That's a 
responsibility that we take very seriously. But today, when we weigh 
the pros and cons of legislation, many people think we also weigh the 
size of the contributions we got from interests on both sides of the 
issues. And when those contributions can be a million dollars, or even 
more, it seems obvious to most people that we would reward our biggest 
donors.
  That is the assumption people make, and we let them make it. Every 
time we have had the chance to close the soft money loophole, this body 
has faltered. If we can't pass this bill, history will remember that 
this Senate faced a great test, and we failed. That the people accused 
us of corruption, and in our failure to pass a real reform bill, we 
confirmed their worst fear.
  The bill before us today offers a different path. If we can support 
the modest reforms in this bill, we can show the public that we 
understand that the current system doesn't do our democracy justice. 
This is just a modest bill. It is not sweeping. It is not comprehensive 
reform. It only seeks to address the biggest loopholes in our system.
  The soft money ban is the centerpiece of this bill. Our legislation 
shuts down the soft money system, prohibiting all soft money 
contributions to the national political parties from corporations, 
labor unions, and wealthy individuals. State parties that are permitted 
under State law to accept these unregulated contributions would be 
prohibited from spending them on activities relating to Federal 
elections. And Federal candidates and officeholders would be prohibited 
from raising soft money under our bill. That's a very significant 
provision because the fact that we in the Congress are doing the asking 
is what gives this system an air of extortion, as well as bribery.
  McCain-Feingold-Cochran also addresses the issue ad loophole, which 
corporations and unions use to skirt the federal election law. This 
provision, originally crafted by Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords, 
treats corporations and unions fairly and equally. I want to be clear 
here. Snowe-Jeffords does not prohibit any election ad, nor does it 
place limits on spending by outside organizations. But it will give the 
public crucial information about the election activities of independent 
groups and it will prevent corporate and union treasury money from 
being spent to influence elections.
  Under the bill, labor unions and for-profit corporations would be 
prohibited from spending their treasury funds on radio or TV ads that 
refer to a clearly identified candidate and appear within 30 days of a 
primary or 60 days of a general election. 501(c)(4) non-profit 
corporations can make electioneering communications only as long as 
they use only individual contributions. Disclosure is significantly 
increased for these (c)(4) advocacy groups, and across the board for 
anyone who spends over $10,000 in a calendar year on these kinds of 
ads.
  I'm sure Senators Snowe and Jeffords will describe this provision of 
the bill in greater detail as we go forward, and we will have a 
spirited debate about whether it should be strengthened or even removed 
from the bill altogether. Let me just say that I believe the Snowe-
Jeffords provisions is a fair compromise and the right balance. It 
fairly balances legitimate first amendment concerns with the goal of 
enforcing the law that prohibits unions and corporations from spending 
money in connection with Federal elections.



  In this bill, we also codify the Beck decision and strengthen the 
foreign money ban. The bill strengthens current law to make it clear 
that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign contributions on 
Federal property, including the White House and the United States 
Congress. We also bar Federal candidates from converting campaign funds 
for personal use, such as a mortgage payment or country club 
membership.
  I recognize that some of our colleagues are concerned about the 
coordination provision, which specifies circumstances in which 
activities by outside groups or parties will be considered coordinated 
with candidates. I want to let our colleagues know that we are 
listening, and we are working on a modification of that section of the 
bill. We will offer an amendment during this debate that I hope will 
satisfy most of the concerns that have been raised.
  Throughout this process, we have welcomed the input and suggestions 
of our colleagues, and we will continue to do so throughout this 
debate. Over the next two weeks, every Member of the Senate will have 
an opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I hope each of us 
will. There are 100 experts on campaign finance law in this body. We've 
all lived under this system. We know how campaigns work. The success of 
this reform depends on a vigorous and informed debate, and I think we 
will have it.
  Mr. President, I'm sure most of my colleagues are aware of the 
serious political crisis underway as we speak in the nation of India. 
Journalists posing as arms dealers shot videos with hidden cameras on 
which politicians and defense officials were seen accepting cash and 
favors in return for defense contracts. Those pictures have caused a 
huge scandal. The Indian Defense Minister has resigned, and we don't 
know yet how great the repercussions will be.
  One thing that struck me as I read the news reports of these events 
was two of the people caught on tape were party leaders, including the 
leader of the ruling party, the BJP, Mr. Bangaru Laxman. Let me read 
from an AP story of March 16:

       Laxman denied that the journalists identified themselves to 
     him as defense contractors or discussed weapons sales. He 
     said they were presented as businessmen and that accepting 
     money for the party is not illegal in India.

  I am not going to say that what is happening in India is the same as 
the system we have in the United States, and I'm certainly not going to 
comment on the guilt or innocence of any party leader or political 
official in that sovereign country. But the government of India is 
hanging by a thread based on possibly corrupt payments of a few 
thousand dollars by people posing as defense contractors. We have 
literally hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to our political 
parties from business and labor interests of all kinds. And our 
defense, like Mr. Laxman's is, ``it's legal.'' We have a system of 
legalized bribery, a system of legalized extortion, in this country. 
But legal or not, like the videotaped payments in India, this system 
looks awful.
  The eyes of the Nation are on this Chamber. This group of 100 
Senators can prove to the public that we are the Senate that the people 
want us to be. But the public's patience is wearing very thin. We 
cannot pick up the phone to raise soft money with one hand, and cast 
our votes with the other for much longer. The harm to the reputation of 
the Congress is simply too great. If we fail to pass real reform, we 
choose soft money over the public trust. That's a risk we cannot afford 
to take. We have a rare opportunity before us, and a great test. Let us 
seize the opportunity

[[Page 3867]]

for reform, and meet the test before us with a firm commitment to 
restoring the public's faith in us and the work we do. The public 
doubts whether we can do it, Mr. President, but I believe that we can, 
and I believe that we must.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senator from California requests how 
much time?
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time do you have?
  Mr. DODD. There are 13 minutes remaining. Why not take 6 of it.
  Mrs. BOXER. That would be great.
  Mr. President, I wish to start out by thanking Senators McCain and 
Feingold for their hard work on this very important piece of 
legislation. I know it is hard to challenge the status quo. I commend 
them both for their courage and their commitment to this cause. My own 
commitment goes back to my early days as a candidate for political 
office 25 years ago. I have supported such efforts to change our 
campaign finance system whenever I have gotten the opportunity. I thank 
my friends for getting us this opportunity. It wasn't easy to do it. 
They worked hard and they got it.
  When I ran for the Senate, I became even more of a rabid supporter of 
campaign finance reform, as I learned I had to raise $12 million at 
that time in 1992.
  After my second run for the Senate, in which I had to raise $20 
million, I became so supportive of campaign finance reform that I am 
truly ready to clamp down on this obscene situation. Yes, if there are 
some unforeseen consequences, I am willing to take a look at how to fix 
it, but today we must support this change regarding soft money.
  I want to give my colleagues some figures. For someone from 
California who does not have independent wealth, in order to raise $12 
million--and that is an old number; it is probably going to be up to 
$30 million the next time--just $12 million, I would have to raise 
$10,000 a day 7 days a week for 6 years. What a way to be a Senator 
when you are consistently worried about how you are going to raise this 
money.
  I say to my friends, Russ Feingold and John McCain, that I liked 
their other versions better than this one because they went further; 
they did more. They included an incentive to lower the amount of money 
we could spend. I liked it better. They allowed you to get lower prices 
for TV and mailings.
  This version is not my favorite one, but it is the only game in town 
that does something about clamping down on the soft money abuses. 
Therefore, I will be supporting it.
  I want to talk a minute about the broadcast industry. What a 
situation. When I ran the last time, to get a 30-second spot on prime 
time, it cost $50,000 to get one ``Barbara Boxer for Senate'' spot on 
TV. I always thought we owned the airwaves. Isn't there a way we can do 
better than this? In other words, the people of the country should be 
able to get our message, but why should it cost these obscene amounts 
of money?
  The fact is, the Court, as my friend, Senator McConnell, has said so 
often, has equated money and speech. I respectfully disagree. It means 
someone with wealth has more free speech than I do because they can 
spend their own money. That is not right. I think our founders would 
turn in their graves thinking about that one. We are all supposed to be 
equal. We are all supposed to have free speech. Why should one of us 
have more free speech than another?
  I think the Buckley case ought to be reheard, but that is a debate 
for another day, and in 6 minutes I could never go into all its 
nuances.
  There are three proposals essentially before us. One is the McCain-
Feingold bill which I support, one is the Hagel bill which I do not 
support, and one out there is a vague proposal by President Bush which, 
to me, is a total sham, and I will explain why I think that way.
  I truly think Chuck Hagel is trying hard to come up with an 
alternative. I do not agree with it because I think it opens the 
floodgates of hard money and does not do enough to cap soft money. I 
know he is trying hard to put something forward that he thinks will 
hold up.
  I want to talk a minute about the President's approach. First, he 
wants to punish working people by making them sign off before a dollar 
can be used by a union. I always thought this was a free society. 
People join unions freely, and if they do not like their union 
leadership, they can vote them out.
  The President knows what he is doing. He is after working men and 
women in this country. Just look at his tax cut. He does not do 
anything to help them. They are in the dog house, so he is going to 
hurt working men and women by this so-called Paycheck Protection Act 
that makes no sense. This idea of having the shareholders check off 
every time somebody wants to make a contribution is just absolutely 
unworkable. Then he puts a little caveat in there that puts the entire 
issue at risk because we think it will be struck down by the courts. It 
is a cynical ploy.
  How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my friend if I can have an 
additional minute in addition to the 30 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is a tie-in between what we do here 
and the large contributions that come into this arena. Let's look at 
the President.
  The President likes things as they are. He gets these big unregulated 
contributions. So what has he done? He has only been in office a couple 
of months: International gag rule, a payback to the far right that gave 
him a lot of money; repeal of the ergonomics workplace protection rule, 
a payback against working men and women; bankruptcy reform aimed at 
helping banks and credit card companies, a payback; plans to open up 
the Alaska wildlife refuge for drilling, a payback to the oil 
companies; reversal of his campaign pledge on CO2, carbon 
dioxide emissions, a payback to the coal industry; tax cuts aimed at 
the richest people--those are the only ones who make out on this one; 
they walk away and smile all the way to the bank--a payback to his 
contributors.
  His campaign finance position is a payback to all those folks. I hope 
we will support McCain-Feingold. I think it is worthy of passage.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Dodd for the time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 3 minutes--5 minutes, 
whatever my colleague from Michigan----
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 5 minutes if the Senator has it.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I commend Senators McCain and 
Feingold for bringing us to this point, to this moment of truth. I also 
commend our leadership, both the majority leader and the Democratic 
leader and the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee, for 
helping to organize a time period which will allow us to have a free-
wheeling and open debate.
  This is finally the moment of truth on campaign finance reform. The 
next few weeks will help us determine whether we recapture the faith 
which is at the heart of our democracy or whether we let it again slip 
from our grasp.
  Decades have transpired since our predecessors enacted the current 
campaign finance laws. It was not easy. It took a scandal of momentous 
proportions--the financial irregularities associated with the 1972 
Presidential campaign--to bring Congress to action, but act it did.
  Now it is our moment of truth, our moment to decide whether we rescue 
the law which our predecessors had the good sense and courage to enact, 
or whether the moment is drowned in a sea of excuses.
  Let's begin with some basic truths.

[[Page 3868]]

  Truth No. 1: There are contribution limits embodied in our law, 
meaningful limits, and if the law were followed and interpreted as 
originally intended, we would not be here today. Let's look at those 
limits in the system which we put in place 25 years ago.
  Individuals are not supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate 
per election, $5,000 to a political action committee, $20,000 a year to 
a national party committee, $25,000 total in any 1 year for all 
contributions combined.
  Corporations and unions are prohibited from contributing anything to 
a candidate except through carefully prescribed political action 
committees. The limit of a corporate or union PAC contribution is 
$5,000 per candidate.
  Presidential campaigns are supposed to be financed just with public 
funds.
  Those are the laws on the books today.
  Truth No. 2: The Supreme Court has upheld the legality and 
constitutionality of those contribution limits in a number of cases, 
including Buckley v. Valeo and Nixon v. Missouri Government Shrink PAC. 
In those cases, the Supreme Court held that limits on contributions do 
not violate free speech.
  Truth No. 3: The soft money loophole has effectively destroyed those 
contribution limits. The loophole is huge. Since you cannot give more 
than a limited amount to a candidate, give all you want to his or her 
party and, of course, the party turns around and spends that money 
helping the candidate win election. Soft money has blown the lid off 
the contribution limits of our campaign finance system. As many 
commentators, colleagues, and constituents have said, practically 
speaking, there are no limits.
  The truth is, the public is offended by this spectacle of huge 
contributions, and well they should be, and we should be, too.
  Just one reason why we should not enjoy the spectacle--and the public 
certainly does not--is that in order to get these large contributions, 
access to us is openly and blatantly sold. We sell lunch or dinner with 
``the committee chairman of your choice'' for $100,000. This is a 
bipartisan problem. Both parties do it.
  From an RNC, 1997 annual gala: For $100,000, you get a luncheon with 
the Senate and House leadership and the Republican House and Senate 
committee chairmen of your choice.
  We sell access to insiders meetings, strategy sessions, participation 
in congressional advisory groups, or trade missions. The open 
solicitation of campaign contributions in exchange for access to people 
with the power to affect the life or livelihood of the person being 
solicited creates an appearance of impropriety and a misuse of power.
  From the Democratic National Committee, for $100,000, you get a 
meeting with the President, you go on a trade mission with leadership 
as they travel abroad to examine current and developing political and 
economic issues, and a whole lot of other benefits--large contributions 
in exchange for access.
  The moment of truth is now. We must not let this moment pass without 
doing what we believe is right and necessary to restore public 
confidence in ways in which campaigns are financed and run.
  I thank both Senators McCain and Feingold for their extraordinary 
courage, their determination, their grit. I thank also our leadership 
and the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee for helping 
to schedule this debate in a way in which I think we can resolve this 
festering problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Kentucky has 13 
minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There are other speakers on the other side awaiting 
the arrival of Senator Domenici. I am happy to dole out some of my 
time.
  Mr. DODD. This has been helpful. I commend my colleagues from Arizona 
and Wisconsin, and my colleague from Michigan, who always gives an 
eloquent statement, along with Harry Reid and the Senator from 
Mississippi. I commend Senator Hagel and Senator McConnell for 
expressing their points of view on one of the most significant debates 
we are apt to have in this Congress; that is, over the very issue of 
how we raise the necessary dollars to campaign for the very offices 
which we hold and which we seek reelection to not only here but in the 
other body.
  It has been fascinating to note over the last 25 years that we have 
had public financing for Presidential races; every single candidate, 
both Democrat and Republican, going back to the late 1970s, has 
supported and used public financing, along with the limits imposed as a 
result of accepting public dollars to campaign for the Presidency of 
the United States. We are not yet debating a public financing mechanism 
for races in the House and the Senate. Depending on the outcome of this 
debate, at some future date that may be the case.
  I have supported public financing in the past and believe it is the 
way we can end up without any constitutional question of limiting the 
amount of dollars that come into campaigns and other restrictions we 
may believe appropriate on how we conduct our efforts to seek Federal 
office in this country.
  The bottom line is clear. Whether you agree with public financing or 
not, the point articulated by the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator 
from Arizona, and others is that this system is broken. It is a failed 
system. When you have to spend the hours we do every day for 6 years 
conducting a Senate campaign--and I don't envy candidates from New 
York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, where the cost of seeking a 
Senate seat in those States has moved to $15-, $20-, $30 million--when 
you must raise, as the Senator from California pointed out, $10,000 a 
day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 6 years in order to compete for 
the Senate seat in that State, and if someone turns around and says 
there is not enough money in politics, I wonder on what planet they are 
living. If you have to raise $10,000 a day, plus being a Senator to 
represent your State, go to your committee hearings, meet constituency 
groups, answer the phone, send out the mail, the system is not broken? 
The system is not flawed? This is incredible.
  It has been said by the authors of the bill, it is not a perfect 
proposal. I regret it is not the earlier McCain-Feingold proposal. 
There is some unevenness in the bill in applying provisions where this 
is applicable to some groups and organizations and not others. I am 
told that is the political reality. I am not comfortable with that as a 
reason why we don't have a level playing field for all groups.
  This is the one chance we will have to do something about this 
system. It is the one chance remaining to try to make meaningful 
changes in the law. If it is not perfect, if there are unintended 
consequences, we can come back and arrange or correct that. But we 
shouldn't not do anything and leave the system as it presently is 
constructed.
  It is hard enough to get people to vote today, to participate, to 
support those who seek public office. I am not going to suggest that 
automatically we are going to have some great conversion on the road to 
Damascus where all of a sudden the mass of the American voting public 
will collectively say, hallelujah, the system has been cleaned up and 
we can now all engage in the support of our candidates because McCain-
Feingold is adopted. That is naive.
  But I do believe the American public will respond favorably if this 
Senate in these next 2 weeks adopts the McCain-Feingold legislation and 
says: While we haven't dramatically changed the system, we have 
improved it dramatically. That is my hope.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Senator Domenici is here. He will be recognized at 
3:15 to lay down the first amendment.
  I conclude the opening comments by saying, as I said before, McCain-
Feingold will not take money out of politics; it will take the parties 
out of politics.
  Having said that at the beginning of 2 weeks of a wild ride, it will 
be easier to predict who will win the NCAA tournament than how the bill 
will come out after 2 weeks of amendments. I think there is one 
prediction I can make fairly confidently. I think there will be an

[[Page 3869]]

effort, hopefully not supported by a majority but an effort to water 
down anything that might offend the AFL-CIO. I predict by the end of 
this debate there will be no paycheck protection, watered down 
restriction on coordination and issue advocacy as it applies to the 
AFL-CIO, and no disclosure of the union ground game. So it is about the 
only prediction I will confidently make, that before we are finished 
with this debate, the opposition to the AFL-CIO will have been taken 
care of by the watering down and massaging of language to the point 
where they sign off on it.
  I hope that will not be the case because last year they spent 
considerably more on the election than either of the two political 
parties. I repeat, they spent more on the election last year than 
either one of the two great political parties.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me finish my point and I will be happy to yield.
  I hope by the time we get to the end of the debate, they will still 
think they are impacted. I yield to my friend from Arizona for a 
question.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will bring it up at another time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky controls the time 
until 3:15.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Senator Domenici is here and ready to go forward. I 
believe everybody on the floor has already spoken at least once.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I point out to the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator 
from Maine has arrived. I believe she has a brief opening statement for 
the remainder of the time, if that is acceptable to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator from Maine can do it in 5 minutes. I 
don't want to delay Senator Domenici's amendment. The Senator can do it 
into his amendment, into the discussion on his amendment. She can also 
make an opening statement, if she so desires.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Why don't colleagues just decide how much time she 
needs. I am willing for her to do that now. In fact, I have somebody 
out there who needs me for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Maine my remaining 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.
  Madam President, I am delighted we are beginning the debate on the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, and of the campaign finance 
reform efforts that have been led for many years by my good friends, 
Senators McCain and Feingold. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor 
of their bill, which takes several critical steps toward reform of our 
campaign finance system.
  I have long supported campaign finance reform. When I was running for 
the Senate in 1996, I promised to advocate reform, and I kept that 
promise by becoming an early cosponsor of McCain-Feingold during my 
first year in the Senate.
  The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 goes a long way toward 
fixing a broken system. First and foremost, the bill closes the most 
glaring loophole in our campaign finance laws by banning the unlimited, 
unregulated contributions known as ``soft money.'' Second, the bill 
regulates and limits the campaign advertisements masquerading as issue 
ads that corporations and labor organizations often run in the weeks 
leading up to an election. And third, the bill prohibits foreign 
nationals from contributing soft money in connection with federal, 
state, or local elections.
  My home State of Maine has a deep commitment to preserving the 
integrity of the electoral system and ensuring that all Mainers have an 
equal political voice. Mainers have backed their commitment to an open 
political process in both word and deed. In many regions of Maine, town 
meetings in which all citizens are invited to debate issues and make 
decisions are still prevalent. This is unvarnished, direct democracy. 
It contrasts sharply with the increasing ability of people with more 
money to speak longer and louder in federal elections. Maine's 
tradition of town meetings and equal participation rejects the notion 
that wealth dictates political discourse. Maine citizens feel strongly 
about reforming our federal campaign laws, as do I.
  Soft money has become the conduit through which wealthy individuals, 
labor unions and corporations have in many ways seized control of our 
political process. The problem with soft money was evident during the 
1997 hearings by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, chaired 
by my good friend, Senator Thompson. During those investigations, we 
heard from one individual who gave $325,000 to the Democratic National 
Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of the United 
States. We also heard from the infamous Roger Tamraz who testified that 
the $300,000 he spent to gain access to the White House was not enough 
and that, next time, he would spend $600,000. And we heard of 
individuals, such as Chinese millionaire Ted Sioeng, who orchestrated 
nearly $600,000 in political contributions during the 1996 election 
cycle. Sieong, we later discovered, was a self-described agent of the 
Chinese government who made his fortune manufacturing a popular brand 
of cigarettes in China.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, soft money donations 
nearly doubled in the 2000 presidential election cycle, from $262 
million in 1996 to $488 million in 2000. Other estimates set the 
figures even higher. At the same time, regulated, hard money donations 
increased a little more than 10-percent.
  In short, soft money is a growing wave that threatens to swamp our 
campaign finance system. Each election cycle, the wave gains momentum 
and size. Just two presidential elections ago, soft money contributions 
totaled $86 million, or one-sixth of the amount raised in the latest 
cycle. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 has served our country 
well. But those seeking ways to influence our elections have found 
loopholes that have overwhelmed the rule themselves. I therefore 
applaud the bipartisan efforts of Senators McCain and Feingold and 
pledge my continued support throughout the long process ahead. I know 
we are in for a spirited debate and believe that, ultimately, the will 
of the majority of Americans will prevail. They want reform. It is time 
we heed their message.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 112

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe it is in order now for me to 
send an amendment to the desk, and I do so on behalf of myself and 
Senator Ensign.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for himself and 
     Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 112.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase contribution limits in response to candidate's 
  use of personal wealth and limit time to use contributions to repay 
                      personal loans to campaigns)

       On page 37, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 305. USE OF PERSONAL WEALTH FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES.

       Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Use of Personal Wealth.--
       ``(1) Required declaration.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 15 days after the date a 
     candidate for the office of Senator is required to file a 
     declaration of candidacy under Federal law, the candidate 
     shall file with the Commission a declaration stating whether 
     or not the candidate intends to expend personal funds in 
     connection with the candidate's election for office, in an 
     aggregate amount equal to or greater than $500,000.
       ``(B) Personal funds.--In this subsection, the term 
     `personal funds' means--
       ``(i) funds of the candidate (including funds derived from 
     any asset of the candidate) or funds from obligations 
     incurred by the candidate in connection with the candidate's 
     campaign; and

[[Page 3870]]

       ``(ii) funds of the candidate's spouse, a child, stepchild, 
     parent, grandparent, brother, sister, half-brother, or half-
     sister of the candidate and the spouse of any such person, 
     and a child, stepchild, parent, grandparent, brother, half-
     brother, sister, or half-sister of the candidate's spouse and 
     the spouse of such person.
       ``(C) Form of statement.--The statement required by this 
     subsection shall be in such form, and shall contain such 
     information, as the Commission may, by regulation, require.
       ``(2) Increase in limits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, in any election in which a candidate for the office of 
     Senator declares an intention to expend more personal funds 
     than the limit described in paragraph (1)(A), expends 
     personal funds in excess of such limit, or fails to file the 
     declaration required by this subsection, the increased 
     contribution limits under subparagraph (B) shall apply to 
     other eligible candidates in the same election.
       ``(B) Limit amounts.--The increased limits under this 
     subparagraph are the following:
       ``(i) In the case of an election in which a candidate 
     declares an intention to expend, or expends, personal funds 
     in an amount equal to or greater than $500,000 but not more 
     than $749,999, the limits under paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) 
     of subsection (a) shall be 3 times the applicable limit.
       ``(ii) In the case of an election in which a candidate 
     declares an intention to expend, or expends, personal funds 
     in an amount equal to or greater than $750,000 but not more 
     than $999,999--

       ``(I) the limits under paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of 
     subsection (a) shall be 5 times the applicable limits; and
       ``(II) the limits under subsection (h) shall not apply.

       ``(iii) In the case of an election in which a candidate 
     declares an intention to expend, or expends, personal funds 
     in an amount equal to or greater than $1,000,000--

       ``(I) the limit under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be 5 times 
     the applicable amount;
       ``(II) the limits under subsection (a)(2)(A) with respect 
     to a contribution from a State or national committee of a 
     political party, (d), and (h) shall not apply.

       ``(3) Eligible candidate.--In this paragraph, an eligible 
     candidate is a candidate who is not required to file a 
     declaration under paragraph (1) or amended declaration under 
     paragraph (5).
       ``(4) Inapplicability of increased limits.--If the 
     increased limitations under paragraph (2) are in effect for a 
     convention or a primary election, as a result of an 
     individual candidate, and such individual candidate is not a 
     candidate in any subsequent election in such campaign, 
     including the general election, the provisions of paragraph 
     (2) shall no longer apply to eligible candidates in such 
     subsequent elections.
       ``(5) Amended declaration.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any candidate who--
       ``(i) declares under paragraph (1) that the candidate does 
     not intend to expend personal funds in an aggregate amount in 
     excess of the limit described in paragraph (1)(A); and
       ``(ii) subsequently does expend personal funds in excess of 
     such limit or intends to expend personal funds in excess of 
     such limits,
     such candidate shall notify and file an amended declaration 
     with the Commission and shall notify all other candidates for 
     such office within 24 hours after changing such declaration 
     or exceeding such limits, whichever first occurs, by sending 
     such notice by certified mail, return receipt requested.
       ``(B) Additional notification.--After the candidate files a 
     declaration under paragraph (1)(A) or an amended declaration 
     under subparagraph (A), the candidate shall file an 
     additional notification with the Commission and all other 
     candidates for such office each time expenditures from 
     personal funds are made in an aggregate amount in excess of--
       ``(i) $750,000; and
       ``(ii) $1,000,000.
       ``(6) Enforcement.--The Commission shall take such action 
     as it deems necessary under the enforcement provisions of 
     this Act to assure compliance with the provisions of this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 306. USE OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO REPAY PERSONAL LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a), as amended by section 
     305, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Limitation on repayment of personal loans.--Any 
     candidate who incurs personal loans in connection with the 
     candidate's campaign for election shall not repay (directly 
     or indirectly), to the extent such loans exceed $250,000, 
     such loans from any contributions made to such candidate or 
     any authorized committee of such candidate after the date of 
     such election.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to loans made or incurred after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Domenici amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, for those interested in campaign 
reform, obviously this is a rare opportunity for the United States to 
see a full debate on this issue. If you will forgive me, those who are 
involved in the underlying debate, I choose to depart from the subject 
matter that has been debated for the last 2 hours and concentrate on 
just one new phenomenon that is occurring in elections in the United 
States that I think has to be righted, and that has to do with the 
growing number of men and women who run for the Senate and pay for 
their own campaigns with large amounts of money.
  We have been talking about large amounts of money coming from all 
different sources. Some think that is changing the election campaigns 
for the better; some think it is changing them for the worse. But I 
think one thing we ought to seriously worry about and wonder about is a 
man or woman who chooses to run for the Senate and says: I want to use 
my constitutional rights to spend $5 million, $10 million, $20 million, 
$30 million, $40 million, $50 million of my own money--his or her own 
money--to get elected.
  That is OK, says the Supreme Court. Far be it for the Senator from 
New Mexico to think I know how to change that. I do not. I am not sure, 
if I knew how, that I would want to. But what I do know is, whoever 
chooses to do that has a huge, unfair opportunity over their opponent.
  Why do I say that? Because, you understand, and everybody listening 
should understand, that when you run for the Senate, you cannot go 
collect $10,000 and $20,000, and $40,000 contributions.
  Let's start off looking at a candidate who is going to spend $10 
million or $20 million or $30 million of his or her own money, and then 
look at their opponent. Under current election laws, that opponent can 
raise money from individuals--rich, or moderately rich, or ordinary 
citizens who are not very rich--but they are limited to $1,000 per 
election.
  The occupant of the chair just went through an election. She knows 
what I am talking about--$1,000 per contributor in the primary and the 
general election. Think of that for a moment. That used to be the 
primary way to raise money for a Senate candidate to run his or her own 
campaign. Just think of what a Senator has to do, to raise $5 million 
that way.
  Also, there is no way you can do it with $1,000 or $2,000 
contributions. You would have to have a breakfast, a lunch, and a 
dinner every day with $1,000 contributors, with 10, or 15, or 20 at 
each event, and do it for about 1 year to be able to raise $5 million.
  Is it fair, even though it is constitutionally authorized, for a 
wealthy American to put up whatever amount they want? We have seen it 
in large scale go from over $45 million down to $5 million, or $6 
million, or $7 million, and we have seen a very large number of 
successes from those who do that.
  I regret to say I am not sure I would do that for a Senate seat if I 
had a lot of resources. I have been here a long time. I am not sure it 
is worth $20 million, in any event. Maybe when I first started, I would 
have been very excited about it. I still love it, but I just wonder if 
I would put up $20 million, or $30 million, or $40 million to beat my 
opponent who couldn't come close to raising the money.
  Let's get down to what I am trying to do. What I am trying to do is 
leave that alone. I can't change that. What I can say is that somebody 
who intends to do that has to publicly disclose it at various intervals 
in the campaign. Then we start to raise the caps for the nonmillionaire 
candidate so that they have more latitude to raise money to compete 
with the person who is going to contribute millions of their own money.
  Essentially, in that context, it is an equalizer amendment; it is a 
fair play amendment; it is a ``let's be considerate of a candidate who 
isn't rich'' amendment--whatever you choose to call it.
  I want to describe what I choose to do in this amendment.
  First of all, the person who intends to spend large amounts of their 
own money--I want to say it again: Senator

[[Page 3871]]

Domenici from New Mexico is not trying to stop that. I am fully aware 
that I couldn't even if I wanted to. I do not know if I would if I 
could. But the U.S. Supreme Court said that is a freedom of speech 
issue with the person who can either borrow large amounts of money or 
who wants to spend large amounts of money.
  What I say is they must declare the intent to spend more than a half 
million dollars within 15 days of being required to file a declaration 
of candidacy.
  Over $500,000--let's do that one first. Fifteen days, if you are 
going to spend $500,000--over $500,000--opponents, individuals and PACs 
are increased threefold. If it is $500,000 of your own money, then that 
$1,000 contribution turns to $3,000 for the opponent. The PACs go from 
5 to 15.
  If you go beyond the $500,000, and you are going to spend $750,000, 
then everything is increased by five times. Those are the caps that 
currently operate. Instead of $1,000, it will be $5,000 per election, 
and the same on the PACs.
  If you are going to do $1 million, then direct party contribution 
limits or party coordinated expenditures limits are eliminated, as well 
as you eliminate the cap on individual contributions, and the cap stays 
at five times. It stays at five times at the highest category, but then 
the party contributions and party coordinated expenditures which have 
caps on them are eliminated.
  It has one other feature. I don't really mean it for anybody in the 
past; I just want it to apply in the future. But you see, there is 
another practice that has come into play that I don't think is fair. 
That is, you use your own money or you lend yourself money. Then, after 
you are elected, you go have a lot of fundraisers as an elected 
Senator, and you pay yourself back. Frankly, I don't think you ought to 
do that. If you are going to spend $5 million and go out there and 
robustly tell everybody you are spending $5 million of your own money, 
or $10 million of your own money--I guess we have had somebody spend 
$40 million of their own money--you shouldn't get elected and go out 
and have fundraisers to collect the money back once you have won the 
seat, which you essentially won by putting in such a huge amount of 
your own money.
  This limits candidates who incur personal loans in connection with 
their campaign in excess of $250,000. They can do $250,000 and then 
reimburse themselves with fundraisers. But anything more than that, 
they cannot repay it by going out and having fundraisers once they are 
elected with their own money.
  I don't think the details are very important to this amount. I think 
if Senators see what I see, they are going to want to adopt this 
amendment. This whole debate is about what people perceive as too much 
money being put into campaigns at one level or another.
  I am not sure I know what that is in terms of party participation. I 
am listening to the debate. I am complimenting Senator McCain and 
others who are working on the bill and those who are coming up with 
other amendments. But I think the amendment I have also addresses a 
growing issue that should be of great concern, whether it is a 
Republican, a Democrat, or a third-party candidate.
  If you are going to run for the Senate, and if you are going to put 
huge amount of your own money into the campaign, it is patently unfair 
that your opponent would be limited to fundraising levels that are 26 
years old without a change, which is $1,000 per primary and $1,000 per 
general from your friends who want to help you.
  Just think for a moment. If you are so fortunate to have somebody run 
against you with $20 million of their own money, just think of what is 
ahead of you--to go out and raise the money you need to run a fair 
campaign against $20 million and raise it $1,000 at a time per election 
and a $5,000 limitation on PACs. It is patently wrong and unfair.
  If it is constitutional to fix it--and I believe this may be 
constitutional because, as a matter of fact, we are denying no rights 
to the wealthy if they want to put in their money. But to the person 
who runs against them, we say we want to give you a chance to stay in 
the playing field by raising limits on how you can raise money and from 
whom.
  I note my friend from Kentucky wanting to be recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator has raised an extraordinarily important 
issue with regard to the dilemma that a modestly well-off candidate 
faces when running against someone of extraordinary wealth. I think he 
has come up with an amendment to bring some justice to that situation.
  I am also curious if the Senator has thought about another value: 
That there will be one or more amendments dealing with that 26-year-old 
hard money contribution limit of $2,700.
  Imagine the unknown candidate running in a State such as California 
against somebody who is either well known or well off. The Senator 
suggested it would be difficult to compete against such a person in New 
Mexico or Kentucky. I ask my friend whether he thinks there would be 
any chance in the world of a candidate running against a millionaire in 
a big State such as California.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, it seems to me we have seen some evidence of 
that, for there was a race out there--I am not using names of who did 
this but there was a very huge amount of money spent by a candidate. 
The candidate didn't happen to win. But essentially the opposition had 
a terrible time raising money to compete. It just turned out that there 
was something else happening in that election.
  Given the money that people in California have who made these large 
fortunes, if one of them chooses to go in and put up really a big 
portion of their own money, an opponent at $1,000 per individual and 
per election and $5,000 in PAC money--essentially the major ways of 
raising money--I don't see how they can compete.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator from New Mexico agree, then, that 
failure to index the so-called hard money contribution limit back in 
the mid 1970s has completely distorted the process across the board?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No question about it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And it is one of the single biggest problems we should 
try to remedy during this debate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is no doubt in my mind that we ought to try to 
fix that. I, as one Senator, saw this issue that I am addressing 
arising in 1987. So I introduced a bill that we called the wealthy 
candidate bill. Frankly, we did not have a debate that looked like it 
was going to bring reform. So I just kept introducing it every 2 years. 
One time, Senator Dole offered something very much similar. But the 
underlying bill never did proceed beyond the debate stage.
  I want everybody to understand. I want to repeat, just in very simple 
terms, that I do not know whether a very wealthy candidate will be a 
great Senator, a good Senator, or not so good Senator. I do not know 
that. I am not trying to say because you have $10 million or $40 
million to spend on your campaign, you should not run and use your own 
money--not at all. Nor am I suggesting that if you spend a huge 
amount--$40 million--and win that you were the better or the lesser 
candidate.
  I am merely saying, we established rules limiting what the opponent 
can spend. These are statutory rules that are 26 years old, coming out 
of Watergate, that say what the opponent to that wealthy candidate can 
spend. It is in that regard that I speak. If, in fact, the wealthy 
candidate wants to disclose, as prescribed in this statute, that he is 
going to spend this money--and, of course, there are statute law 
penalties if they do not comply with the law--if they do that, then it 
would seem to me you ought to amend the 26-year-old limitations, which 
are under attack here as being too low anyway. There are a number of 
amendments in the bill saying that number is too low.
  Now, believe it or not, as of right now, those low numbers apply even 
to an opponent of somebody who will declare under this statute that 
they are

[[Page 3872]]

going to spend $1 million of their own money as prescribed in this law.
  So with that, I do not know if we have any formal opposition on the 
floor. If we do, I certainly would be willing to exchange views with 
them. But from my standpoint, I think we ought to adopt this amendment 
before the day is out and have done one piece of laudable work on the 
first day.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I need 5 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield such time as the Senator from 
Minnesota needs.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I need no more than 10 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Actually, I would love to make a more general 
presentation about money and politics, but, I say to my good friend 
from New Mexico, I want to just start out with a few rather jarring 
statistics.
  Do you know how many U.S. citizens contribute more than $200 to a 
race today? Four out of every 10,000. That is .037 percent. Do you know 
how many Americans give contributions of $1,000 or more? It is .011 
percent. So it seems to me that what we have is a system where people 
think if you pay, you play; if you don't pay, you don't play.
  My colleague comes on the floor with an amendment that says the way 
to deal with the problem of people being millionaires--by the way, I 
don't take this amendment personally; it will not damage me at all--but 
my colleague comes out here with a proposal that says the way to deal 
with the problem of millionaires financing their own candidates is to 
basically take the limits off of contributions, so that we now have a 
contest between millionaires and people who can run by getting support 
from millionaires or from large financial interests, be it individual 
contributions to them or contributions to the party.
  This is meant to be a proposal where the word for the people in the 
country is that the Senate, in the first amendment that we are going to 
consider, has taken a giant step forward in reform by putting more 
money into politics. I do not think that is what people want to hear. 
And they are right.
  With all due respect, I think what my colleague from New Mexico has 
done is make an argument for public financing. That is what this is 
about. If you want to deal with the problem of millionaires or people 
who have a lot of money using their own money to win elections or, as 
you see it, to help contribute to their winning, the way to solve the 
problem is not by taking the limits off of hard money contributions.
  By the way, there is going to be more and more of that done. Again, 
less than 1 percent of the population contributes $200 or more; and 
even less of the ``less than 1 percent'' contribute $1,000 because 
people do not have that money. People do not go to $500,000 barbecues 
and all the rest. They have their own barbecues with their neighbors. 
People make $100 contributions to charities. They do not make these 
kinds of contributions.
  What this amendment has done is simply added to the problem by saying 
now what we are going to have, through this amendment, is yet even more 
money put into politics by the very top of the population, be it 
wealthy people of financial interests on whom all of us are going to be 
more dependent. So now what we are going to have--and this is supposed 
to be the first amendment for reform: The people who have their own 
resources, millionaires, versus people who have access to millionaires 
and large financial interests. That is not the only choice.
  If we are serious about this, I will tell you how you can get around 
it. There are some great Senators who are independently wealthy. We all 
agree that is not the point we are making. And maybe there are some 
others who are not so great. That isn't the point. The point is, if you 
want to deal with this problem, then you have a clean money, clean 
election proposal; you have public financing. People agree on that. And 
then the public owns the elections.
  If someone says they do not want to be bound by spending limits, they 
do not want to take part in clean money, clean elections, then you know 
the way it works. The Presiding Officer knows. She is from Maine. Then 
there is additional money that can go to candidates to make up for the 
advantage that those who are spending their own resources have to make 
it a level playing field. But the race still belongs to the public. It 
still belongs to the people. And then the people who get elected belong 
to the people. And then the Capitol belongs to the people. And then the 
Government belongs to the people. And then people have more confidence 
in the political process. And people think they can be more involved. 
And little people, who do not have all the money, feel more important. 
And they are more important.
  This amendment is not a great step forward. This is one big, huge, 
gigantic leap backward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a brief 
statement?
  Mr. BENNETT. Sure.
  Mr. REID. On our side, whatever time remains on behalf of Senator 
Daschle, I give that allotment of time to Senator Feingold. He can 
allot the time on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Madam President.
  I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this amendment. I believe 
I have some personal experience which I will share with the Senate. It 
has to do not with a general election but with a primary.
  That is an issue that sometimes we forget because there are many 
States where the primary is the ultimate election--States that are 
overwhelmingly Democratic, such as the State of Massachusetts, and 
States that are overwhelmingly Republican, quite frankly, such as the 
State of Utah.
  The real contest in 1992, when I ran for the Senate, was the primary, 
which I won by about 10,000 votes, compared to the general election, 
which I won by 180,000 votes. Percentage-wise, I won the primary 51.5 
to 48.5. I always add the half to make it sound as if it was a better 
victory than just 51-49. I won the general election by a 16-point gap.
  So the primary was the big issue. I had to spend my own money in that 
primary race. I remember a conversation with the then-chairman of the 
Senatorial campaign committee, Mr. Gramm of Texas, who warned me with 
the following story about the perils of spending your own money. He 
talked about the two fellows in Texas--I don't remember their names so 
I will call them Joe and Bill--who both put their own money into the 
race. At the end, on election night, when Joe had won, Bill said to 
him: Joe, if I had known you were going to spend $4 million of your own 
money, I would never have gotten in the race, to which Joe said: Bill, 
if I had known I was going to spend $4 million of my own money, I would 
never have gotten into the race.
  You get caught up in these things and the money starts coming. And if 
you have it, you just keep saying, well, another $100,000, another 
flight of ads, another mailing, and that will put us over the top. Then 
you look back and say: I shouldn't have done it. I spent too much 
money.
  In our primary race, my opponent, a man of considerable means, spent, 
we now know, after all of the tallying up has been done, $6.2 million 
in the State of Utah in the primary. I know there are some States where 
$6.2 million does not seem to be a lot. That happened to

[[Page 3873]]

be more than was spent that same year in the Republican primary in 
California in total, of all of the candidates. It worked out, in terms 
of the number of votes--I know the Senator from Kentucky likes to talk 
about the cost per vote--to about $40 a vote that he spent: 150,000 
votes, roughly, $6 million, about $40 a vote. He actually spent 6.2 but 
he fundraised $200,000. The other $6 million was out of his own pocket.
  In order to win that primary, I spent around $2 million. I wasn't as 
successful as my opponent. I couldn't raise $200,000 because everybody 
was sure my opponent was going to win. The only amount of money I got 
was from members of my family, a few very close friends who felt sorry 
for me, and a couple of others who came across because they decided 
they believed in me. I spent about $2 million or one-third the amount 
my opponent spent.
  The point of this, with respect to the amendment of the Senator from 
New Mexico, comes from a conversation I had with the candidate for 
Governor, as we were talking about that primary race and the way it was 
beginning to turn. As it started out, as you might imagine, with my 
opponent spending $6 million of his own money, it was assumed he was 
going to win. Everybody thought I was wasting my time; everybody 
thought I was crazy. Then it began to turn. It began to shift. You 
could feel it.
  Those of us who have been in campaigns know how that goes. You are 
out on the hustings. You just get a feel for the way people are 
beginning to think. This other candidate who was out on the hustings, 
too, running for governor, said: It is beginning to shift. It is 
beginning to turn. It is beginning to come your way, and it looks as if 
you are going to make a race out of it. Indeed, you might even win. 
Then he made the key point that is appropriate to the amendment of the 
Senator from New Mexico. He said: Of course, you are the only candidate 
who could have done this. You are the only candidate who could have 
caused this coronation not to happen.
  I don't think he was talking about my political skills, although I 
have a big enough ego to assume that I have some. He was talking about 
the fact that I could fund my campaign in a style to compete against 
this self-funded candidate who was funding his campaign.
  Assume that I went into that race without having $2 million of my own 
money. Assume I went into that race having to raise the money $1,000 at 
a time. Assume I went into that race having to go around and plead with 
people to help me. It is very clear I would not have raised $100,000. 
It is very clear I would not have been able to buy a single television 
ad. All of the money I could have raised would have been eaten up in 
fundraising costs. The only way I was able to compete against a self-
funded candidate and, indeed, win was the fact that I had my own funds 
so that there was no cap on my spending.
  I found that spending $6.2 million in Utah in a primary can become a 
self-defeating kind of activity. He ran out of places to spend it. He 
was buying ads on the Saturday morning cartoons because there weren't 
any other places to buy ads. That caused him, frankly, some problems, 
as people laughed a little bit at that.
  The fundamental point that the Senator from New Mexico has made is 
that if I were limited to the standard kind of fundraising activity, I 
would not have been able to compete with that candidate, as he 
exercised his constitutional right to spend his own money. I would have 
been denied the right to express myself unless, as it turned out, I had 
significant personal funds of my own.
  I offer a real-life example of how important it is, when you are 
dealing with a candidate with virtually unlimited funds, for the 
opposition to have something other than the traditional $1,000-per-head 
contribution. I repeat: If I had lived under the circumstance with only 
$1,000 per head, there is no way I could have competed in that primary, 
and I would not be in the Senate today. There may be many who would 
applaud that possibility that I not be here.
  I think the Senator from New Mexico has come up with the right 
solution. If you are going to deal with somebody who has unlimited 
funds out of his own personal pocket, you have to release his opponent 
from the restrictions of the present circumstance. That is what the 
amendment of the Senator from New Mexico would do. That is why I intend 
to support it. I have lived through that experience. I know how 
difficult it is for the underdog to raise money under the present 
system when the outcome is assumed to be predetermined and how much a 
difference can be made if the underdog is released from those 
requirements and given an opportunity to express himself.
  I had an opponent who outspent me three to one, but because I had 
sufficient money to get my message out, I was able to defeat him. I 
think we ought to give that same opportunity to every other opponent 
who has a message, faced with that kind of challenge on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Tennessee 12 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 
12 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I regret I didn't get to the floor in 
time to discuss this a bit with the sponsor of the amendment, Senator 
Domenici. He is, as we all know, one of the more thoughtful Members of 
this body. Anything he offers I take very seriously. He is clearly 
addressing an issue we have talked about a lot and which concerns a lot 
of us, concerning a campaign where one individual can put in a 
tremendous amount of his own personal money and the other candidate 
does not have that kind of wealth and is bound by the hard money limits 
we have.
  As I understand the amendment, the well-off candidate would still be 
bound by the hard money limits. If that is the case, my concern is 
whether or not we are not getting into a constitutional difficulty. The 
Supreme Court has said, of course, that an individual, if they have a 
great deal of money, can put as much of that money as they want into 
their own campaign. It is a matter of free speech. If that is the case, 
then I wonder whether or not it would be looked upon as disadvantaging 
that wealthy candidate if we gave some rights to the other candidate 
that we did not give him.
  In other words, if his hard money limits were still restrained, and 
the hard money limits of the opponent were lifted, that would not be 
equal treatment under the law, it seems to me. Clearly, the wealthy 
candidate would still probably wind up with more money; he would have 
his own. But I don't think that is the issue. If, in fact, the wealthy 
candidate has a right under the first amendment to do that, that kind 
of wipes the slate clean. Constitutionally, you can't consider that, it 
doesn't seem to me. We have to ask ourselves whether or not raising the 
hard money limits for one candidate and not the other is valid under 
the 14th amendment equal protection law.
  I would also wonder whether or not, from the standpoint of a 
contributor, if I wanted to contribute to a wealthy candidate under 
those circumstances, under this amendment, if passed, I would be 
limited to, let's say $1,000. If I wanted to contribute to his 
opponent, the limits would go up incrementally, as I understand it, to 
say $5,000, or whatever. What about my rights as a donor? Should I be 
restrained from contributing more to one candidate than another because 
he has exercised his constitutional rights? I certainly have not had an 
opportunity to study this, and I am not suggesting that I have the 
answer to my own question. But I do wonder--and I see Senator Domenici 
is on the floor--I say to my friend, if we are keeping the hard money 
limits on the wealthy candidate, whether or not we have an equal 
protection problem.
  I would think the answer to that problem and a way to avoid the 
constitutional dilemma would be to raise the hard money limits for all 
candidates. The wealthy candidates certainly would still have the 
advantage,

[[Page 3874]]

but in terms of the hard money limits they would be equalized.
  I think Senator Domenici is absolutely correct when he talks about 
the limits that we placed on candidates in 1974 being very outdated--a 
$1,000 contribution today is worth about $3,300, with inflation. We 
have hamstrung our candidates and forced more and more money being 
spent in outside ads and, in my opinion, become more and more reliant 
upon soft money. It looks to me as though we could go a long way toward 
solving the disadvantage, which the Senator from New Mexico has 
rightfully pointed out, that a candidate without the wealth has by 
lifting the hard money limits on that candidate. It would not have as 
much significance if you lifted them on the wealthy candidate, perhaps. 
But you would have the equality and thereby possibly avoid an equal 
protection problem that we might have under the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator permit me to answer?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I am happy to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I know my friend, Senator Wellstone, was on the floor, 
and I didn't get to hear his entire statement. But if you were informed 
by either his speech or something else you read that I take the limits 
off, I do not. As a matter of fact, based on a schedule of how much the 
wealthy candidate is going to spend, we raise the caps for the 
nonwealthy candidates to 2 times, 3 times, and the highest they get is 
5 times, or the most you could raise is $5,000 in individual 
contributions, and 5 times 5, or $25,000, in PACs.
  Frankly, I don't think there is an equal protection problem either 
because the Senator from New Mexico is not saying in any respect that 
the wealthy candidate is limited in terms of how much they can spend. 
They exercise their privilege and their right, which the courts have 
said they have. I tried to see if there was a way to limit something 
because we have seen as much as $40 million or more spent in a 
campaign. Since everybody is worried about excessive money in 
campaigns, I feel very sorry for a candidate who has to raise from his 
or her friends $1,000, and we raise it to 2 and then 5--$5,000--while a 
candidate exercising his rights can spend 5, 10, 20, and still have 
exactly the same rights in terms of the caps, unless we raise them. If 
we don't raise them for the nonwealthy candidate, they are going to be 
stuck at $1,000 and $2,000 per election, while the wealthy candidate 
can contribute as much as he wants. Where would there be an equal 
protection clause?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Essentially, as a former lawyer--I am not pretending to 
be a constitutional specialist here. I haven't had a chance to 
certainly research this. By the time we finish this discussion, perhaps 
others will have had time to weigh in on it.
  I understood the Senator's amendment, I think, correctly. My concern 
is that even though we do nothing here to diminish the constitutional 
rights of the wealthy candidate, but keeping the hard money limits on 
him while raising the hard money limits for his challenger, we are not 
dealing equally with regard to the hard money limits. Obviously, the 
dollars are different. The dollars will undoubtedly be outweighed in 
favor of the wealthy candidate. But in terms of equal treatment, that 
concerns me.
  As I said, it also concerns me from the standpoint of the donor. Does 
a donor have a right to give as much to one candidate as another? 
Should they have a right to give as much to the wealthy candidate as 
they give to the other? Is there an equal protection concern there? 
That, I must say, concerns me.
  I think we would be better served--and I plan to offer, if no one 
else does, an amendment that would raise the hard dollar limits for 
everybody. I think the answer to a candidate's problem--any candidate's 
problem--especially a challenger, is to get to that threshold. Not that 
he is going to be outspent necessarily because most of the time a 
challenger is going to be outspent, but to raise the limits so that a 
challenger can get to the threshold of credibility as a candidate.
  Someone mentioned the State of California. There are other big States 
where nowadays a $1,000 individual limit on a candidate makes it so it 
is virtually hard not only to run but to recruit a candidate to even 
try to run under those circumstances.
  What we need to do, I think, is to raise the limits for all 
candidates from $1,000 to $3,000 on the individual limit side. It still 
would not be keeping up with inflation. My concern has never been the 
concern the Senator from Minnesota has expressed, when he said what is 
bad is that we are putting more money in the system--I don't think it 
is for me to say how much money belongs in the system or how much 
should be spent in a general sense. What concerns me is large amounts 
of money going to individual candidates or on behalf of individual 
candidates.
  We should not be nickel and diming these individual contributions--
the difference between $1,000 and $3,000--when our real concern ought 
to be the hundreds of thousands that are coming in in soft money. So I 
make the suggestion as one who thinks we ought to get rid of soft 
money. If we would raise the hard money limits so that we would not 
unnaturally constrain the ability of a candidate to reach the threshold 
of credibility to run a decent race, he would not need the soft money.
  He would not need the benefit of the independent expenditures where 
all the money seems to be going nowadays. I am certainly in sympathy 
with the desired results of the Senator from New Mexico. He is pointing 
out a problem that many of us have faced from time to time. I simply 
wonder out loud whether or not there might be a better way of 
addressing this.
  Mr. McCAIN. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from Utah yield me time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls the time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have time on my own amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator want to speak? I want to say a few 
words to my friend.
  Madam President, I believe we can cite some cases which indicate that 
the concern of the Senator of Tennessee about one candidate having 
different limitations under public financing, that they have been done 
differently and they have not been held unconstitutional. I ask the 
Senator to think one more time with me.
  If you look at the effect on individual campaigns for the Senate, and 
if the Senator from Tennessee is disconcerted about the existing laws, 
then I ask him whether he would not be a bit disconcerted about the 
growing number of candidates who spend huge amounts of their own money 
and the opposition is limited to the meager rationing--that is 26 years 
old--of $1,000 per person per election and $5,000 for a political 
action committee.
  If that is not something that concerns us in terms of large amounts 
of money being put into the system and, more specifically, that has a 
very good chance of electing a Senator--the other things we are not 
quite sure of--we are worried about some of the abuses of which Senator 
McCain is speaking having an impact on the public trust and those kinds 
of generic things.
  I am getting concerned that this Senate, which I dearly love--a while 
ago, I wondered out loud whether it was worth $20 million which 
somebody wants to pay for a seat, but I did that jokingly.
  It seems to me one could conclude that there will be 25 Senators in 
this place who will have spent their own money to be elected in the 
next decade, in 15 years, and you would have rendered the opposition to 
those candidates. They do not have a chance. Maybe I do not have the 
big-State figures, but they would not have a chance in the State of 
Tennessee or my State. If somebody comes up with $15 million, you 
cannot raise the money.
  I hope the Senator will look at it. This is at least one way to say 
we do not like that.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I say to my friend, if I can 
interrupt.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Not only do I share the Senator's concern, I will go 
the Senator one better. I say not only raise

[[Page 3875]]

the hard money limits for the nonwealthy candidate, but go ahead and 
raise it for the wealthy candidate, too. He may not use it. That might 
make it easier constitutionally.
  I am in total agreement and sympathy with what the Senator from New 
Mexico is saying. I am trying to figure out a way that will get us 
there that will stand the scrutiny.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Thompson very much.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the Senator from Arizona 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, Senator Snowe, who has been a vital part 
of this effort with respect to probably the most controversial section 
of our legislation, is waiting to speak. I will be brief.
  I appreciate very much what the Senator from New Mexico is trying to 
do. All of us are aggravated and sometimes astounded when we hear of 
$70 million being spent in a Senate race.
  The way I read it from the handout it says:

       If the candidate exceeds $1 million in personal 
     expenditures, the direct party contribution limits and party 
     coordinated expenditure limits are eliminated.

  It does not say capped; it says ``eliminated.'' If that is incorrect, 
I suggest the Senator from New Mexico fix that. If that is true, then a 
millionaire can spend $1 million and immediately the other person can 
raise $50 million in coordinated and direct party expenditures.
  Finally, in all due respect for the Senator from New Mexico, this is 
a meat-ax approach to a problem that requires a scalpel. The State of 
Wyoming in the year 2000 had a voting-age population of 358,000. The 
State of California had a voting-age population of 24,873,000.
  Madam President, $1 million in Wyoming, in all due respect to my 
friends from Wyoming, probably buys every television station in 
Wyoming; $1 million in California is a drop in the ocean. This does not 
get at really the different aspects of a small State or a big State. If 
I had $1 million, I could buy a lot of TV in New Mexico. I cannot buy 
very much in California.
  In all due respect to a very good-intentioned and well-intentioned 
amendment in an area we need to address, including free television time 
for candidates, including raising hard money as a part of a total ban 
on soft money and other ways we can attack this, I think this may be 
the wrong way to do it. My time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona. 
This amendment is obviously very well intentioned. It tries to get at a 
problem in the original McCain-Feingold bill. We tried to address the 
issue of wealthy candidates being able to spend unlimited amounts while 
the others are constrained.
  The problem is, the Senator from New Mexico does have aspects of this 
that involve unlimited contributions in response. That is not the same 
as some of the other techniques we have talked about in the past.
  For example, when I first ran for the Wisconsin State Senate, under 
our State's public financing, if somebody spent too much money either 
from somebody else or their own, the State would provide some form of 
public financing benefit for someone who would limit their overall 
spending.
  What Senator McCain and I tried to do in our original bill was say, 
for example, if a wealthy person agreed not to spend too much of their 
own money but somebody else did, the people who constrained themselves 
would get the benefit of free television time or reduced cost for their 
television time.
  Those are very different ways to encourage this kind of activity and 
this kind of restraint than actually having unlimited contributions in 
response.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona that this is not the way to go, 
as well intentioned as it is.
  I yield 30 minutes of our time to the distinguished Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Feingold for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise today in support of the McCain-Feingold legislation to reform 
our system of campaign financing in America.
  First, I applaud the sponsors of this legislation, Senators McCain 
and Feingold, for their courage and their remarkable commitment to the 
cause of campaign finance reform. Their determination on this issue has 
been nothing short of extraordinary, if not legendary, and it can truly 
be said that we would not be here today debating this issue if it were 
not for their leadership. Both have gone to the mat time and time again 
for this cause, and I commend them for bringing us to this day.
  We have certainly tried to start down the road to reform on a number 
of occasions during my 6-year tenure in the Senate. Unfortunately, 
those roads proved to be procedural dead-ends.
  I thank the leadership for scheduling this time and for committing to 
an open process by which we can have real debate and, at the end, I 
hope real reform.
  This could truly be our moment. This could be a tremendous time that 
people will point to in the future when we turned the corner on this 
issue and made substantive changes that will make a real and positive 
difference in the way campaigns in this country are funded.
  When one stops and thinks about it, it is remarkable that the last 
time there were major changes to Federal election law were amendments 
passed to the existing laws in 1979. In 1979, disco was in the 
nightclubs, President Carter was in the White House, and some of the 
staff we have working in our offices were not even born yet. It has 
been a long time in coming.
  There is little question that there is a strong sense that campaigns 
in this country have spiraled out of control. There is a strong sense 
that elections are no longer in the hands of individual Americans. As 
the old saying goes, perception becomes nine-tenths of reality, and the 
reality is we have a system in need of overhaul.
  Soft money totals doubled since the 1998 elections, with a total of 
over $1 billion in soft money for the 2000 elections. In fact, in 1980, 
when soft money really came into being, Republicans and Democrats 
combined raised an estimated $19 million, according to Colby College 
political science professor Anthony Corrado. Two decades later, that 
total had ballooned to more than $487 million. This is money that is 
skirting around the edges of Federal campaign finance law, and I 
support the soft money ban contained in the McCain-Feingold 
legislation.
  The fact is, this is money that was never intended to help Federal 
candidates for office. It was intended to help build the strength of 
parties, which is a goal I support. But what we have seen is a 
veritable flood of money being given without limits that is very much 
influencing our Federal elections. What the public sees is a system by 
which access and influence is gained through the size of a check, not 
the weight of an argument.
  At the same time we address the soft money issue, I also think it is 
critical that we address the ever burgeoning segment of electioneering 
popularly known as sham issue advertising. We do so in a way carefully 
constructed as to pass constitutional muster. I am speaking of 
advertisements influencing the Federal elections in this country but 
get off scot-free when it comes to any degree of disclosure or any 
degree of prohibitions normally associated with campaigning.
  Let there be no mistake. The record I intend to outline will show 
these advertisements constitute campaigning every bit as much as any 
advertisements run by candidates themselves or any ad currently 
considered to be express advocacy and therefore subject to Federal 
election laws.
  I thank my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, for his tireless 
work. It has been a privilege to work with him and champion the cause. 
I express my appreciation to the sponsors of this bill for including 
this provision in the McCain-Feingold ban of soft money. This is a 
critical component

[[Page 3876]]

and critical element of the overall problems we are confronting in 
modern-day elections.
  I have spoken of the exploding phenomenon of the so-called issue 
advertising in elections. That phenomenon continues unchecked and will 
continue unchecked if we turn a blind eye to reality. I am talking 
about broadcast advertisements that are influencing our Federal 
election, in the overwhelming number of instances designed to influence 
our Federal elections, and yet no disclosure is required and there are 
none of the funding source prohibitions that for decades have been 
placed on other forms of campaigning. These are broadcast ads on 
television and on radio that masquerade as informational or educational 
but are really stealth advocacy ads for or against candidates.
  They must be doing a very good job because there are more and more of 
them all the time. That is the trend. According to a 2001 report from 
the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which has been studying this trend 
almost since its inception--particularly since the 1996 election cycle 
which is where we saw a dramatic change and transformation toward this 
trend in elections--in the past three cycles we have seen the spending 
on these issue ads go from $150 million in 1996 to $340 million in 1998 
to $500 million in the year 2000 election. In a very short period of 
time the spending for these issue ads that go below the radar--in other 
words, they don't require the kind of disclosure, the kind of 
restrictions that other forms of expenditures on advertisements 
require--has gone from $135 million in 1996 upwards of $500 million, 
half a billion in the election of the year 2000. In a very short period 
of time we have seen a dramatic growth in the expenditures on these 
types of ads.
  As detailed by a 2001 report entitled ``Dictum Without Data: The Myth 
of Issue Advocacy and Party Building,'' written by David Magleby at the 
Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young 
University:

       The broadcast advertising, used by labor and then copied by 
     business organizations in 1996, unleashed a new dimension of 
     electioneering . . . Permitting electioneering through issue 
     advocacy to continue is an open invitation to individuals and 
     groups to avoid disclosure requirements and contribution 
     limits.

  That is the essence of what we are talking about. We are talking 
about disclosure. We are talking about sunlight, not censorship. We are 
talking about the public's right to know. We are talking about citizens 
making informed decisions about the quality and sources of the 
information they receive from messages that are influencing their 
votes.
  How does the Snowe-Jeffords provision address this issue? It is 
simple and straightforward. First, we require disclosures on groups and 
individuals running broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary, 60 days 
before a general election that mention the name of a Federal candidate 
or show a likeness of a Federal candidate. The disclosure threshold is 
$1,000 for each individual donor for that organization that sponsors 
such an ad that runs in that window, 60 days before a general election, 
that mentions a Federal candidate.
  That $1,000 trigger is five times the contribution amount that 
candidates are required to disclose. We create a higher threshold, a 
$1,000 donation to any organization that engages in this kind of 
advertising 60 days before a general election and 30 days before 
primary.
  Second, it prohibits the use of union, of corporation treasury money, 
to pay for these ads, in keeping with longstanding provisions of law. 
As the next chart shows, corporations have been banned from directly 
participating in Federal elections since 1907. That is not a dramatic 
change in law. It has been that way for virtually a century. The same 
is true when it comes to labor unions' direct participation in making 
political contributions to elections. They have been prohibited since 
1947. Both of these prohibitions have been in law for a very long 
period of time.
  The law said in 1947, when it came to the Taft-Hartley Act, when it 
came to unions, it is unlawful for any national bank or any corporation 
organized by the authority of any law of Congress to make contributions 
or expenditures in connection with any election to political office.
  That is what it comes down to. It is clear; it is common sense; it is 
constitutional; it is not speech rationing but informational, 
information that the public has the right to know.
  Indeed, there is nothing in this provision that bans any form of 
speech. We are saying if an organization or an individual spends more 
than $10,000 per year on broadcast ads, you cannot use union or 
corporation money. That is the only ban on anything in this amendment. 
If you do decide to engage in that kind of advertising, you have to 
disclose who is bank rolling the ads if you donate more than $1,000. 
You have to disclose the identity of the organization and the donor.
  We are not requiring every group to disclose entire membership lists, 
only the major sponsorships of these advertisers because it tells us 
something about the message being sent. We developed this approach in 
consultation with noted congressional scholars and reformers such as 
Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute; Joshua Rosenkrantz, 
director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU; and Daniel Ortiz, 
John Allan Love Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School 
of Law.
  This provision is narrowly and carefully crafted and based on the 
precept that the Supreme Court has made clear that for constitutional 
purposes, campaigning--make no mistake about what these ads do; these 
are campaign ads; they are not issue advocacy ads--is different from 
other speech. It is built upon the bedrock of legal and constitutional 
principles extending current regulations cautiously and only in the 
areas in which the first amendment is at its lowest threshold.
  We will hear a lot of statements throughout the next 2 weeks about 
the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Buckley vs. Valeo, arguing if 
an ad is not what is known as express advocacy, if it does not include 
the so-called magic words such as ``vote for candidate X'' or ``vote 
against candidate X'' then we cannot impose disclosure requirements and 
we cannot place source restrictions on their spending. Period. End of 
story.
  I refute that mistaken notion. I want to say emphatically that such 
an interpretation of Buckley is not the end of the story--far from it. 
You do not have to take my word for it. As a Brennan Center report from 
the year 2000 said:

       We must recognize that, as a legal matter, Congress is not 
     foreclosed from adopting a definition of ``electioneering'' 
     or ``express advocacy'' that goes beyond the ``magic words'' 
     test [for or against] . . . as long as vagueness and 
     overbreadth concerns are met, Congress is presumably free to 
     draft new legislation that is more effective in achieving its 
     constitutionally valid goals.

  According to the Center's scholars' letter of this month:

       Congress has the power to enact a statute that defines 
     electioneering in a more nuanced manner, as long as its 
     definition adequately addresses the vagueness and overbreadth 
     concerns expressed by the court.

  Certainly, this provision is not vague. We draw a bright line. Anyone 
will know that running ads more than $10,000 in a given year, 
mentioning a Federal candidate 30 days before a primary, 60 days before 
a general election, and seen by that candidate's electorate, being 
aired in that candidate's district or State, will be covered by this 
provision. Anyone not meeting any single one of those criteria will not 
be affected.
  As to the issue of broadness or overbreadth, again quoting the 
Brennan Center letter:

       A restriction that covers regulable speech can be struck if 
     it sweeps too broadly and covers a substantial amount of 
     constitutionally protected speech as well. But under the 
     overbreadth doctrine, the provision will be upheld unless its 
     overbreadth is substantial. A challenger cannot topple a 
     statute simply by conjuring up a handful of applications that 
     would yield unconstitutional results.

  The empirical evidence demonstrates that this provision and the 
criteria included in this amendment are not ``substantially 
overbroad.'' The fact of the matter is, we have a body of evidence on 
these kinds of ads that never

[[Page 3877]]

existed before, that there effectively is no line between the express 
advocacy and the sham issue ads in terms of voter perception.
  In other words, an ad that runs, that says, ``John Doe is dishonest 
and corrupt and un-American, call John Doe and tell him how you feel,'' 
is seen every bit as much to be an ad designed to influence a Federal 
election as an ad using the so-called magic words such as, ``Vote for 
John Doe.''
  As a legislative body, we are allowed to devise a solution to this 
new problem, and the Court will give it a fresh look. The truth is that 
25 years ago the Court issued a decision to try to cure a previous 
statute that was poorly and vaguely written, at a time that is now over 
a quarter of a century ago. The fact is, the Court has not had any new 
law from Congress to consider on campaign finance reform in the last 25 
years in order to review the matters, in order to review the kinds of 
trends that have taken place that have reinterpreted law that was 
passed more than 26 years ago.
  So it is our prerogative, Madam President, and, I would say, our 
obligation as a legislature, to try to craft solutions to problems when 
it is in our public interest. That is why we have three branches of 
Government. We will hear it may have a constitutional question. We have 
never hesitated when we have deemed it to be in the public's interest, 
government's interest, our country's interest, to pass legislation--and 
in fact in some cases even testing the courts. We did that on the line-
item veto. It did not deter Members of the Senate or Members of the 
House from voting for that legislation because there were some 
constitutional questions.
  The same is true for the flag-burning issue. Many of us are in 
support of that constitutional amendment. There have been some 
constitutional questions raised, but again that should not deter the 
legislative branch of Government from moving forward on what it deems 
and perceives to be in the Government's interests.
  Again, as we look at some of the analyses and interpretations that 
have been done in recent studies on election trends, let me again go 
back to how some of the experts are defining it.
  In the Magleby v. Brigham Young University study that was done this 
year, as they said as they defined the uses of political money in 
campaigns and elections:

       . . . neither the Supreme Court (back in their 1976 
     decision) nor the FEC had substantial data with which to 
     create their rulings. Dictum was created without data. . . . 
     If respondents see election issue advocacy in the same way as 
     candidate or party communication--

  Both of which are considered ``express advocacy'' by definition--

     then the Buckley distinction is mistaken.
       This report, appropriately entitled ``Dictum without 
     Data,'' bills itself as ``the first systemic test of the 
     court's assumption that the magic words are a reasonable 
     standard for what constitutes election-related activity.''

  Again, what is most telling about the next chart is the statistics 
that are represented: The degree to which these ads are intended to 
influence the voters' vote. We hear issue advocacy. No one is denying 
that every group should have the right to issue their ads talking about 
their positions on a particular issue. But in this study--again, it is 
another interesting phenomenon of the current election trends--
respondents were asked the degree to which these ads influenced their 
votes: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 meaning that the ad was not at all 
intended to influence their vote--in this case it was in the 
Presidential election--and 7 meaning the ad was clearly intended to 
influence how they would vote in the Presidential election, how would 
they rank this ad?
  Guess what. The ads that they viewed to be the most influential of 
all the ads run were the ones that were run by interest groups that 
mentioned a candidate, that are supposedly issue ads, even more than 
the ads that were run by the candidates themselves.
  In other words, candidates who ran their ads that obviously very 
clearly were intended to speak for a candidate on behalf of their 
issues projecting an image, projecting their positions on certain 
issues--those were seen to be less influential than the ads run by 
these interest groups that identified a candidate 60 days before 
election.
  Furthermore, a remarkable 70 to 71 percent scored the election issue 
advocacy ads as a 7; 70 to 71 percent thought they were more 
influential, and 83 percent gave the ads a 6 or a 7. Remember that 7 
was the highest point, meaning they had the greatest impact, 
reinforcing the fact that these ads are seen as an attempt to influence 
their vote in the days before a campaign.
  What is even more interesting if you look at this chart, the election 
issues ad, the ones that opponents would have us believe are strictly 
issue ads and are not influencing elections because they do not contain 
express advocacy--these election issue ads were seen as more clearly 
intended to be about the election or defeat of a particular candidate 
than the candidate's own ads.
  I think this is very illustrative of the problem we are now facing 
with these so-called issue ads but which really are ads intended and 
designed to influence the outcome of an election, and they come out 
from under the disclosures and restriction requirements under the 
Federal election laws. That is why they come beneath the radar, because 
they are not required to be disclosed.
  We do not know who finances these ads. We don't know the identity of 
these organizations. All we know is that somebody is spending a whole 
lot of money for these kinds of advertisements.
  So if you think about it, the ads that the candidates themselves were 
running, ads which were automatically classified as express advocacy 
because candidates were running them--they were obviously ads to run in 
favor of a candidate or against a candidate and to get one's votes--
those ads were perceived as less clearly intended to influence their 
votes than the so-called issue ads. So it is no wonder then that the 
candidates themselves have taken to running ads without mentioning the 
magic words ``vote for or against.''
  Again, the Brennan Center, in their report on the 1998 elections, 
found that only 4 percent of candidate ads used the magic words--4 
percent. In other words, 4 percent of the ads that were run by 
candidates, sponsored by candidates, did not use those magic words 
``for'' or ``against.''
  Keep in mind that there is a legal benefit for the candidates who run 
the so-called issue ad. So the only reason they would have chosen this 
route over ads saying ``vote for me'' or ``vote against'' is that they 
believed the nonmagic words--not using those words--were more effective 
in getting their campaign message across, which, of course, is what all 
these organizations found out themselves.
  Furthermore, the report concluded, as our experience demonstrates, 
that policy distinctions such as those drawn by the Court and the FEC 
can have no basis in actual experience. Much of what falls under the 
Buckley definition of issue advocacy is indistinguishable to 
respondents from party and candidate communication. Yet issue advocacy 
operates under very different rules, which, of course, is to say no 
rules, and has negatively affected our electoral process and candidate 
accountability.
  We now have established how effective these ads are in influencing 
our elections and how irrelevant the ``magic words'' that were 
mentioned back in the Buckley v. Valeo decision by the Supreme Court in 
1996 have become.
  Let's see how the Snowe-Jeffords provision dovetails with these ads 
at the end of an election and further evidence as to what these ads are 
really doing and the role they are playing in our elections, and ever 
more so.
  The effectiveness of these kinds of ads is not lost on these 
sponsors. First of all, we know they have gone up from $135 million in 
the 1996 election to $500 million in the year 2000 election. But let's 
look at the final months of the election in the year 2000 and TV spots 
that mentioned candidates--all of the ads we are talking about in the 
final 2 months of the election. Ninety-five percent of the television 
spots that aired 2 months before the election mentioned the candidate's 
name.

[[Page 3878]]

  Why would you suppose that an average of 95 out of 100 ads were 
talking about candidates in the final months of an election? Is that 
just a remarkable coincidence? Obviously.
  As you see from this next chart, again, it talks about the final 2 
months of the last election and that 94 percent of the televised issue 
spots made a case for or against a candidate.
  Again, there is further proof of the fact that all of those ads that 
were run 2 months before an election--the 60-day period that we address 
in this legislation--were ads that were run by issue organizations that 
mention a candidate--95 percent of them. Ninety-four percent of those 
ads were seen as making a case for or against the candidate.
  So obviously they understand that those ads do and will influence the 
outcome of an election because they identify candidates 60 days before 
an election. Ninety-five percent of those ads are mentioning a 
candidate by name.
  Let's get the content of these ads. I guess it won't come as a shock 
to all of us who are on the election cycle that 84 percent of these 
televised spots have an attack component. Eighty-four percent have an 
attack component. Obviously, they are also designed to influence the 
outcome of a campaign because they are negative advertisements, and, in 
fact, the interest groups in this last election cycle ran the most 
negative ads. They were informational ads; they weren't comparative 
ads. They weren't comparing records, but they were frontal attack ads.
  People have a right to do that. What they shouldn't have a right to 
do is to run these ads that are clearly campaign ads and yet they do 
not have to disclose a dime; they don't have to play by any of the 
campaign finance rules whatsoever. To argue otherwise, frankly, I think 
flies in the face of logic.
  This record clearly shows that the Snowe-Jeffords provision embodied 
in the McCain-Feingold legislation in fact is not overly broad. But if 
all of that isn't enough, let me tell you something further about a 
report that was issued just last week that not only confirmed what the 
track record already indicates but provided additional proof of the 
problems we are facing in this election cycle.
  The report that was issued last week entitled ``The Facts about 
Television Advertising and the McCain-Feingold Bill,'' written by 
Jonathan Krasno and Kenneth Goldstein, studied issue advertising in the 
2000 election in the top 75 media markets. In it, they ask the 
question: ``Would the definition of electioneering created by McCain-
Feingold inadvertently capture many of those commercials that might be 
considered pure issue advocacy?'' Because there is a concern when you 
look at the Constitution side of the question: What about a group that 
wants to advocate in behalf of their issue in that election cycle of 60 
days?
  Guess what. When they ran those ads by various focus groups, and 
identified those ads, only 1 percent of those ads were true issue 
advocacy ads; 99 percent were not. Ninety-nine percent of those ads 
were not issue advocacy; they were electioneering. Just 1 percent of 
the total number of ads would be captured by the Snowe-Jeffords 
provision that would have been viewed to be issue advocacy. In other 
words, just 1 percent of what would be genuine issue ads appeared after 
Labor Day and mentioned the Federal candidate. The other 99 percent 
were electioneering ads.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court would not knock down 
anything based on a few examples. We are talking about thousands and 
thousands of ads. We are not discussing a provision in this legislation 
that is overly broad or vague. We are not talking about ads that are 
purely designed to convey an issue. But what we are addressing here and 
what we are saying is we are trying to get at the disclosure of the 99 
percent of those ads that have identified a candidate, that run in that 
60-day period, that clearly are intended to influence the outcome of an 
election.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. SNOWE. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin for an additional 10 
minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 38 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DODD. On both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 38 minutes remaining for the Senator 
from Connecticut and 60 minutes remaining for the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DODD. How much more time?
  Mrs. SNOWE. Not even 10; probably about 5.
  Mr. DODD. I know my colleague from California seeks 15 minutes, and I 
presume others may follow. Why don't you take 10, and that will leave 
us plenty of time for the Senator from California. Why don't we make it 
7. In that way, we have a little more room.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 7 
minutes.
  Mrs. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  In this final report that was issued, we now see an evaluation of the 
relationship between TV ads and the congressional agenda. I have been 
asked the question: Well, what about a group that wants to run an ad in 
that 60-day period and we happen to be in session? It could affect 
their ability to be able to communicate. Again, it wouldn't deny them 
that ability, but it would require disclosure when they mention a 
candidate 60 days before an election.
  But what is interesting about this chart, and what it illustrates, is 
it tracks the number of candidate ads that run as we get closer and 
closer to the election. And it compares to the number of issue ads that 
were run throughout the year in the top 75 media markets, and then the 
number of votes going on in Congress.
  Guess what. The ads that were run by those so-called issue 
organizations tracked the ads that were run by candidates. The bottom 
line shows the votes in Congress. As you can see from the chart, those 
ads run by those issue organizations were not done to track what was 
going on in Congress. What they were doing was running ads to track the 
candidate's ads.
  As you can see by these two lines on the chart: The ads of the issue 
organizations and the ads run by the candidates themselves during that 
period of time are almost identical. It had nothing to do with what we 
were doing in Congress.
  So, obviously, the intent of these ads, beyond the fact that they 
mention a candidate in that 60-day window before the general election, 
is designed to influence the outcome of the election, not concerned 
about what is taking place in Congress.
  So again, I think it is pretty clear in terms of their intent, in 
terms of what they are attempting to do, and what is the focal point of 
these ads.
  I will get into a lot of this later because I think this is an issue 
that bears repeating throughout the course of this debate over the next 
2 weeks, to remind people we are not talking about those genuine issue 
ads that Buckley v. Valeo and the Supreme Court thought of 26 years 
ago. We are talking about a whole new phenomenon in America in modern 
day politics of which everybody is well aware.
  So let's talk about the difference between the two ads. We will call 
this the electioneering ad. It does not say ``vote for'' or ``vote 
against''--again, those magic words. Back in the 1976 Supreme Court 
decision, the Supreme Court said, as an example, you should use those 
words ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' to determine that these are 
truly political-type election ads.
  But look at new ads that have cropped up, particularly in the last 
three election cycles, to show you the difference.
  First, we have the electioneering ad. This is what would be covered 
by the Snowe-Jeffords provision in terms of disclosure. The announcer 
says:

       We try to teach our children that honesty matters. 
     Unfortunately, though, Candidate X just doesn't get it. 
     Candidate X urged her employer to buy politicians and judges 
     with money and jobs for their relatives. Candidate X 
     advertises corruption . . . Call candidate X. Tell her 
     government shouldn't be for sale. Tell her we're better than 
     that. Tell her honesty does matter.

  Now, can anyone say with a straight face that this ad isn't a clear 
attack ad on a candidate? Shouldn't we know who is paying for this ad 
running 60

[[Page 3879]]

days before an election with $1,000 donors, when an organization is 
spending more than $10,000 in a campaign period?
  Now, let's look at the genuine issue ad, which is the difference, if 
we are talking about a genuine issue ad, which this provision would not 
apply to. Again, let's read it:

       This time of the year, the average person's thoughts turn 
     to the IRS. Now we all know one person can't fight 'em. But a 
     bunch of average folks like us can eliminate the IRS with the 
     new Fair Tax Plan, the only plan that's fair to everybody . . 
     . Some things are worth a good fight. Call to join us.

  You could even say ``call your Senator, call your representative,'' 
or you could even provide your Representative's phone number in the ad. 
If you are not identifying the candidate, you will not come under the 
disclosure provisions in this 60-day period.
  That is the true distinction of the type of ad we are attempting to 
force disclosure on, the ones in which they identify a candidate by 
name 60 days before an election.
  I think the American people are entitled to know who is financing 
these ads. That is what this amendment gets to the heart of: whether or 
not we are prepared to do that at this moment in time, in this 
Congress, and seeing the extraordinary developments in our elections 
and what has transpired to see some of the monstrosities that have 
evolved through our election practices that have reached the point in 
time when we are seeing $500 million being spent on so-called issue 
ads, sponsored by organizations or individuals of which we do not know 
their identity.
  I think the time has come to develop the approach that requires 
disclosure that meets and will withstand constitutional scrutiny, so 
that all Americans will understand who is trying to influence these 
elections.
  We are not trying to get at those groups that genuinely want to be 
able to convey their message through television broadcasts or radio 
advertisements. What we are trying to do is to identify those groups of 
donors who are trying to influence the outcome of an election shortly 
before that election occurs.
  I think the time has come to pass this sweeping reform. Something 
along the way has certainly gone wrong. The McCain-Feingold legislation 
would certainly make that difference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, no State has contributed more to the 
cause of campaign finance reform than the State of the last Speaker and 
the Presiding Officer. Not only has the State of Maine come up with 
some of the most innovative State-level initiatives, but it has sent us 
two Senators who have been the stalwarts in our group throughout our 
entire process. We are grateful to the State of Maine for these two 
Senators being here and being such great advocates for this cause.
  With that, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator 
from California, Mrs. Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished author 
of the bill.
  Madam President, I want to begin by thanking both Senators Feingold 
and McCain not only for this bill but also for their many forays out in 
the countryside where I think they have really brought home the cause 
of campaign spending reform to the American people.
  I have had the privilege, as have you, of voting for this bill a 
number of times. I will vote for it again. I will vote for it without 
amendments, and I will probably vote for it with amendments.
  This bill addresses a significant problem, and that is soft money. By 
eliminating soft money from federal campaigns, I think S. 27 cures the 
most dastardly problem with the way campaigns are currently conducted. 
I think the amendment that Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords have 
added to the campaign reform bill makes it an even better bill. So we 
have a good bill before us.
  Madam President, a while back, when Senator Alan Simpson was a Member 
of the Senate, and we had just concluded a meeting of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Immigration--it was a Friday--I said to Senator 
Simpson: Are you going home?
  He said: Yes, I'm going home to Wyoming to campaign.
  I said: Well, you have no notice to set up an event.
  And he said: Well, I just go to Cody, and I go and have lunch at the 
grill, and I see everyone in Cody. So that is the way I campaign.
  It brought home to me how different campaigns are across this great 
land. In California, a State with more people than 21 other States 
combined, you cannot just go home and, without making plans, go into 
the corner drugstore and campaign.
  Campaigns are, indeed, very costly. I have been involved in four 
statewide campaigns in the last decade. I have raised well over $50 
million: $23 million in 1990, in a race for Governor; $8 million in 
1992, in my first race for the Senate; and 2 years later, $14 million 
in the 1994 election. My opponent in that election spent $30 million of 
his personal wealth in his attempt to defeat me. In this past race, 
just concluded, I raised $9 million.
  Now, whereas I support McCain-Feingold as it is, I must also comment 
that the Domenici amendment we are now considering has a good deal to 
recommend in it.
  Let me talk about my own experience, from the 1994 election I just 
mentioned. It was February. It was raining outside. I turned on the 
television to watch the Olympics, and what did I see? I saw a full 
spot--in February--by my opponent--a minute spot in the middle of the 
Olympics. My heart dropped into my heels, and I knew at that instant 
that I was in for a grueling campaign.
  In fact, my opponent was able to have what we call a maximum buy on 
television for all but 2 weeks of the remaining part of the year 
because he was able, quite simply, to write a check to pay for that 
advertising.
  You don't have to hire a certified public accountant. You don't have 
to hire fundraisers. You don't have to spend tens of thousands of 
dollars on computers and so on and so forth. It is a very different 
campaign if a person has extraordinary private wealth. That is where 
the Domenici amendment becomes important in all of this because it aims 
to level the playing field.
  In that 1994 campaign, I saw how important trying to level the 
playing field is. The fundraising demands I faced were extraordinary. I 
am a pretty good fundraiser. As it turned out, I simply couldn't keep 
up with my opponent's spending. I couldn't keep up with $30 million of 
personal wealth. I could raise about $14.5 million. And to do that, I 
had to put some of my own money into that race.
  What Senator Domenici is trying to do with his amendment is to say 
that the person who is going to put his or her own wealth into a race 
must say so up front. If the amount the candidate intends to spend is 
going to exceed $500,000, then the opponent of the self-financing 
candidate can have the hard money contribution caps raised threefold. 
If the wealthy candidate spends between $500,000 and $1.0 million, then 
the hard money contribution limits increase fivefold. Over $1.0 
million, and the new hard money limits stay in place, and limits are 
lifted on direct party contributions and coordinated expenditures. The 
Domenici amendment doesn't prohibit wealthy candidates from spending 
their own money to run for the House or Senate, but it is an attempt to 
level the playing field for their opponents if they do.
  Increasingly, I see that only wealthy candidates are going to run in 
some of these big races unless we do something to level that playing 
field. I understand Senator DeWine may well put forward an amendment to 
modify the new caps set forth in the Domenici amendment. I would prefer 
to see the caps modified. As I understand the procedure, at the end of 
the 3 hours of debate, there will

[[Page 3880]]

be a motion to table Domenici amendment. I certainly will vote not to 
table this amendment. It is important that we try to level the playing 
field.
  I also will mention one other amendment I will either make myself or 
support, if it is offered by others. That is an amendment to increase 
the hard money cap per candidate per election. In the early 1970s, 
nearly 30 years ago, $1,000 was set as the hard money cap per election: 
$1,000 for the primary and $1,000 for the general. That was really fine 
in those days. You could have a lot of volunteer help. There was not an 
in-kind requirement. You could raise money more easily.
  Since that time, we have had something called inflation. Senator 
McCain pointed this out the other day. Thirty years ago, a car cost 
$2,700. Now it costs $22,000. The cost of campaigning has risen even 
more dramatically. I can tell the Senate, television spots have 
increased. The price of stamps has increased. The price of campaign 
stationery has increased. The price of direct mail has increased. The 
price of telemarketing has increased. Virtually every aspect of 
campaigning, from the salaries for consultants to the paper on which 
you write--all of it is much more expensive today.
  Frankly, we should increase the hard money contribution cap, either 
to $3,000 per election, which would keep pace with inflation, or at 
least to $2,000. As I said, I can certainly vote for the McCain-
Feingold bill as it is. But if candidates are going to have any chance 
to keep up with these independent campaigns, with these independent 
interest groups that operate without contribution limits or disclosure 
requirements, we should look at raising the hard money contribution 
limit. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to do just 
that.
  For my purposes right now, I indicate my support for the Domenici 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that my time be charged to the sponsor of the 
amendment, Senator Domenici. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Jeffords follow me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't hear the request.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I asked unanimous consent that the time I have used 
be charged to the Senator from New Mexico, along with any time I might 
have remaining so that he might use it in support of the amendment and, 
if it is agreeable, that Senator Jeffords might follow me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I was going to say the time should be 
charged to me. I don't object to that. I wonder if Senator Jeffords 
would let me have 3 minutes before he speaks to thank the Senator from 
California for her support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The time 
will be so charged. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I say to the distinguished Senator 
from California, I greatly appreciate her comments. The amendment may 
be negotiable in terms of how we better balance the playing field, but 
there is no question that she has hit the nail right on the head.
  One of the brand new problems of the last decade or so is the growing 
propensity on the part of men and women--great people--who have decided 
to pay for their campaigns with their own money and use the privilege, 
the right that the Supreme Court has said they have, that that money 
cannot be limited. So we have more and more candidates spending up to 
$5-, $10-, $20-, $30-, even $40 million-plus of their own money. That 
is fine with this Senator. I am not here trying to do anything about 
that. The Supreme Court has spoken.
  I have heard from a Senator saying she would support the Domenici 
amendment based upon having experienced an opponent who contributed in 
multiples of $10 million for their campaign out of their own coffers, 
to which she had to respond under ancient laws that limited her to 
$1,000 per contributor, per primary and per general, and $5,000 per 
primary and general from a collection of people who call themselves a 
PAC. That kind of limitation must have had her spending more than half 
her time raising money while her opponent didn't win but the opponent 
had all of his time to run and had none of the rigid rules and 
regulations that engulfed her campaign. Sooner or later, we have to fix 
that.
  As I said, I wanted to fix it in a big way. My first draft of this 
amendment was to take everything off the opponent, no limits. They 
could do whatever they would like, just as they used to years ago, so 
long as they listed it. Others have said, no, leave some limitations. 
So we are in the process-- mine having left some limitations--we are in 
the process of working with other Senators who would like to refine the 
Domenici amendment. I am willing to do that.
  I thank the Senator from California. I, too, hope if we have a motion 
to table, we don't table it, so if we want to modify it to get a better 
product, we can, if that is what Senators would like to do.
  I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to one of our strong 
supporters and cosponsors, the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  I also thank the Senator from California for her very astute 
comments, especially relative to the amendment of my good friend, 
Senator Pete Domenici. I think that is an excellent start. We are going 
to have a better bill. We have a great bill right now.
  I thank also Senators McCain and Feingold for the tireless devotion 
they have shown to this issue, ensuring the Senate would be able to 
fully consider this very important legislation. I especially thank my 
colleague, Senator Snowe, for her work and for her very excellent 
presentation. I know she has even more to say about the amendment on 
which she and I have worked so hard for so many years. Hopefully, we 
will see a good result this year.
  I have heard some of my colleagues question the importance the 
American public places on passing campaign finance reform legislation. 
Not only do I think the American public believes this issue needs to be 
addressed by Congress, I believe the desire has only increased 
following the controversy surrounding the pardoning of Marc Rich.
  Our current campaign finance system has left many Americans 
disillusioned with the political process and feeling disconnected from 
their elected representatives.
  This is an important factor in leading people to opt to stay on the 
sidelines rather than participate in the electoral process. Passing 
campaign finance reform will help boost our disturbingly low rate of 
voter turnout in national elections.
  I was first elected to Congress following the Watergate scandal, 
right around the time Congress last enacted comprehensive reform of our 
campaign finance system. I have watched with growing dismay during my 
over twenty-five years in Congress as the number of troubling examples 
of problems in our current campaign finance system have increased. We 
were close to enacting comprehensive campaign finance reform in 1994, 
and I am the most confident now since that time that we will enact this 
important legislation.
  I look forward to a full and open debate on the issue of campaign 
finance reform in the coming days, and believe at the end that the 
final bill should have certain characteristics:
  It must be comprehensive in nature;
  It must increase disclosure requirements on sham issue ads;
  It must ban soft money; and
  It must help restore the public's confidence in our political system.
  In order to accomplish these goals, we must come together to work for 
passage of meaningful campaign finance reform. I am heartened by the 
wide bipartisan group supporting our

[[Page 3881]]

legislation. We have members from the right, left and middle in support 
of this bill. That does not mean, though, that we will stop working 
with our colleagues to craft additional ideas to address the problems 
with the current campaign finance system. My ultimate goal is to create 
a comprehensive campaign finance bill that will garner the support of 
at least 60 Senators, and hopefully more.
  One of the most important aspects of any bill the Senate may pass, is 
that it must be comprehensive. If we fail to address the problems 
facing our campaign finance system with a comprehensive balanced 
package we will ultimately fail in our mission of reforming the system. 
Closing one loophole, without addressing the others, will not do enough 
to correct the current deficiencies, and may in fact create new and 
unintended consequences.
  We have all seen first-hand the problems with the current state of 
the law as it relates to sham issue advertisements. I have focused much 
time and effort on developing a legislative solution on this topic with 
my colleague Senator Snowe, and was pleased that this solution was 
adopted by the Senate during the 1998 debate on campaign finance 
reform. I was also proud to cosponsor the comprehensive campaign 
finance bill Senators McCain and Feingold introduced last Congress that 
included this legislative solution.
  I feel strongly that the legislation the Senate must ultimately vote 
on include some kind of changes to the current law concerning sham 
issue advertisements. We have crafted a reasonable, constitutional 
approach to this problem. Our provision will require disclosure of 
certain information if you spend more than $10,000 in a year on 
electioneering communications which are run 30 days before a primary or 
60 days before a general election. It also prohibits the direct or 
indirect use of union or corporate treasury monies to fund 
electioneering communications run during these time periods. I will 
come to the floor at a later time to more fully discuss our provision, 
including the need for this provision, why it is constitutional, and to 
address some of the arguments our opponents continue to raise 
concerning these provisions.
  I look forward to a full and open debate on this important issue, and 
pledge to continue working with my colleagues to enact comprehensive 
campaign finance reform into law this year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I extend 15 
minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I rise in support of 
the Domenici amendment. I want to salute my colleague from New Mexico. 
I think he is addressing a very serious concern that all of us--not 
just Members of the Senate and candidates but every American--should 
share. When the Supreme Court decided over 25 years ago, in the case of 
Buckley v. Valeo, that we could not limit the amount of personal wealth 
that a candidate could spend in a campaign, they said it was a tribute 
to free speech; that the wealthiest among us should be able to spend as 
much money as they have or want to spend to become candidates for 
public office.
  Sadly, our system of government, and certainly our system of 
political campaigns, is geared so that those with the most money can 
overwhelm candidates of modest means. I think candidates in America are 
now broken down into two categories. I call them M&Ms or 
megamillionaires and mere mortals. I happen to be in the second 
category. If you are a mere mortal running for office nowadays, you 
spend every waking moment on the telephone trying to figure out ways to 
raise the literally millions of dollars necessary for your election 
campaign. This is a reality.
  In a State such as mine, Illinois, it will cost you $10 million to 
$15 million to be elected to the Senate. That is not an uncommon amount 
or an extraordinarily large amount; that is reality. It reflects the 
cost, primarily, of radio and television. I will be offering an 
amendment during the course of the debate with some colleagues that 
addresses the cost of television in particular because we have this 
strange anomaly where we say the television stations have to give 
candidates for office the lowest rate available on the station. Yet, 
because of a few loopholes in the law, they end up offering us what is 
known as preemptable time, which means anybody who offers 50 cents more 
can knock our ad off the air. So it becomes a bidding war.
  We find in every 2-year period of time, the cost of television is 
going up 20 percent. What does it mean? For a candidate for reelection 
in the Senate, every 6 years the same amount of television that was 
bought 6 years before will cost 60 percent more. That is the escalation 
of costs in campaigns.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of McCain-Feingold. I think they are 
addressing a serious problem in our system, where we have this 
discrepancy between soft money and hard money. But at the root of the 
problem in American campaigns is the amendment offered by Senator 
Domenici which goes after the self-funding, the very wealthy candidate, 
and the cost of media. If we are going to have meaningful campaign 
finance reform, I think we need to address both. I lament the fact that 
this has become a bidding war. I think Senator Domenici would agree 
with me on that. What else can we do with a Supreme Court decision that 
allows individuals to spend literally millions of their own money while 
mere mortals running for office are trying to keep up.
  The Senator waives some of the limitations on the hard money we can 
raise, but I ask the Senator if he will answer this question: The 
Senator makes it clear in his amendment that all of the money we raise 
and spend must be accounted for, dollar for dollar, as to source and 
how we are raising it, how we expend it. There is no mystery involved 
in this. Will the Senator agree with that statement?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree 100 percent. I failed to mention that I have 
this in the amendment. We take a lot of the caps off so the nonwealthy 
candidate, the mere mortal, can have a chance at raising significant 
money to run against a multimillionaire candidate. But we say if that 
candidate who had the caps raised so they can accommodate--if they have 
money left over from their campaign, they have to return it to the 
people from whence they got it. In other words, they cannot raise more 
than they need and hold it for another campaign. Whatever they use in 
that campaign, fine; what they don't, they have to return.
  The Senator from Illinois has just stated it as well as anyone. I 
have told some people I had this amendment, and they said, ``Why are 
you doing that? Senators don't have those caps on them, do they?'' See, 
they don't know that for 26 years, since post-Watergate, we have been 
limited--you in your campaign and the New Mexico Senator in his 
campaign--to $1,000 per each individual from wherever, your State or my 
State. Then $1,000 in the primary and general. That is all--$2,000. 
Along comes a wealthy candidate and plunks down $10 million. I should 
have figured it up and put on a chart how much time it probably took to 
raise the equivalent of this $1,000 and $2,000 bracket.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I may respond, I liken it to building a skyscraper a 
brick at a time. Here we have a wealthy individual who decides his or 
her idea of a fundraiser is pouring a nice glass of wine, writing a 
personal check for millions of dollars to his campaign, and declaring 
success.
  Meanwhile, mere mortals, other candidates trying to be involved have 
to raise money phone call after phone call, letter after letter, small 
check

[[Page 3882]]

after small check, all disclosed, all accounted, trying to build a 
skyscraper of equal height to the person who has written one check for 
millions of dollars to their campaign.
  I agree with the critics of this amendment who say isn't it sad it 
has become competition for money. But as long as Buckley v. Valeo says 
we cannot limit the amount being spent by an individual from their own 
wealth on a campaign, there is no other way to make certain we have a 
level playing field and, I guess, fairness in the basic election 
campaigns.
  Senator Domenici is a proud Republican. I am a proud Democrat. We 
both view the system with alarm. If you do not deal with this 
phenomenon of people who have this much money to put into the campaign, 
how can you attract candidates from either political party to get 
interested?
  It is bad enough that it is a pretty hectic life. I enjoy it, and I 
am glad I am in it. I am happy the people of Illinois gave me a chance. 
It is tough when there are these invasions of your privacy. You give 
that up. That is one of the first things to go, and people say: To 
reward you for running for office, we are going to personally let you 
raise $1 million; won't that be fun?
  You can walk along the streets of your hometown and people race to 
the other side of the street to avoid you because they are afraid you 
are going to ask for another contribution. That is a sad reality in 
this business.
  Sadder still is a person who is self-funding and has so much money 
they do not even have to worry about this effort.
  Frankly, I am so worried this system cannot survive if only those 
people serving in the House and Senate are those who are independently 
wealthy and do not have to go through the process in any way 
whatsoever.
  Also, the Senator makes a good point about loans to the campaign 
because a lot of people who are very wealthy do not give money to their 
campaign; they loan it and say they will be repaid later.
  Will the Senator be good enough to explain the provision he has on 
loan repayment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be delighted. You cannot have it both ways. You 
are going to put up your own money and say to the electorate: Don't 
worry about special interests on this candidate's part; I'm not 
bothering anybody for any money; it's my own. So you spend $5 million 
or borrow $5 million.
  Isn't it interesting, for the most part, you are not in office 1 
month and you are interested in the special interests. Why? Because you 
want to pay the loan off. So now you are out raising money. You 
advocated: Nobody will touch me; it is my own money; I am entitled to 
spend it; I am entitled to borrow it.
  That is all well and good, but my amendment says if that is the case, 
when you get elected, you cannot go asking people to contribute money 
to pay off your debt. That is a very simple and forthright proposal.
  Incidentally, it does not apply retroactively. I am not trying to get 
anybody. I am saying in the future you put the money up and you know it 
is not coming back after you get elected. That is what the Senator is 
talking about.
  I think that is very fair. In fact, it should be a condition to your 
putting up your own money, knowing right up front you are not going to 
get it back from your constituents under fundraising events that you 
would hold and then ask them: How would you like me to vote now that I 
am a Senator?
  That is what we are talking about. I think you are absolutely right 
on that.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from New Mexico is right on that point. It is 
a fiction sometimes. These loans are made to a campaign and perhaps 
they will be paid back, but perhaps they will not. Your language makes 
it clear there will not be any effort after the election to raise money 
to repay those loans; you have made that contribution and have to live 
with it. I think there is some reality.
  The Senator from New Mexico is probably aware of this, but I want to 
make sure it is on the record.
  According to the Federal Election Commission, candidates gave or 
loaned their campaigns $194.7 million from personal and immediate 
family funds in the 2000 election cycle. This is up from $107 million 
in 1998 and $106 million in 1996. The $194.7 million in 2000 included 
$40 million from Presidential candidates, $102 million from Senate 
candidates, and $52 million from House candidates.
  Think about what we are saying about the men and women who run to 
serve in the Senate. Think about what this institution will become if 
that is what one of the rules is to be part of the game: That you have 
to be loaning or contributing literally millions of dollars in order to 
be a candidate for public office.
  As I have said from the outset, I support McCain-Feingold. They are 
doing the right thing, but there are two elements that need to be 
addressed. Senator Domenici has one amendment that addresses it, the 
so-called self-funding wealthy candidate. Senator DeWine and I are 
working on an alternative if Senator Domenici's amendment is not 
adopted.
  We also have to deal with the cost of media because, unless we deal 
with that, frankly, all of the restrictions we put on how you raise 
money will not address the overarching concern about the cost of 
campaigns.
  If we have the cost of television and radio going up as dramatically 
as we have seen it--20 percent every 2 years--there is no way we can 
fashion a law to hold down campaign spending that will work. In a State 
as big and diverse as Illinois with 12 million people, a successful 
statewide candidate has to be on television. I cannot shake enough 
hands and I cannot knock on enough doors in a State as large as mine. 
To raise money to make sure I have a chance to deliver the message is 
going to be a daunting task unless we deal with how we raise money in 
campaigns or what television might cost.
  I note the Senator from California spoke a few minutes ago about 
revelations that came to her during the course of her campaign.
  There is one other aspect I wish to address before I yield the floor, 
and that is the independent expenditures, the groups that come on with 
ads toward the end of the campaign that are not sponsored by candidates 
or political parties. These are groups that come out of nowhere with 
high sounding names and spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates 
or to elect candidates across America.
  In my campaign for the Senate a few years ago, in the closing weekend 
of the campaign, Saturday night I sat down and thought: I am finally 
going to get to see ``Saturday Night Live'' on the last Saturday before 
the election. As the NBC news went off, four ads went on the air. All 
four ads were negative ads blasting me. Not a single one was paid for 
by my opponent or the Republican Party. They were from groups I never 
heard of. I heard of a couple of them. Some I never heard of.
  I said: Who are these people? I have to disclose every dollar I raise 
and spend; that is proper; that is legal; that is right. Why should 
these drive-by shooting artists come in with 30-second ads and never 
tell you from where the money is coming?
  I will give an illustration. One group for term limits wants to limit 
the time Members of the Senate and House serve. I disagree with them on 
that position, and I have been open about it. But I disclose all the 
money I am raising and spending to tell my side of the story. The group 
that sponsors term limits refuses to disclose from where their money 
comes. I confronted one of their organizers and said: Why shouldn't you 
be held to the same rules to which I am held if we are going to have a 
fair fight? He said: Oh, as soon as I have to disclose my sources, we 
know there will be retribution against them.
  Well, hogwash. In this system, people should be willing to disclose 
where their money comes from, whether they are on the right or on the 
left. Let the American people know who is sponsoring the term limit 
campaigns in their States, who is putting the money behind them, and 
then if they want to raise legitimate questions about where

[[Page 3883]]

this money is coming from, what the real motivation is, that gets to 
the heart of the issue.
  Time and again these groups come forward and get involved in 
campaigns. They spend unlimited sums of money, and we never know who 
they are or from where they are coming.
  If we are going to end these paper transfers and bring real 
transparency and honesty to this process, not only should we support 
the McCain-Feingold basic legislation but we should deal with these 
issues as well. The self-funding wealthy candidates, the cost of media, 
and these groups that are making the independent expenditures, I think 
they should be subject to the same form of disclosure. I support this 
amendment. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join Senator 
Domenici in adding it to the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, 
has agreed the time of Senator Durbin will be charged to Senator 
Domenici and not to this side, and I ask unanimous consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be charged accordingly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio, Mr. DeWine.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from New Mexico.
  I rise this afternoon to congratulate my friend, Senator Domenici. He 
has identified a real problem. Let me notify Members of the Senate, we 
have received calls asking about our amendment. For the last several 
weeks, Senator Domenici and I have been engaged in discussions and 
negotiations between the two of us to try to come up with an amendment 
on which both he and I could agree. Let me notify my colleagues that we 
are getting closer at this late hour and we hope to have something 
resolved in the next few minutes. I will withhold any comments about 
the specifics of that agreement.
  The point is, Senator Domenici has identified a real problem. He has 
identified a constitutional loophole. It is a constitutional loophole 
that needs to be confronted. What am I talking about? I think it would 
come as a surprise to the average American to know the current state of 
the law is this: Every citizen in this country is limited to how much 
money he or she can contribute to a candidate for the Senate--every 
person in this country, except one. That one person is a candidate 
himself or herself. Based on the Supreme Court's Buckley case, and 
based on their interpretation of the first amendment, Congress cannot 
limit how much money an individual puts into his or her own campaign.
  We have what for most people, the average person, would seem to be a 
crazy situation. Everyone in this country is limited to only giving 
$1,000 or up to $1,000 to a candidate for the Senate or a candidate for 
the House of Representatives. However, an individual candidate, if he 
or she has the wealth to do it, can put an unlimited amount of money 
into his or her campaign.
  We have seen now in the last several election cycles this phenomenon. 
Most people find it obscene. Most people find it a ridiculous situation 
that someone can spend $10 million, $20 million, $30 million, $50 
million, or $60 million of their own money. As a practical matter, a 
person who has that much money spent against them has a very difficult 
time competing, making it a level playing field or even close to being 
a level playing field.
  I congratulate my colleague for his concern about this problem. The 
solution, quite candidly, is not to, of course, limit what a person can 
put into the campaign. We cannot do that. We cannot stop someone from 
putting an unlimited amount in their campaign. The only way to do that 
is to change the Constitution. What we can do is give the other person, 
the person who is faced with doing battle with that person who is 
putting $10 million, $20 million, or $30 million of their own in the 
campaign, we can give their opponent some ability to compete.
  Senator Domenici does this in several different ways. The amendment I 
have will also do so. The amendment I will be proposing raises the 
dollar amounts a person can give to an individual candidate. We raise 
it on a sliding scale based on two factors. One, the size of the State; 
the other, based upon how much money that individual millionaire puts 
into his or her own campaign. At one level, we raise the donor limits 
for the other person to one amount, and we keep racheting it up.
  I believe it fits the constitutional requirements of proportionality. 
We have cases we can supply to any Members of the Senate who want to 
look at that. We believe it therefore is, in fact, constitutional.
  The reality is each Member who has gotten to the Senate knows how 
much they can raise in their individual State under the current limits. 
I will take the Chair's home State and my home State of Ohio. In the 
past election cycles, going back to 1988, no one has raised more than 
$8 million in the State of Ohio for any of those campaigns for the 
Senate. It stayed fairly constant over that period of time. Taking our 
State as an example, if someone was running against a millionaire in 
the State of Ohio and they wanted to put in $20 million, that person 
who put in their own $20 million would have a tremendous advantage over 
another candidate who did not have his or her individual wealth. Based 
on what we have seen in the last 12 years in Ohio, $8 million is about 
all you can raise. So you have one candidate with $20 million of their 
own, another candidate with $8 million maximum that he or she can 
raise.
  The DeWine and Domenici amendments--and we do it in different ways--
begin to level the playing field, making it easier for that candidate 
running against the millionaire to raise money. You still have to get 
it from individuals, but it makes it easier to do it. It would not 
level the playing field. I don't think there is anything to do to level 
the playing field, but it moves it a little closer and makes that race 
a lot more competitive.
  I thank my colleague from New Mexico for yielding me time, and I 
congratulate him for identifying a real problem. I notify Members of 
the Senate and those who have asked about the DeWine amendment we have 
shared with Members, Senator Domenici and I, as well as others, are 
involved in negotiations and we hope to work out those differences.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding the Senator from New Mexico and 
the Senator from Ohio are hoping to work out an amendment that is 
mutually agreeable.
  Mr. DeWINE. That is absolutely correct. We are working on it now. We 
hope to have something in the next half hour.
  Mr. DODD. How much time remains on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 23\1/2\ minutes and the 
minority has 25 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding this vote occurs at 6:15, but 
if I added up the minutes correctly it carries past that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It goes beyond that time.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are some who made a request that it 
would be very helpful if the vote would be at 6 o'clock rather than at 
6:15.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the distinguished assistant Democratic 
leader, we are checking on the 6 o'clock time and should know 
momentarily whether or not that would be agreeable.
  Mr. REID. We have a couple of Members over here who would like to 
have the vote sooner if at all possible.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am told there is an objection on this side to moving 
the vote up to 6.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection on the majority side to the 
vote at 6 o'clock.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

[[Page 3884]]


  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are facing a real crisis in campaign 
finance in this country. We have effectively no limits on campaign 
contributions, even though the law seems to provide that there be a 
$1,000 contribution limit from an individual, $5,000 from a PAC, and so 
forth. Because of the soft money expenditures, we in effect have no 
limits on campaign contributions anymore despite the law. The law has 
been evaded, avoided, bypassed, mainly now financing television ads, 
often negative, called issue ads.
  I think most of us who have seen these issue ads who have been in 
this profession long enough recognize that there is no difference 
between the issue ad which does not name the candidate and says that 
you should vote against him, and the issue ad which says this candidate 
is great or his opponent is awful but doesn't use the magic words 
``vote for'' or ``vote against'' and the candidate ad which uses the 
magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against.''
  At hearings we have held at the Governmental Affairs Committee, we 
put these television ads on the screen right next to each other. There 
is no reasonable person who could reach the conclusion that the ad 
which is paid for with soft money is anything different, in 95 percent 
of the cases, from the ad which is paid for in hard money.
  So we have now trashed the limits on contributions that exist in the 
law. Hopefully, McCain-Feingold is going to restore those limits. But 
the first amendment which is offered to this, it seems to me, goes in 
the wrong direction and opens up a number of loopholes, No. 1, but 
also, it seems to me, is not workable the way it is written.
  I can understand the frustration of running against somebody who is 
either partly self-financed or totally self-financed. It seems to me 
there is a way in which we ought to try to address that. But we surely 
should not try to address that by blowing the caps on party 
contributions, which is what this amendment does.
  I do not think we should do that by having a process here which is 
unworkable because it is not graduated from State to State. Somebody in 
a State with 30 million people is given the opportunity to raise these 
funds from all of the contributions from the people who contribute 
directly to the campaign in multiples, the same as somebody who comes 
from a small State, giving the person who comes from a larger State a 
much greater advantage over someone coming from a smaller State, 
although they are both running against the person who is putting in 
their own money.
  I wonder if the Senator will yield 3 more minutes?
  Mr. REID. I yield 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. So the first amendment that comes before the Senate is an 
amendment which is written in a way to eliminate any limit.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Was consent just asked for something?
  Mr. REID. Three more minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. So the first amendment that comes before us blows the caps 
on party contributions altogether in the case that somebody partly 
self-finances a campaign. Second, it has a procedure here which doesn't 
strike me as being either fair or workable. It is unfair because it is 
not graduated, giving candidates who run against somebody who is partly 
self-financing very different rights and opportunities, because the 
person who has a large number of hard money contributors gets a much 
greater opportunity to raise money than somebody who has a small number 
of hard money contributors, presumably somebody from a smaller State. 
Since there is no gradation in terms of the States, all the States are 
being treated the same, despite the fact that there are some very 
obvious differences.
  Finally, it seems to me this is an impractical approach because of 
the trigger, the trigger being the candidate has to file a declaration, 
when the declaration of candidacy is filed, to declare whether or not 
he or she intends to spend personal funds of a certain amount. That 
intention can be honestly ``no'' at the beginning of a campaign, but 
near the end of a campaign the temptation is great. If somebody near 
the end decides to borrow a half million dollars, then that person has 
a decided advantage which is not corrected by this amendment. Even 
though you have to file a notice within 24 hours, it could come far too 
late for the person who is disadvantaged by this large amount of money 
to do anything much about it.
  So it seems to me, for all these reasons, this amendment is not the 
right approach to a problem. But it is a problem. I want to acknowledge 
the Senator from New Mexico has identified, as have a number of people 
on this floor, a problem which is a real one, which is what happens in 
the case of somebody who is either partly self-financed or fully self-
financed, as to what do you do about the person running against that 
individual.
  We have that problem now. I don't think this amendment solves it in a 
practical or a fair way or in an evenhanded way. But that does not mean 
the problem does not exist. I hope we will continue to try to work on 
some practical way, which doesn't blow caps, to address that problem.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Alabama 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for 
allowing me to speak on this amendment. It is something about which I 
have felt strongly for a long time. I find absolutely nothing 
unreasonable or unfair about the Domenici proposal. I think it fits 
precisely the circumstances in a very realistic way.
  I remember when I was running for the Senate in 1995, a prominent 
leader was on television. He said: People are going out deliberately 
recruiting millionaires to run for office. In fact, he said, we are 
creating a millionaires club, particularly in the Senate.
  Since I was running in a Republican primary, facing seven different 
candidates, two of whom were spending over $1 million of their own 
money, I listened to that. It meant a lot to me at the time. Two others 
in that race I think spent approximately a half million dollars each in 
the race. It was a total of $5 million spent by my opponents, and I was 
able to raise $1 million in that primary and was able to win that 
primary.
  I am not complaining about the Supreme Court ruling that says a 
millionaire, multimillionaire, or billionaire can spend all he or she 
wants to spend. What I am saying is we have all these restrictions on 
people who have to raise money. It limits their ability to raise money. 
Then a wealthy candidate can waltz in out of left field with hundreds 
and hundreds of millions of dollars in his account and can just 
overwhelm their opponent, and it creates, I believe, an unfair 
situation.
  I think it is very difficult for anyone to contend this is not an 
unfair situation. We can deal with it, in my view. Senator Domenici has 
given a lot of thought to it. He and I have talked for some time about 
this. I believe he has moved in a direction that can deal with it. We 
are saying individual candidates in a primary, for example, can only 
raise $1,000 from a contributor to combat the money that was poured in 
it by a wealthy opponent. I believe we have an unfair situation. It 
makes it difficult for candidates to run on a level playing field.
  I was a former Federal prosecutor and attorney general of Alabama at 
the time of my campaign. I had two children in college. I had some 
public service experience. I wanted to take my record to the people of 
Alabama. We were able to raise enough money. I didn't have any problem 
asking people for money. I was able to raise enough money to get my 
message out and win in a runoff in that primary.
  But it really creates an unlevel playing field if I am restricted to 
these levels of contributions. What if my opponent had not spent $1 
million? What if they spent $5 million, $7 million, or $40 million in 
that primary in a State such

[[Page 3885]]

as Alabama? Could they have gained enough votes to tilt in their favor 
while a candidate who is a public servant is subject to limited funds? 
I think that is quite possible. That could have occurred.
  The Supreme Court, in my view, may not have been perfectly brilliant 
in the Buckley case in suggesting that an individual who has a lot of 
money has no potential for corruption. If their money is in one sector 
of the economy--health care, finance, high tech--if that is where their 
wealth is and maybe they have another billion dollars of investment, 
they have a lot to lose. Who says they are more or less corrupt than 
somebody such as the Senator from Alabama who worked as attorney 
general and took a State salary every day? I don't know. But the 
Supreme Court has ruled that a wealthy person cannot be limited in the 
amount of money they can put into a campaign. We are going to live with 
that. That is what the law is.
  Let me mention that there has been a trend in recent years of large 
amounts of personal wealth going into campaigns. In 1996, 54 Senate 
candidates and 91 House candidates each put $100,000 or more of their 
own personal money in the campaign through direct contributions or 
loans. In the 1998 general election campaign--that is a final election 
campaign--Senate candidates gave about $28.4 million to their own 
campaigns while House candidates gave close to $25 million to their own 
campaigns. This is compared to 1988 when the Senate candidates used 
only $9.7 million of their own money in Senate campaigns and House 
candidates gave $12.5 million.
  This means that the share of the total Senate donations from personal 
funds more than doubled--from 5.4 percent to 11.4 percent in 1988. That 
is pretty significant.
  In the Senate races alone, about 1 out of every 5 dollars raised in 
1994 came from the bank accounts of the candidates themselves. This is 
clearly significant, and I think under the present tight financial 
rules on people raising money it is an unfair advantage to people who 
have access to unlimited funds.
  Can there be any doubt why a candidate or recruitment committee for 
any party, Republican or Democrat, is going to look out for people who 
can put in that kind of money? It gives them a clear advantage in the 
candidate recruitment process if they can write that kind of check.
  This amendment, I believe, deals with it quite fairly and justly. 
First, it talks about disclosure. Within 15 days after a candidate is 
required to file a declaration of candidacy under the Federal law, he 
or she must declare whether they intend to spend personal funds in 
excess of $500,000, $750,000, or even $1 million of their own money. It 
didn't say they can't do that. They can. They simply have to state an 
intention. I have to state and have to abide by the rule that I cannot 
raise more than $1,000. What is wrong with asking them to at least say 
how much they intend to spend? I think that is reasonable. What could 
be unfair about that?
  Then this triggers the events that occur to give the opponent of the 
billionaire candidate, or the one-hundred-millionaire candidate, a 
little advantage. It sort of balances the scales a little bit. It is 
not a lot. It is still tough to compete against a candidate who will 
put in $40 million or $7 million. But they don't always win when they 
go to the American people.
  If a wealthy candidate declares his or her intent to spend in excess 
of $500,000, the opponent of that candidate can increase individual and 
PAC contribution limits threefold. In the present circumstance, instead 
of being able to ask people for only $1,000, it would be $3,000. 
Instead of a PAC giving $5,000, a PAC could give $15,000, to give you 
some chance to compete against that wealth.
  If the candidate says in his declaration that he or she intends to 
spend more than $750,000, his or her opponent can increase individual 
and PAC contribution limits by five times. It would be $5,000 per 
individual.
  If some friends of mine say: Jeff Sessions is getting overwhelmed by 
a multimillionaire candidate, they could all rally and try to go out 
there and help me have a fair playing field. I think some people would. 
They would rally under those circumstances. But under current law, they 
cannot help a candidate any more than the maximum contribution.
  If the wealthy candidates exceed $1 million in personal expenditures, 
under the Domenici amendment the direct party contribution limit and 
party coordinated expenditure limits are eliminated. Why not? There is 
a chance to buy an election by pouring $1 million-plus into a campaign, 
and the opponent can be left helpless. I think that is a good law.
  It also has a give-back provision that any excess funds raised by the 
opponent of a wealthy candidate may be used only in the election cycle 
for which they were raised. So they couldn't be used in the next 
election. Excess contributions must be returned to the contributor, if 
there is any left after that.
  It also prohibits wealthy candidates, who incur personal loans in 
connection with their campaign that exceed $250,000, from repaying 
those loans from any contributions made to the candidate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has used his 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the Senator an additional minute of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I know there were large contributions in this last 
Senate campaign from candidates of $10 million, $60 million, and other 
amounts of money that the winning candidates in this body contributed 
from their own funds. I tell you, I am glad I didn't face a person who 
could write a check for $60 million, $10 million--or $5 million, for 
that matter. If so, I would like to be able to have a level playing 
field so I could stay in the ball game.
  This is a fair and reasonable bill. I believe it is the right thing 
to do. I totally support the Domenici amendment.
  I ask that I be allowed to be listed as a cosponsor to the Domenici 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I have great affection for my colleague from New 
Mexico. He is one of my best friends in the Senate. Even though we are 
of different political parties, we do a lot of work together. I admire 
him immensely as a Senator, and, more importantly, I cherish his 
friendship. But I disagree with him on this amendment.
  I understand the arguments being made. In fact, I have been through a 
campaign where I in fact faced an opponent who was going to spend--at 
least he threatened to spend--a substantial part of his personal wealth 
to defeat me. So I am more than familiar with how this can work. It 
turned out he didn't spend all that money he said he was going to. But 
at least the threat was there. I know what it means to be sitting there 
in the campaign wondering whether or not you see a person who endlessly 
writes personal checks in a campaign.
  I understand the motivations behind this and the concerns about it. 
But I think the amendment as crafted lacks some proportionality and 
balance. I admire the effort to try to come up with various triggers 
that kick in if a candidate relies upon his personal wealth for 
campaign funds. But this amendment doesn't take into consideration the 
size of various States. A $500,000 commitment of personal funds in 
Rhode Island, or Delaware, or even Connecticut certainly might cause an 
opponent to pause.
  In Texas, Illinois, Florida, and California, that amount of funding 
hardly represents a commitment of personal resources. Today, that is 
nothing more than a second mortgage on a home. And a trigger allowing 
three times the allowable funds to be used, I think, is unnecessary at 
that level of personal funds. If you are getting to $750,000 or $1 
million, again, in a large State, where a $20 or $30 million race is 
going

[[Page 3886]]

to occur, I do not think that amount necessarily is going to pose a 
great threat.
  Remember, we are talking, in many instances, about challengers. We 
are incumbents. As incumbents, we have a lot of advantages that do not 
come out of our personal checkbooks. Obviously, if we are e-mailing our 
constituents, responding to mail, having telephone services, and the 
like, we have an advantage that obviously gives us the upper hand in 
many instances when facing a challenger who may have personal wealth or 
may decide they are going to put at risk their family resources to run 
for public office.
  I do not want to be in a position where we gut the McCain-Feingold 
bill because of a $500,000, or $750,000, commitment in a race that may 
cost, on average, today $15 or $20 million. That, it seems to me, is 
not proportional. It does not rise to that level. And that would be the 
net effect, if I understand the amendment correctly.
  If a candidate commits $1 million of personal resources, then all the 
limits on coordinated party contributions come off for the challenger. 
And the challenger is permitted to have five times the allowable 
individual contribution limits. The result is a million-dollar personal 
commitment by one candidate being met with a potential $10 million 
party expenditure by the challenger. It seems to me that would defeat 
the very purpose of what we are trying to achieve with the underlying 
McCain-Feingold legislation.
  In addition, obviously, PAC contributions rise to $25,000 per 
election, above the $5,000 limitations right now, once that threshold 
of $750,000 has been met, as I understand it.
  So I think there is a way, maybe, to address this issue, but I think 
this amendment goes too far. It really does undo, at a very low 
threshold level, a lot of what is trying to be achieved by the McCain-
Feingold proposal.
  Again, I understand those who object to the underlying McCain-
Feingold legislation, the thrust of it. But if you basically agree with 
what John McCain and Russ Feingold are trying to achieve with this 
bill--reducing the amount of money in the system--if you think that is 
the right track to be on, then adopting or supporting this amendment is 
a direct contradiction, it seems to me.
  I understand if you are opposed to McCain-Feingold, then this is one 
quick way to sort of gut it, to undercut it.
  Mr. President, I ask for one additional minute, if I can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. So if you want to basically gut the bill, then this is the 
amendment, it seems to me. The very first amendment we are dealing with 
here on this bill, the very first effort out of the box, is to 
undermine what we are trying to achieve.
  Again, I respect what my colleagues are trying to do, as someone who 
has faced opponents in the past who have at least threatened to spend 
significant personal wealth in a campaign. That can be intimidating. 
But what you do not want to have happen is the mere expenditure, or the 
announcement of an expenditure, of equal or greater than $500,000, 
$750,000 or $1 million triggering off the contribution limits.
  In Connecticut that would be a lot of money. But if you are going to 
get involved in a race that uses the New York media, for instance, a 
race that in Connecticut would be $5 or $6 million, could quickly 
mushroom to $10 million. And $1 million of personal wealth, while it is 
a lot of money, that certainly then could unleash $10 million or $15 
million once the party limits are off. And the party limits would come 
off with that $1 million commitment. I think that would be a mistake.
  So I urge my colleagues who are thinking about supporting this 
amendment, who simultaneously want to see McCain-Feingold become the 
law of the land, to think twice about this amendment.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question under his time?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, wouldn't it set a bad tone on the first 
amendment on this very important legislation--no matter how well 
meaning the proponents of this amendment might be--to, in effect, 
according to the sponsors of this bill, McCain and Feingold, gut the 
bill? Wouldn't that set a bad tone?
  Mr. DODD. I think it would. There may be some merit we can seek out 
at some point. We are going to be on this bill for the next 2 weeks. It 
seems to me, if there is value in trying to do something here, we ought 
to be willing to talk about it. If we come out of the box and adopt 
this amendment, it seems to me then it would be a major setback in what 
we are trying to achieve in the McCain-Feingold legislation. I urge 
those who would be tempted to support this bill to resist doing so, and 
those who are sponsoring this amendment, if the amendment is, in fact, 
defeated or tabled, to go back to the drawing board and take another 
look at how this might be achieved.
  But this particular proposal, I think, eviscerates what Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold are trying to achieve and what those of us 
supporting them would like to see accomplished.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield my colleague 2 minutes.
  Mr. REID. There is no one I have greater respect for than the Senator 
from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, with whom I came to Washington in 1982. I 
had the same feeling he had, I say to my friend from Illinois. I heard 
his very eloquent speech. The fact is, I was of the understanding this 
would help the bill. But I have been told by the proponents of this 
legislation that it will not help the bill.
  Does the Senator understand that?
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his kind words. In 
our conversations, I agree with what Senator Domenici is setting out to 
do. I do not believe it is antagonistic to McCain-Feingold. I think it 
is complementary. It is an important element. But I do believe we need 
to take the concept Senator Domenici has brought to the floor and work 
on it. We need to spend a little time working on this to bring it to 
where it ought to be.
  I say to my friend from New Mexico, I hope--he, of course, can do 
what he would like with his amendment. I cannot support it at this 
moment, but I want to work with him and work with Senator DeWine of 
Ohio to try to find a bipartisan alternative that deals with this in a 
realistic way.
  So if Senator Domenici wants to go ahead with this amendment, I will 
have to join those who are attempting to table it, but only with the 
understanding that once this amendment is completed, we will sit down 
in a good-faith effort, bipartisan effort, to address this issue. 
Without his leadership, we might not even be at this point in the 
debate.
  I thank him for that leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Eleven. I am not sure I will use all of it. I am aware 
that a Senator desires to get out of here quickly, and I will do my 
very best to accommodate the Senator.
  But what I want to say to the Senate is, I have been working with 
Senator DeWine and others on a modification to my amendment. Frankly, I 
cannot modify it unless there is a consent that I be permitted to 
modify it. If we move to table it, and the tabling motion fails, then I 
can amend it. So I would hope you would not table the Domenici 
amendment. Because if it is not tabled, Senator DeWine and I, and 
others, will offer an amendment, which we will then be permitted to do, 
which will, essentially, greatly simplify it.
  It will essentially be that if somebody under this new law indicates 
they are going to spend $500,000 or more of their own money, then only 
the individual contributions are increased to three times what they are 
now--$3,000 instead of $1,000--that if you are going to spend more than 
$1 million, it is 10 times, which is $10,000 contributions.
  So if somebody was going to spend $20- or $30 million, then the 
$1,000 cap

[[Page 3887]]

would be $10,000. That is the extent of the changes except we have a 
loan payback provision which we have discussed on the floor that says, 
if you use your own money, then after you are in office, you cannot pay 
yourself back by raising money as a sitting Senator.
  Mr. President, I think that amendment I am going to offer with 
Senator DeWine, which he would speak to at a later date, is a 
compromise amendment. I wanted to go a little further. But now what we 
are going to do in a few minutes is vote on whether or not to table the 
Domenici amendment. If we do not table it, then we will offer this 
amendment. I am sure everybody is listening and at least these 
increases in caps would pass in the Senate. Only the individual limits, 
the individual contributions would be changed if we are permitted to 
offer the Domenici-DeWine amendment, which would be a substitute after 
the tabling motion.
  So there is no misunderstanding, the Domenici amendment has no soft 
money in it. The Domenici amendment is all hard money. Essentially, it 
says, if you are going to spend a half million dollars of your money, 
then you get to raise money in return for the candidate who was bound 
by the old laws, the 26-year-old laws. You can raise $3,000 in 
individual money and PACs are increased threefold. If you are going to 
spend $750,000 or more, it is five times. And $1 million or more, it is 
10 times, as I have just indicated. In addition, we have the loan 
payback provisions in the bill that I have just described, and we have 
a provision that the hard money that can come from campaigns is limited 
as it is under the McCain-Feingold.
  Having said that, I would ask Senators who think the time has come to 
send not a signal but to change the law so that the multimillionaire 
cannot essentially put the opponent at such odds that the opponent has 
no chance of raising sufficient money to run a campaign--we have seen 
many examples of that of late. I think it is as serious a problem as 
the underlying issues that are before us on McCain-Feingold. I choose 
to fix them. I ask Senators not to vote to table my amendment, thus 
giving me a chance to present a modified one that has broader support 
than the original Domenici amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.
  Mr. McCAIN. I don't want to take the floor from the Senator from New 
Mexico, but I have to tell the Senator from New Mexico, he has made 
substantial and probably significant and beneficial changes to his 
amendment. He just articulated them. We haven't had a chance to digest 
them to see what the impact would be. We have gone a long way from if 
the candidate exceeds $1 million, the direct party contributions and 
party coordinated expenditure limits are eliminated. We have to figure 
out exactly what all this means, I say to the Senator from New Mexico. 
This is legislating on the fly here.
  What we would like to do, if it is agreeable to the Senator from New 
Mexico and the Senator from Ohio and all of us involved, is to have a 
chance to sit down and negotiate this with him. I agree with the 
Senator from New Mexico. I think he has some very good provisions, but 
at this time we would like to be able to examine those provisions, 
determine exactly what the impact is, have some negotiations, which 
have been going on among our staffs. Hopefully, we could get something 
on which we can all agree.
  I am not sure in this very short time period where the Senator's 
amendment has changed rather drastically, fundamentally, when we are 
talking about if the candidate exceeds $1 million personal 
expenditures, the direct party contribution limits and party 
coordinated expenditure limits are eliminated--I don't frankly 
understand exactly the ramifications of the amendment of the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Senator from New Mexico has 
the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my friend, I am not choosing to amend my 
amendment. My amendment stands as it was understood by the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona. I am merely stating that I am 
asking, and I now ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to modify 
it.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All I am saying is, if you don't table the Domenici 
amendment, standing there, I will offer an amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator DeWine, and others which will do what I described a 
while ago, and you can have all the time you want to look at that 
amendment, debate it, and even modify it, if you would like. I ask that 
we leave the amendment standing so I can modify it. Has the motion to 
table been lodged against the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table can only be made at the 
expiration of time. The Senator has a little over 4 minutes, and the 
other side has a little over 9 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Kentucky that we 
are prepared to yield back whatever time we have on this amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent, if I don't have time, I may yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has time. The Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I want to say again to my friend from New Mexico, we can 
work this out. We can do that. By the way, it is my understanding if we 
table your amendment, you can bring up another amendment anyway, 
whether it is tabled or not. If we don't table the present amendment, 
then that will signal that the Senate agrees with that amendment. 
Obviously, I do not, nor do I believe does the majority. I emphasize 
again to the Senator from New Mexico, I think we have made great 
progress in these negotiations. We are in agreement in principle. All 
we need to do is work out the details of it.
  Frankly, I haven't been here nearly as long as the Senator from New 
Mexico, but I haven't heard of a parliamentary procedure where you 
would not table somebody's amendment that you oppose when there is 
going to be a follow-up amendment because we have unlimited amendments 
on this bill, very soon that we hope we will have worked out together.
  Again, I am optimistic that we will work out the differences we have 
and it will give us all a better understanding of the amendment so we 
can make the best and most efficient use of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my good friend from Arizona, it is not a 
question of whether there is a procedure like this or not. We have 
established the procedure by the unanimous consent agreement we had 
entered into. We entered into a unanimous consent agreement that said 
that this amendment can't be modified unless we vote on a motion to 
table it and it is not tabled. We established that rule. I am asking 
that since that was the rule, we go ahead and not table it and let me 
offer an amendment with my good friend from Ohio and that will be 
thoroughly debated and modified.
  Mr. DeWINE. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague from New Mexico. Let me urge the 
Members of the Senate not to vote in favor of tabling the Domenici 
amendment. The Senator has outlined very clearly what modification he 
and I wanted to make. It is a modification that is very logical. It 
turns this into an amendment that improves the amendment. It deals with 
the proportionality question.
  If Members do look at it--and they have just had the opportunity a 
moment ago to hear the Senator outline exactly what it is--they will 
find it is very rational; it is very reasonable. It is going to be held 
to be constitutional, and it is going to begin to deal with this 
tremendous problem the Senator and I have been outlining, with others. 
I urge my colleagues not to vote in favor of tabling. Give us the 
opportunity to come right back and make the changes and get this 
amendment passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just as a suggestion to my colleagues, under 
this unanimous consent agreement, the

[[Page 3888]]

only way the amendment could be set aside would be, I suppose, a motion 
asking unanimous consent to set aside or withdraw the amendment. That 
is something on which the authors of the amendment must make a 
decision. It seems to me we are fairly close to something that might be 
agreeable. I don't think it serves the interests of the Senate to have 
a vote on something where it goes down and then comes back again.
  It seems to me, if the authors of the amendment and the authors of 
the principal legislation feel as though they are fairly close to 
something they might agree on, it would make some sense, rather than 
putting the Senate through a vote, to ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be withdrawn. We can go on to another matter and then come 
back to something we may agree on. We may not ultimately.
  I don't see the value in having the Senate march down here and cast 
100 votes on something that is going to be changed or modified at some 
later point anyway. I urge the authors to consider that for the minute 
that we have before the vote must occur. It seems to me that is a more 
prudent way to proceed.
  I yield 2 minutes, if I have them, to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I completely 
agree with his remarks, as well as the Senator from Arizona. I am 
pleased that the Senator from New Mexico has recognized that his 
original amendment just goes too far and there needs to be some 
modifications. We should try to get together and work this out.
  There are a couple of items already in some of the modifications he 
is talking about that concern me. A tenfold increase seems to be an 
awfully high number. Perhaps there is another level that could work.
  On the question of what the threshold would be, $500,000, many people 
have said, is too low a trigger for these increases. In New York or 
California, there is a difference. I agree with the Senator from 
Connecticut that the way to do this is to table this amendment and then 
see what kind of agreement or modification or new amendment can be 
agreed upon by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Ohio, 
who genuinely care about these issues.
  I share the concerns, but we need to do this in a manner that doesn't 
suddenly put together an act of modification that we don't completely 
understand. I ask that Members table this amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me explain to everyone that if this 
amendment is tabled, the next one comes from the Democratic side of the 
aisle. The first opportunity to do something about one of the most 
pervasive problems in American politics today, the purchasing of public 
office by people of great wealth, will have been lost.
  Yes, it is true we may get back to this later, but there are a lot of 
amendments seeking to be offered on this side of the aisle. I don't 
know about the other side. I hope Senator Domenici's amendment will not 
be tabled, giving him an opportunity. Normally the courtesy of the 
Senate would give an offeror of an amendment an opportunity to modify 
his own amendment. Here that is being denied.
  In the beginning, we got off to a good start, and now people won't 
even let the offeror of an amendment modify his own amendment. Senator 
Domenici is trying to keep his amendment alive so he can offer a second 
degree which, under the agreement, would be appropriate if the motion 
to table is not successful, which is something normally he would have 
an opportunity to do in the Senate, almost as a matter of right. So 
what the Senator is asking for is not inappropriate. It is the only way 
he can modify his amendment under the circumstances.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call----
  Mr. DODD. If the Senator will withhold on the quorum call, I would 
like to be heard.
  I hear my colleague from Kentucky. The reason we object to a 
modification at this point is because of what the Senator from Arizona 
had to say. This is a complicated amendment, with four different 
triggers involved. It seems to me the size of States is relevant, where 
$500,000 in Idaho or Connecticut would provoke one response, whereas in 
California it is something entirely different.
  The modification is being objected to for the reason that it is a 
complicated amendment and it is only fair that the authors of the bill 
spend a little time to look at the implications.
  My suggestion of asking unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment 
at this point--I don't know about the authors of the underlying bill, 
but I am prepared to concede the next amendment to the Republican side 
and let them go first again. This is an important enough issue that we 
ought to try to reach out to one another, and rather than having 100 
votes cast on this amendment as some bellwether of where we stand, and 
if there is an opportunity to reach a compromise, let's do that, and I 
would concede that the next amendment be offered by the Republican side 
to avoid any conflict.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if the motion to table is not agreed 
to, the next amendment will be the modified Domenici amendment because 
he will be recognized at that point for an opportunity to offer the 
modification that, normally, Senate comity would allow. So that will be 
the next amendment if the motion to table is not agreed to.
  Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine will offer the modification they 
have been trying to get consent to offer and that will be the next 
amendment presumably voted on in the morning, depending upon what the 
instructions of the majority leader are.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A half minute to the sponsor and 4 minutes to 
the opposition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that Senators not vote to table this amendment. 
Give me an opportunity tomorrow to work with people to modify it. It 
will be an opportunity for me, as the principal sponsor, to get a 
modification that I can offer. It will be recognized as the next order 
of business. I ask that in fairness. I yield back my time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am about to make a motion to table. I urge 
my colleagues to support it. This amendment, if adopted, would gut the 
McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, in my opinion.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment of 
the Senator from New Mexico.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Hagel
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback

[[Page 3889]]


     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dorgan
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Mexico, we are 
ready now to sit down and negotiate so we can have an agreement on his 
amendment in the morning.
  I believe the Senator from Connecticut has said he could have the 
next amendment. The only reason we objected to it is because we did not 
have sufficient time to review the modifications and continue 
negotiations.
  I say to my friend from New Mexico, we are ready to sit down right 
now and negotiate. I think we are very close to an agreement so we can 
get this done immediately and move on to other issues.
  Mr. President, I also would like to thank the Senator from New Jersey 
and the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Again, before I yield the floor, I believe we are very close to an 
agreement. We were before the modification. I also believe that with 
these negotiations, within an hour we can come up with an agreement 
that will get a very substantial and majority vote.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. 
However, I would just like to reiterate for the Senators present, my 
amendment was caught in a parliamentary bind where there was no way for 
me to amend it, other than to not let this table occur. That is rather 
unfair treatment. Had I figured that out in the unanimous consent 
agreement, I would have never agreed to it because most Senators can 
modify their amendments.
  I thank those who agreed to grant me that privilege. For those who 
want to work with us to try to get an amendment, we will do that. I 
can't do that tonight. We have other things to do around here also. But 
I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his welcoming a 
compromise. There will be one, I assure you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me just follow up on what my colleague 
and friend from New Mexico has said. I think it was a shame that we 
were not given the opportunity to modify his amendment. The Senate has 
spoken. I think it is too bad. I think it is very unfortunate.
  Having said that, I do believe we are fairly close in negotiations. 
The Senator from New Mexico and I had reached an agreement that would 
deal with this problem. It would have been, I think, very positive. I 
am confident, from talking to some of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, as well as friends on this side, that we still can, within a 
relatively short period of time, reach agreement and come back to the 
Senate with an amendment to which we can in fact agree, and we intend 
to do that.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The practical effect means the next amendment is to be 
offered by the Democratic side because Senator Domenici was, first, 
denied the opportunity to modify his amendment; second, the opportunity 
to modify it after a motion to table failed was denied him by switching 
a number of Members.
  The practical effect of all this, I say to everyone in the Senate, is 
that the next amendment is on the Democratic side under our agreement. 
I am curious as to what it might be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. In light of the events that just unfolded here, we don't 
have a specific amendment ready to offer at this particular point. As I 
understand it, there will be no more votes this evening. We encourage 
Members who have not made opening statements on this bill, who are here 
on the floor, to do so tonight, and then with some consultation between 
the two of us and others interested, we will try to come up with an 
amendment this evening to go tomorrow. I don't know what the timeframe 
will be tomorrow. The leader is here. I don't know what the agenda will 
be, what time we will start, but we will certainly give you ample 
notice ahead of time what the amendment will be.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thought the idea behind this agreement we 
painstakingly entered into over a number of weeks of negotiations with 
the Senator from Arizona was that there would be an opportunity for 
lots of amendments. Now here we are on a Monday night, getting ready--
the majority leader wants us to have a vote in the morning--I am 
hearing that the other side doesn't want to lay down an amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, we went through 
this discussion on the Domenici proposal. It may very well be that we 
will offer something that would accommodate what the Senator from New 
Mexico is proposing. If that could be worked out, that may be the next 
amendment. I think we might be able to do that. If we are unable to do 
that, obviously we will have another amendment to offer right away. I 
know the leader indicated that on tomorrow he would like to have a vote 
by 12:30. If we come in at 9:30, we will have an amendment to offer, 
and we will be right on the schedule that the leader laid out some days 
ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, just to respond to the last comment of 
Senator Dodd, that is the point. We want to make sure, if you are going 
to take advantage of the opportunity to offer an amendment tonight, 
fine, or we will have one the first thing in the morning. But we had an 
agreement that we would do these by regular order of 3 hours. So 
hopefully you will either have one in the morning or we will be 
prepared to go with one on this side.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, since there seems to be so much 
interest in accommodating Senator Domenici, might it not be possible 
for everyone to agree that Senator Domenici's modified amendment would 
be the first one up in the morning?
  Mr. DODD. I object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader and to my 
friend from Kentucky that the Senator from Connecticut has been busy.
  I think the amendment--and we will be happy to discuss it in more 
detail with the Senator from Kentucky--will be offered by Senators 
Corzine, Kohl, and Torricelli. It will probably deal with the same 
subject matter that was discussed all day today.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think we have done some good work today. 
We had some good opening statements and considered an amendment. 
Obviously, the people involved could do a little work this evening.
  We will be prepared. At 9:30 tomorrow, we will have an amendment, and 
we will be ready to vote on it by 12:30, before the respective 
conferences meet.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I had prepared to offer a unanimous consent 
that when we come in, at 9:45 in the morning the pending business would 
be the modified Domenici amendment.
  If they are going to work on this tonight, we will be glad to work 
with you on that. But we have to keep this process going forward.
  Just one thing on the substance. I think it is going to be a sad 
commentary if we don't address this issue

[[Page 3890]]

of candidates being able to put unlimited amounts of money in their 
races without the opponents having some way to at least be competitive.
  I hope the Senate will find a way to come together on this issue. I 
know it has the support of both sides of the aisle. It is going to be a 
bad start of getting to a proper conclusion to this legislation if we 
don't address this issue. I would encourage both sides to work on this 
overnight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I voted to table Senator Domenici's 
amendment not because I was not sympathetic with the same. And I give 
him great credit for bringing up a real problem in our campaign finance 
system of very wealthy candidates being able to self-finance their 
races. That discourages a lot of otherwise very qualified people from 
even running for office in the first place.
  I commend the Senator from New Mexico for bringing up an important 
issue. I did not support his amendment because I disagreed with some of 
the provisions in it. I believe, however, that the amendment he is 
likely to propose with Senator DeWine is a far superior amendment.
  I think it was very unfortunate that the Senator from New Mexico was 
not allowed unanimous consent to modify his amendment. That is very 
unusual. Members usually are allowed to modify their own amendments. I 
think it is very unfortunate that did not occur in this case. It does 
not bode well for the debate on this issue for us to start off like 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I can certainly understand the 
frustration of some of our colleagues as we have attempted to work 
through the first day of what is an unusual unanimous consent 
agreement. We are used to a little more flexibility on amendments. I 
think when we entered into this unanimous consent agreement, our entire 
purpose was to ensure that we could move amendments along. That was the 
whole idea--that we would make sure that in the process of moving 
amendments along, we would accommodate Senators.
  I hope that unanimous consent agreements, to demonstrate a little 
more practicality, could be agreed to in the future because I think we 
will actually accommodate rather than impede our ability to take up and 
address this bill in a meaningful way.
  In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that I or my designee be 
recognized tomorrow morning as debate on the legislation is again 
convened in order to offer an amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield under his 
reservation, first of all, I appreciate what Senator Daschle had to say 
about allowing Senators to modify their own amendments. We need to 
continue to honor that practice.
  Second, I don't see any problem with his request. If he does not act 
on his right, then we will be able to reclaim and move forward on our 
side. I don't see a problem with that under the circumstances.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, in 
consultation with our ranking member, I suggest that our amendment will 
deal with the millionaires amendment.
  The Durbin approach I think is one with which many of us could be 
comfortable. I understand they are talking now about ways in which to 
address some of the differences between Senator Durbin and Senator 
Domenici. But that will be the subject of an amendment we will offer at 
9:30 in the morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________