[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3965-3979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 27, which the clerk will report.
  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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Democratic 
leader, or his designee, is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the amendment 
Senator Domenici is going to offer is not yet ready, but we want to 
start talking about it, the procedure being at such time the amendment 
comes from legislative drafting, Senator Durbin will be recognized when 
the Chair feels that is appropriate. He will yield at that time to 
Senator Domenici, who will offer an amendment on his behalf, and 
whoever else wants to be on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Nevada if he 
agrees that we ought to begin the 3-hour time limit.
  Mr. REID. I agree.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, even though 
the amendment has not yet been laid down, since we are going to be 
discussing it, that the 3-hour time limit begin with this discussion. 
We understand most of that time may be yielded back, but at least this 
will begin the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe the agreement of the Senate as 
we adjourned yesterday was that the Democratic side, this Senator in 
particular, would be offering an amendment. I am prepared very shortly 
to yield to the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Ohio and 
to acknowledge their leadership on this issue. We are addressing 
probably one of the most complicated problems we face, a Supreme Court 
decision in Buckley v. Valeo which said that a person who decides to 
run for office and is personally wealthy cannot be limited in the 
amount of personal wealth they spend in order to obtain this office.
  Meanwhile, other candidates who are not personally wealthy face all 
sorts of limitations on how much money they can raise from individuals, 
how much they can raise in a given period of time, how much they can 
raise from political action committees.
  The effort in which I have joined Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine 
is a response to that, I hope a reasonable response to that, which says 
we know the day will come when wealthy people will run for office, but 
we also want to say if you are not wealthy, you should have a chance to 
compete and to deliver your message to the voters and to appeal to them 
for support.
  We have come up with a proposal which Senator Domenici and Senator 
DeWine will describe in detail. We were having conversations on the 
floor, up to the beginning of this speech, about aspects of this matter 
which we hope to address. If we cannot address it particularly in the 
language of this amendment, we will acknowledge what we consider to be 
some of the questions that will be raised and try to address it later 
in debate. We have been in conversation with Senator McCain and Senator 
Feingold. They are familiar with what we are doing. I do not purport to 
suggest they support it. They can speak for themselves. We believe this 
is a responsible way to address a serious problem we face in political 
campaigns.
  If the Senator from New Mexico is prepared, at this point I yield to 
him with the understanding that when the amendment arrives, the Senator 
from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and Senator DeWine, and I will join as 
cosponsors with others.
  I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator from Illinois, I thank the Senator 
for his cooperation and help. Obviously, the Senator came on board with 
the idea encapsulated in the Domenici amendment yesterday, and as we 
progressed through it, it appeared that a number of Senators wanted 
some changes. So we set about yesterday evening--and well into the 
evening--to try to arrive at changes necessary to accommodate a wide 
variety of Senators and still make it effective.
  There is no question, anytime you work on something as complicated as 
this, although we think we have done a good job, it may very well be in 
due course, as this bill evolves further, that there may have to be 
other amendments as people analyze and find other problems that might 
be inherent in this situation.
  I thank in a very special way Senator DeWine from the State of Ohio. 
From the beginning, we had hoped that yesterday we would introduce a 
Domenici-DeWine amendment. I introduced the amendment which was debated 
yesterday. Many people at least understand what we are trying to do and 
what the problem is. To the extent we are trying to figure out a 
solution, Senator DeWine has been a marvelous partner and an excellent 
leader.
  Today I will briefly explain what we are trying to do and some of the 
basic fundamentals, and then I will yield to Senator DeWine.
  The way we will determine the trigger for the nonwealthy candidate--
that is, the candidate confronted with an opponent who will spend a lot 
of their own money--will vary in States depending on the voting age 
population. That is Senator DeWine's idea. In essence, it says to a 
Senator in a State such as Idaho, if somebody decides to run and spends 
their own money in large quantities, that Senator is going to be able 
to raise money somewhat easier than he or she would have if

[[Page 3966]]

they were bound by the 26-year-old law which has $1,000 individual 
contribution limits per election and $5,000 in money that can come from 
PACs.
  Essentially, once you hit the formula amount, this is what will 
happen. When you reach the first level, the individual limits are 
raised to $3,000 under current law. That means you can raise $3,000 in 
the primary and $3,000 in the general. When you hit the next level, 
which Senator DeWine will talk about, the contribution limits for the 
non-wealthy person are raised six times in the primary, $6,000 in the 
primary, $6,000 in the general.
  Then something new was brought into the discussion yesterday evening, 
principally based upon Senator Feinstein's discussion, after having 
faced what one might call a superspender. We have a superspender 
defined, and Senator DeWine will define what that is when he speaks.
  We eliminate the party coordinated expenditure limits, all hard 
dollars--until the poor candidate raises up to an amount equal to the 
self-financing of the superspender. I assume during that period of time 
they can continue to raise the $6,000 from individuals.
  The way it is done, it requires a bit of bookkeeping, but everybody 
keeps a lot of books now. Everybody has records galore. Obviously, 
there are floating triggers that will come about based upon when the 
wealthy candidate, or superspender, starts putting their money into the 
campaign.
  There is one other provision that has been in both vehicles for 
Senators who spend their own money and get elected, a requirement that 
they cannot change their mind about how to finance that campaign and 
start raising money to pay back their debt after they are elected. We 
passed that around yesterday, and everyone seems to understand it. If 
you incur debt from a personal loan and then you get elected as 
Senator, and then you go around and say, now I am the Senator, I want 
you to get me money so I can pay back what I used of my own money to 
run for election. It is clear in this amendment that you cannot do that 
in the future.
  All that is future, prospective.
  Senator DeWine will now explain the triggering mechanisms and how 
this will apply to each State. We will have a chart so every Senator 
can see how it applies. I thank Senator DeWine, who has been a real 
help. To the other Senators on the floor, particularly Senator McCain, 
thank you for your help. Senator McCain clearly said if we did not win 
the other one, we would put this together and it would be bipartisan, 
and he joined.
  There are a few things in this amendment we both know have to be 
ironed out in the future, but I think it is an excellent amendment.
  For the first time in history, we think we are legally addressing the 
issue of a person who asserts their constitutional rights--which the 
Court said is constitutional--to spend their own money, but they do it 
in inordinate amounts as compared to what a candidate on the other side 
could be expected to raise under current restrictive laws, which are 26 
years old and ought to be fixed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this chart we will discuss in a moment was 
prepared last night by my law clerk, Susan Bruno. She has been working 
on that, and we thank her for it.
  I congratulate and thank my colleague from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, and my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for their 
work on this amendment. The amendment we have now is the result of 
weeks of discussions and negotiations among Senator Domenici, Senator 
Durbin, and myself. That culminated last night in further discussions 
involving more Senators, both Republican and Democrat.
  I thank the members of our staff who worked long into the night after 
we had set the basic parameters ourselves for what this discussion 
would be.
  The amendment we have in front of us is bipartisan, and it is the 
work product of a great number of people. But let me particularly thank 
Senator Domenici for taking the lead and for being one who had this 
idea, frankly, over a decade ago, and who has been talking about this 
idea year after year. We are now to the point where we have the ability 
to see this amendment enacted into law.
  Let me, again, thank Senator Domenici, Senator Durbin, Senator 
Collins, Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, and others for their input, 
their suggestions, and their work during these negotiations.
  I believe the amendment, with their help, is a consensus approach 
that will help make our election process more fair and more equitable.
  It is unfortunate that we need such an amendment at all. But the sad 
reality is in campaigns today we are moving down a road where personal 
wealth is becoming the chief qualification for candidates seeking 
office. The reality is in the last several election cycles, both 
parties have looked around the country to try to find wealthy 
candidates who can self-finance their own campaigns. This is no 
reflection on those candidates. But it is the reality of life today.
  This amendment attempts to bring about equity and fairness and also, 
quite candidly, to increase the opportunity for all candidates to get 
their ideas to the public.
  This amendment is truly about the first amendment--it is about free 
speech--and it is about allowing candidates to have the opportunity to 
take their ideas into the marketplace, to broadcast them, to be able to 
pay for the commercials, and to have their exchange of ideas in that 
political marketplace that our Founding Fathers deemed so very 
important.
  The reality is, though, personal wealth has changed the whole dynamic 
of today's Federal elections. It has changed it in a way that no one in 
1976, when the Supreme Court handed down it's decision, could have 
envisioned. No one could have envisioned the amount of money individual 
candidates now pour into their own campaigns.
  The fact is, as I said on the Senate floor last night, there 
currently exists a loophole, but a constitutionally protected loophole, 
for candidates to use their own personal money to finance their own 
campaigns. This loophole, of course, resulted from the 1976 Supreme 
Court case, Buckley v. Valeo. In that case, the Supreme Court reviewed 
the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. In 
the Buckley case, the United States Supreme Court struck down 
limitations on the following: One, campaign expenditures; two, 
independent expenditures by individuals and groups; and, three, 
expenditures by candidates from their personal funds.
  The Buckley decision has effectively created a substantial 
disadvantage for opposing candidates who must raise all campaign funds 
under the current fundraising limitations. Current fund limitations, of 
course, are $1,000 per donor. So you have the situation where the 
candidate who cannot self-finance has to raise money in a maximum of 
$1,000 increments but has to then go up against another candidate who 
can put in maybe an unlimited amount of money--millions and millions of 
dollars.
  The fact is, because of the Constitution, because of the Supreme 
Court's decision, and because of the statutes we have written, we now 
have what, for the general public, would appear at least to be a rather 
ludicrous situation. That situation is that everyone in the country is 
limited to $1,000 they can put into a candidate's campaign--everybody 
in the country except one person. That one person who has the ability 
to put money in, in an unlimited fashion, in an unlimited amount, is, 
of course, the candidate.
  That, I think, to most people would seem to be an absurd situation. 
But this is a constitutional issue. This is, if it is a loophole, 
certainly a constitutionally protected loophole--unlimited personal 
expenditures from rich candidates but limited personal contributions 
for everyone else. That is the reality today.
  This reality has resulted in enhanced personal wealth in campaigns to 
such an extent that I think no one even 10 years ago could have 
imagined its importance.

[[Page 3967]]

  The whole dynamic of political campaigning has fundamentally changed 
in this country because of this Court decision and because of the 
ability in the last few years of candidates to self-finance their own 
campaigns.
  It has made it more difficult for nonwealthy opponents to compete and 
to get their messages and their ideas across to the public.
  Our amendment tries in a constitutionally acceptable way to correct 
this. It would create greater fairness and accountability in the 
Federal election process by addressing the inequity that arises when a 
wealthy candidate pays for his or her campaign with personal funds--
personal funds that are defined, by the way, to include cash 
contributions and any contributions arising from personal or family 
assets such as personal loans or property used for collateral for a 
loan to the campaign.
  The agreement we reached this morning and that was hammered out last 
night--the amendment we will be offering in just a moment--has very 
important implications for our democracy, as I will explain.
  The basic intent of our amendment is to preserve and to enhance the 
marketplace of ideas--the very foundation of our democracy--but giving 
candidates who are not independently wealthy an opportunity to get 
their message across to the voters as well.
  Specifically, our amendment would raise the contribution limits for 
candidates facing wealthy opponents to fund their own campaigns.
  The contribution limit increases are based, as my colleague from New 
Mexico has said, on a sliding scale depending on the size of each State 
and the amount of the wealthy candidate's personal expenditures.
  The amendment creates a simple three-tiered threshold test to 
determine the contribution limit increases. This threshold test is 
based on the individual voting age populations of each state, in 
recognition that the cost of elections vary greatly between the states. 
The actual calculation of the thresholds uses a baseline formula and 
multiples of that baseline. Our population-based calculation allows the 
individual contribution limit increases to kick in sooner in states 
with smaller populations, where candidates get more bang for the buck. 
A half million dollars in a campaign in Wyoming, after all, goes a heck 
of a lot farther and can buy a lot more television air time and direct 
mail pieces than it can in Ohio or in California. Simple put, this 
formula recognizes that a one-size fits all approach won't work for all 
states.
  The baseline is based on the following formula: $.04 the voting age 
population + $150,000. The first threshold starts at double the 
baseline.
  When a wealthy candidate crosses the first threshold, the opposing 
candidate's hard money cap for individual contributions, which 
currently is $1,000, goes up three times to $3,000. The second 
threshold is a double the first threshold--and the hard money cap 
increases to $6,000.
  So when you get to that second threshold, when the wealthy candidate 
puts in that second amount of money or hits that level, the second one 
kicks in, which means then the nonwealthy candidate who was not being 
self-financed can raise six times what the current law is. The current 
law, of course, is $1,000. That would take it up to $6,000 you can 
raise from an individual donor.
  Finally, the third threshold begins at ten times the baseline; once a 
wealthy candidate exceeds the third threshold, it removes the caps for 
State party coordinated expenditures of hard money.
  Our amendment also, as my colleague from New Mexico has indicated, 
includes a proportionality provision, a provision that means for all 
cap increases, a less wealthy candidate can use increased caps to raise 
only--only--up to 110 percent of the amount contributed by the wealthy 
candidate. This applies to all three of these thresholds.
  Proportionality is important because it really helps level the 
playing field from both directions so the wealthy candidate is not 
punished or is not inhibited from putting his or her own money into the 
campaign, which is very important. What this means, in plain language, 
is that we try to increase free speech; we give that nonwealthy 
candidate the opportunity to get his or her message out. We do not 
punish the wealthy candidate. And we take care of that in this well-
crafted amendment by saying we will limit how much that nonwealthy 
candidate can raise above the caps, above the limits, and we limit it 
to, logically, how much money has been put in by the wealthy candidate.
  So the wealthy candidate, again, is not punished, is not inhibited, 
is not discouraged from putting in his or her own money. I think this 
makes a great deal of sense. This was a provision that was worked out, 
again, last night.
  Finally, our amendment includes a notice provision. This requires 
candidates to notify the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of 
crossing a threshold. Candidates also must notify the FEC within 24 
hours of any additional contributions totaling $10,000, once they are 
over a threshold.
  That is our amendment in a nutshell. The fact is, the Supreme Court 
has ruled that personal expenditures cannot be limited. Let me say this 
very clearly: Our amendment is not trying to change nor challenge that. 
We accept that. It is the interpretation of the Supreme Court, in 
interpreting the first amendment to the Constitution, which we must and 
do respect.
  This amendment is not an attempt to undo what the Court decided. It 
is not an attempt to limit personal expenditures, nor in any way to 
inhibit those expenditures, nor in fact to punish people for making 
those expenditures. Rather, it is an attempt to correct for the 
unintended effects of the Court's decision.
  Again, no one--no one--when the Buckley case came out in the mid-
1970s, could have envisioned what we have seen today. This amendment is 
based upon our additional experience--25 years of experience--in seeing 
how this has played out. It is an attempt to correct the inequities in 
the system and establish fairness in the process.
  I believe the courts are likely to uphold this provision because it 
addresses the public perception that there is something inherently 
corrupt about a wealthy candidate who can use a substantial amount of 
his or her own personal resources to win an election--not that there is 
anything corrupt about that particular candidate. It is the perception. 
It is the perception that the public looks at this and, frankly, says 
something is just wrong with this.
  The Supreme Court has said Congress has a compelling interest in 
addressing this perception. This amendment is narrowly tailored, and 
closely related to such concerns about that perceived corruption. The 
reality is the courts carved out a constitutional protection for 
wealthy candidates. Our provision offsets that without infringing on 
the rights of the wealthy candidates. Our provision expands the rights 
of the opposing candidate. Our amendment expands free speech. In fact, 
this sort of approach to campaign financing actually bolsters first 
amendment rights of candidates who do not have extensive personal 
resources.
  Finally, the proportionality provision is key to ensuring that a 
wealthy candidate is not punished by the less wealthy candidate's 
ability to raise funds with lower hard money caps.
  Candidly, our amendment does not completely level the playing field. 
I think in most cases that would simply be impossible. We cannot do 
that. However, it is a step towards increasing fairness and 
accountability in our election process. And it is a step, again, to 
expanding the individual's rights, those who do not have that 
independent wealth, giving them the opportunity to take their ideas out 
into the marketplace and to share them with the public, and giving them 
the resources to share them.
  It is a reasonable approach. It is a reasonable thing to do, 
especially now that we are reforming our Nation's campaign finance 
laws.
  This is a great opportunity for us. We are today, with this 
amendment, fine-tuning the process, correcting something the Court 
could not have foreseen 25 years ago in Buckley; and that is that the 
unlimited personal expenditures can hurt an opposing candidate's

[[Page 3968]]

ability to compete fairly. When that happens, when huge funding 
disparities exist between a wealthy candidate's unlimited personal 
expenditures to their own campaigns and a less wealthy candidate's 
limited individual contributions from others, it is the voters and our 
democracy that suffers the most.
  In conclusion, wealthy candidates have an easier time communicating 
today with voters. That is just the reality of our current process. 
They have the money it takes readily at their disposal to get their 
messages out. When running up against such self-financed machines, less 
wealthy opponents have less chance to challenge those messages, less 
chance to get their own ideas on the table, less chance to communicate 
with the voters, and to give them an alternative point of view.
  As a result, it is the voters who have less chance to make informed 
choices in elections. And that is just not good for our democracy. In 
essence, this struggle between rich and not so rich candidates really 
is a struggle for the soul of democracy. I say that because the free 
flow of ideas and information is the basis--the very foundation--of our 
political system. The exchange of ideas is a prerequisite for 
democratic governance. And it is ``ideas,'' as John Maynard Keynes once 
said, that ``shape the course of history.''
  The more robust the marketplace of ideas, the better the political 
process. For our democracy to fully function and thrive, we need many 
ideas--ideas competing with each other. That is the basis for the 
critical thinking process, the basis for debate and challenges to 
societal norms. That is the basis for how we make changes in our 
society, for how we make the world a better place. When there are fewer 
ideas being disseminated, there is a greater likelihood of political 
and societal stagnation. And when there is such stagnation, there is no 
social change, and the world is worse off for it.
  Thomas Mann once said:

       It is impossible for ideas to compete in the marketplace if 
     no forum for their presentation is provided or available.

  That, unfortunately, seems to be the case for many less wealthy 
candidates who face the power of the self-financed candidates. Our 
amendment is a move away from that kind of inequity. It is a step 
toward providing candidates the forum for the presentation of their 
ideas. By taking that step, the free flow of ideas, the spirit, the 
essence, the foundation of our democracy is preserved and emboldened.
  We have charts on the floor which we can share with all Members of 
the Senate. We have a breakdown that shows State by State exactly where 
those thresholds are and at what point they would kick in.
  We would be more than happy to share those with any Members of the 
Senate who would like to take a look.
  Again, it makes eminent sense to have a distinction between when the 
thresholds kick in between the State of Wyoming and the State of Ohio. 
It just makes eminent sense.
  Again, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, my colleague from 
Illinois, and my other colleagues who have worked long and hard on this 
amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join in the statement made by the 
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and my colleague, Senator DeWine 
from Ohio, in cosponsoring this amendment. A lot of people listening to 
this debate can't understand the world we live in here, a world where 
whenever you decide to be a candidate for the Senate, you face the 
daunting task of convincing your family that it is a good idea and 
putting together a good campaign team. Then the reality hits you. Your 
message, whatever it is, to be delivered to voters across America, is 
going to be a very expensive undertaking.
  I represent the State of Illinois with some 12 million people. How do 
I get their attention to tell them what I feel, what I would like to do 
in the Senate? The obvious methods are the use of radio, TV, direct 
mail, and telephone. All of those are very expensive. All of those are 
increasingly expensive every 2 years. The cost of television 
advertising, for example, goes up 20 percent every 2 years. So if you 
are running for reelection after 6 years, you have to raise some 60 
percent more in funds to buy the same amount of television in my State 
and other States just to deliver your message in a campaign.
  When Members of the Senate come to the floor and start talking about 
raising $1,000 here or $3,000 here or $6,000, I imagine most families 
across America say: What kind of world do they live in that they would 
be asking an individual to give them $6,000 of their money for a 
political campaign? Very few people do that in America.
  Thankfully, for a lot of us, we have those who support us and will do 
it. For the vast majority of families, they must be scratching their 
head at this debate and saying: Why don't they live in the real world 
where real people don't go around asking friends or even strangers for 
$6,000?
  If you are going to mount a campaign in the State of Illinois to 
appeal to 12 million people and some 8 or 9 million voters, you have to 
raise over $10 million to get your message out.
  Let me offer another insight. It costs you 50 cents to raise a 
dollar, so about half of the money you raise goes into the overhead of 
a campaign, the administrative costs of staff people, mailing out 
invitations, following up, making sure people are there. It is an 
extraordinarily expensive business.
  It often puzzles me that people who are not otherwise capable of 
managing million-dollar companies manage multimillion-dollar campaigns 
that come and go in a matter of 12 months. That happens in this 
business of politics. That is the world in which we live.
  There are ways to change it. We could change it pretty dramatically. 
We could say television time is free for candidates. That would really 
change it in a hurry because two-thirds of the money that most 
candidates spend is on television. If the television didn't cost you 
anything, if you had access to it where you could go on and, instead of 
doing a 30-second drive-by spot, you ended up having 5 minutes to 
explain your position on tax cuts or Social Security, the voters would 
have a chance to see you.
  Of course, there is resistance to that idea from the people who own 
the television stations. They make a bundle of money off political 
candidates. They can't wait for these campaigns to get started because 
we literally shovel money at them in the closing weeks of campaigns. 
The managers of these stations have a perpetual smile for weeks on end 
when they see all the candidates lining up to pay for the advertising 
on their television stations. So the idea of free television is not one 
that has gone very far--nor free radio. The idea of free postage is not 
likely going to occur either.
  We live in a commercial world where we are trying to basically 
deliver our message to the voters in a fashion that is extremely 
expensive. Now we have the Supreme Court, which 25 years ago jumped 
into this debate and said, if you are independently wealthy, if you are 
a multimillionaire, we can't limit how much money you want to spend out 
of your own pocket.
  An individual candidate who is not independently wealthy is limited 
on how they can raise money. Under current law, I can only raise a 
$1,000 maximum contribution from each person from my primary election 
campaign and my general election campaign and $5,000 for each campaign 
from political action committees. It sounds like a lot of money, until 
you start adding up the $1,000 contributions it takes to reach $1 
million. If you have a $10 or $12 million campaign in Illinois, imagine 
how many people you have to appeal to, to raise $10 or $12 million.
  The Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, said if you happen to have a 
lot of money, then you can put all you want into it; you are not 
limited as to the amount of money you can invest in a political 
campaign.
  We have come down to two categories of candidates in America, the M&M 
categories: the multimillionaires, and the mere mortals. The mere 
mortals, frankly, stand in awe of those who can write a check and fund 
their campaign. What we are trying to address with this

[[Page 3969]]

amendment is to level the playing field so that if someone shows up in 
the course of the campaign who is independently wealthy and is willing 
to spend $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, $60 million of their own money--I am 
not making these figures up, as they say; that has happened--then at 
least the other candidate has a fighting chance. That is what this 
amendment is all about. I have joined with Senator Domenici and Senator 
DeWine to try to create this fighting chance.
  How do we do it? Currently, you can only accept $1,000 per person per 
election. We have said: If you run into the so-called self-financing 
candidate who is going to spend millions of dollars, then you can 
accept a larger contribution from an individual. The calculation and 
formula we use is based on the number of people living in the State. 
Senator DeWine explained it earlier. For example, in my home State of 
Illinois, the U.S. Census projected the voting-age population for the 
year 2000 was 8,983,000 people. We have a baseline threshold plus 
$150,000 which says that you can put $509,000 into your campaign of 
your own money. That is your right to do, under the law and under this 
amendment.
  If you decide to put in over $1 million, if you put in $1 million, 
then the candidate who doesn't have $1 million to put in, whether they 
are a challenger or an incumbent, can raise up to $3,000 from those who 
will contribute, as opposed to a limit of $1,000. Furthermore, in 
Illinois, for example, if you put in $2 million of your own money, then 
we allow the individual contribution to go up to $6,000.
  I am sure most people listening to this can't imagine someone writing 
a check for $6,000 to a political candidate. The folks who will do that 
are few and far between. The honest answer to that is, unless you 
control the overall cost of political campaigns, you have to face the 
reality: People will show up with a lot of money in the bank, spend it 
on the campaign, and literally blow away any type of political 
opponent.
  Who loses in that process? The voters lose. If the system works as it 
is supposed to, you have a choice on election day. In order to have a 
choice, you have information about all candidates. That means you have 
an information source not only from a wealthy candidate but from 
someone who is not so wealthy. This amendment, with its own formula 
approach, allows people to raise money so that they can keep up with 
self-financing candidates.
  If in my home State of Illinois someone decides to put in $5 million 
or more, then we allow the Democratic or Republican Party in my State, 
through their coordinated expenditures, to really reach that same 
level, up to 110 percent of the amount that is being given by that 
candidate to his or her own campaign.
  This is an imperfect amendment. It is an effort by us to address a 
serious problem. It has in it an element that is important. It is an 
element of fairness, an element of opportunity. It basically says that 
in America we won't let you buy an election. If you are going to come 
in and try to do that, then you are going to at least give the other 
candidate a chance to compete.
  There is one element in this amendment which I have discussed with 
the sponsors that I hope we can address either with a second-degree 
amendment, or a later amendment during the course of our debate, and 
that is the money on hand. If an incumbent Senator has millions of 
dollars on hand and somebody walks in and decides to put in a million 
dollars to oppose them, I think you should take into account how much 
money the incumbent Senator has on hand. This amendment does not do 
that. I would like to suggest a modification to it at some point.
  But I believe our colleagues in the Senate will have a good 
opportunity later this morning to cast their votes on this amendment 
and to basically say that from the Senate's side, we are going to try 
to level this playing field and try to give a voice to all candidates. 
We are not going to say this is a system that is open to the highest 
bidder. It is going to at least allow men and women to compete with 
some element of fairness.
  I thank my colleague from New Mexico, as well as my colleague from 
Ohio. Both of them, and our staffs, worked late into the night last 
night to prepare this amendment that will be forthcoming shortly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici, Senator DeWine, 
and others. Last night, I believe we could have avoided the vote we 
had. I hope in the future and during this debate we will make sure we 
try to handle it in a more sensitive fashion. I will take the 
responsibility for that.
  We probably should have tried to--because we knew there were several 
areas that needed to be worked out, which have been worked out, and we 
are just awaiting the legislative counsel's language so we can move 
forward with the amendment--we probably should have waited until this 
morning on the amendment. But that is done. The fact is, as we 
committed last night, we would reach agreement and work out the 
differences. There were several specific areas that had not been worked 
out last night, especially proportionality, among others. I am pleased 
we worked it out and we are now ready to move forward as soon as the 
language comes over, and we can vote on this amendment and move on to 
other amendments.
  I do believe the principles of McCain-Feingold have been preserved 
because this deals in hard money. Yes, it lifts some restraints on hard 
money, but there is no soft money that would be permitted under the 
Domenici-DeWine-Durbin amendment. So it also addresses, in all candor, 
a concern that literally every nonmillionaire Member of this body has, 
and that is that they wake up some morning and pick up the paper and 
find out that some multimillionaire is going to run for their seat, and 
that person intends to invest 3, 5, 8, 10, now up to $70 million of 
their own money in order to win.
  So when I see the significant support for this amendment, I think 
those reflect a genuine concern, as we know both parties have now 
openly stated that they recruit people who have sizable fortunes of 
their own in order to run for the Senate.
  I don't think this is a new phenomenon, Mr. President. I think it has 
been going on for years and years. But as money seems to play a greater 
and greater role in politics, and as television advertising continues 
to be more and more important, then, obviously, the ability of someone 
to achieve office with what is apparently an unfair advantage over a 
candidate of lesser wealth is being addressed, at least in part, by 
this amendment.
  Also, I add to the sponsors of the amendment--and I already discussed 
this with Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine--this isn't a perfect 
answer. We all realize that. We know there are some areas that have 
gone unaddressed, and if there needs to be further addressing, that is 
why we have another nearly 10 days of debate and amendments. So I am 
glad we were able to work out the differences that existed last night. 
Obviously, those negotiations needed to take place, and I hope we can 
move forward on this amendment as soon as the legislative language 
comes over from the legislative counsel, so we can move on to another 
amendment at the earliest moment.
  Again, I thank Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine and Senator Durbin 
and others for their efforts on this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what are the rules guiding debate at this 
point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 hours evenly divided. The 
amendment has not yet been offered.
  Mr. BYRD. What a mess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement----
  Mr. BYRD. Without the amendment being offered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was stipulated by consent.
  Mr. BYRD. All right. Mr. President, when Cineas the Philosopher 
visited

[[Page 3970]]

Rome in the year 280 B.C. as the envoy of Pyrrhus, the Greek general, 
and had witnessed the deliberations of the Roman Senate and had 
listened to Senators in debate, he reported that, ``Here, indeed, was 
no gathering of venal politicians, no haphazard council of mediocre 
minds.'' This was in 280 B.C.
  In 107 B.C., Jugurtha, that Numidian prince, was in Rome. When he was 
ordered by the Roman Senate to leave Italy and set out for home, after 
he had passed through the gates of Rome, it is said that he looked back 
several times in silence and finally exclaimed, ``Yonder is a city that 
is up for sale, and its days are numbered if it ever finds a buyer.''
  What a change; what a change had come over that Senate in less than 
200 years! I think we might also, with great sadness, reflect upon the 
report by Cineas when he referred to the Roman Senate after he had 
witnessed it--as I say, not as a ``gathering of venal politicians, not 
a haphazard council of mediocre minds,'' but in reality ``an assemblage 
of kings.'' What a Senate that was that he reported to Pyrrhus as 
being, in dignity and in statesmanship, as a ``council of kings!'' It 
is in even greater sadness that we noted Jugurtha's words: ``Yonder is 
a city up for sale, and its days are numbered if it ever finds a 
buyer.'' But that is what is happening in this land of ours and in this 
body of ours.
  When I came to the Senate, Jennings Randolph and I ran for two seats, 
and we won. He ran for the short term, the 2-year seat that had been 
created by the death of the late M.M. Neely, and I ran for the full 
term.
  At that time, I ran against Senator Chapman Revercomb, a fine member 
of the Republican Party, but Randolph and I ran on a combined war chest 
of $50,000: two Senators on a combined war chest of $50,000. We did not 
have television in those days, we did not have high-priced consultants, 
and our hands were not manacled by the shackles of money.
  Today what do we find? What does the average Senate seat cost--$6 
million or $8 million? Both parties are enslaved to those who give. The 
special interests of the country are the people who are represented--
the special interests, for the most part.
  The great body of people out there are not organized, and they are 
not represented here. We are beholden to the special interests who give 
us--when we go around the country holding out a tip cup saying, ``Give 
me, give me, give me,'' they are the people who respond and they are 
the people for whom the doors are opened. They are the people for whom 
the telephone lines are opened when the calls come in.
  I offered an amendment on this floor one day, and I thought: I will 
at least get a half dozen votes. I got one--one vote. Those in this 
body on both sides who were slaves to the particular interest group on 
that occasion ran like turkeys to the fire escapes. I thought I would 
get half a dozen votes at least. I knew the amendment would not be 
adopted, but after hearing all the brave talk of some of the Senators 
on both sides, I thought: At least I will get his vote, I will get his 
vote, and I will get her vote. I got one vote, my own.
  That is what it has come to in this body. We are at the beck and 
call, we know the feel of the whiplash when the votes come, and we are 
owned by the special interest groups.
  That does not mean that every Senator does not have a free will. 
Senators exercise that free will about which Milton spoke in ``Paradise 
Lost''--freedom of the will. That does not mean that the conscience of 
every Senator here is bought, that his vote is bought. It does not mean 
that at all, but it means that in our day and time, it cannot be said 
of this Senate that it is not a gathering of venal politicians. In 
Jugurtha's words: ``Yonder is a city up for sale, and its days are 
numbered if it ever finds a buyer.''
  Mr. President, as one who has been in this body now going on 43 
years, I mourn the days of old when I came here. We still have good 
Senators. They are bright, they are dedicated, but the yoke, the Roman 
yoke that they have to go under to come here, is appalling--appalling. 
It is sad. I compliment those on both sides who are seeking to do 
something about it, who are trying hard to deal with reality here and 
in such a way that the people might still look upon this body with some 
confidence and respect. Yet, I do not think that they will be overly 
successful in the effort.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, referring back to the 
days when he was the leader, does he recall how many times he offered, 
on behalf of the Democrats, a motion to invoke cloture on campaign 
finance reform?
  Mr. BYRD. I offered a motion to invoke cloture eight times during the 
100th Congress.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator recall the motion to invoke cloture being 
offered so many times to any other measure?
  Mr. BYRD. Up to this point, there has been none.
  Mr. REID. So if I understand what the Senator has said, when he was 
majority leader in the 100th Congress, an attempt to invoke cloture was 
tried eight times unsuccessfully, and that holds the record for any 
legislative issue of which the Senator is aware.
  Mr. BYRD. That is right.
  I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas is 
here, and I yield her as much time as she needs off our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will be brief.
  I know my colleague from New Mexico and my colleague from Ohio have 
been working very hard on this amendment. I appreciate everything they 
are trying to do.
  I have a separate amendment that has been incorporated into this 
amendment. It has the same purpose, and I hope when everything is 
worked out, our purpose will succeed. Our purpose is to level the 
playing field so that one candidate who has millions, if not billions, 
of dollars to spend on a campaign will not be at such a significant 
advantage over another candidate who does not have such means as to 
create an unlevel playing field.
  In fact, I think it was Senator Durbin who used these numbers: In the 
2000 elections, candidates took out personal loans for their campaigns 
of $194 million for Federal races. In 1998, it was $107 million. In 
1996, it was $106 million. That is a lot of strength. We pride 
ourselves in our country on trying to have a level playing field to 
keep our democracy balanced.
  Under our Constitution, it is very clear that we cannot keep people 
from spending their own money however they wish to spend it. I will not 
argue that point ever. That is their constitutional right. They have a 
constitutional right to try to buy the office, but they do not have a 
constitutional right to resell it. That is what my part of this 
amendment attempts to prevent, so a candidate can spend his or her own 
money but there would be a limit on the amount that candidate could go 
out and raise to pay himself or herself back.
  My amendment and the amendment of Senator DeWine and Senator Domenici 
is $250,000. If a big State should have more, certainly I would look at 
what is reasonable. I want a level playing field. I want people to be 
able to spend their own money, but they need to know they are doing it 
because that is what they want to do, not because when they win they 
will be able to go out and repay themselves, so it is not a risk they 
have to take.
  I have put my own money in campaigns in the past and I have taken the 
hit for it. A lot of people in this body have. It is a risk. It is a 
risk I was willing to take. It happened to be a risk I lost. Other 
people have been able to do that. Some have lost, some have won. I 
never repaid myself the full amount that I loaned. I think we need to 
have the level playing field.
  We have a constitutional right to spend our money. No one argues 
that. I do believe a retired police officer or retired teacher should 
be able to run for

[[Page 3971]]

public office on a level playing field and get the variety of support 
from his or her constituents and have as level a playing field as we 
can have protecting the rights of the wealthy candidate to spend that 
money, but limiting what could be paid back.
  I thank Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine who have worked so hard 
on their amendment. Their amendment includes other ways of leveling the 
playing field by letting the other candidates have no limits or bigger 
limits. I think that is fine, too. The point is, everyone would like to 
see the most level playing field we can find, the most numbers of 
contributors who care about this candidate being able to get behind 
someone and have a fair chance of getting the message out. That is what 
my part of this amendment does.
  I thank all colleagues for coming together on an amendment, an 
amendment I hope will work. If for some reason this amendment goes 
down, I hope my amendment, which I introduced as a bill 2 years ago, I 
hope it prevails and we will be able to work something out as we go 
through the 2 weeks of debating this bill that will be fair and that 
will give everyone a chance to have the support of the biggest number 
of people and contributors in a person's home State, to have the 
ability to get a message out that the people can decide if they like or 
don't like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one of the advantages of having been 
around here a while is I remember when this idea first surfaced by the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico in the late 1980s. He correctly 
identified this at that time as one of the significant problems 
developing. Now, some 13 or 14 years later, we are finally getting an 
opportunity to address one of the significant issues, one of the 
significant problems in our current campaign system.
  One, obviously, is the hard money contribution money limit being set 
at $1,000, back when a Mustang cost $2,700 which only exacerbated the 
problem Senator Domenici is talking about because it is harder for a 
nonwealthy candidate to compete, given the eroding contribution limit.
  The other, obviously, is the cost of reaching the voters, the 
television time. That, I am sure, will be discussed in the course of 
this 2-week debate.
  I thank Senator Domenici for his important work on this over a 
lengthy period of time and congratulate Senator DeWine for his 
contribution and the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, for her 
contribution as well.
  This is an important amendment. It will advance this debate in the 
proper direction, and given the support of Senator Durbin and others on 
the other side of the aisle, we look forward to its passage later in 
the day.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I clarify that our amendment takes 
place in the future. It does not jeopardize someone who based his or 
her actions on the law as it is today, but for the future, when 
everyone is on notice this law would then take effect if the amendment 
passes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Parliamentary inquiry: Under the unanimous consent 
agreement, a vote must occur on an amendment, if not this amendment, at 
12:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, there 
are up to 3 hours of debate after which a vote on an amendment in 
relation to the amendment shall occur.
  Mr. DODD. Further inquiry: I presume the time will begin to toll once 
the amendment is introduced, and the fact there is no amendment pending 
per se, other than the one we are discussing, the time is not really 
tolling; is that correct or am I incorrect?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By consent, the time has been charged.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The time began to run on the amendment when the 
discussion began at what time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Nine-fifty.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If I could explain.
  Mr. DODD. Certainly.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senators involved in this with their staff worked 
very late last night. The amendment is very complicated and it is being 
drafted, and it has just been received. We cannot help that. It is now 
being looked at and it is practically ready. It is a very lengthy 
amendment. They think they have found some unintended words and they 
are trying to fix that.
  We have been explaining the amendment. Senator DeWine explained the 
state-by-state formula very much in detail. I explained the intent and 
the basic ideas, and as soon as we get it, we will introduce it and 
then there will be additional time until we vote.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
  That raises a concern. I have been around long enough to sense when 
something will happen. I get a sense this amendment will be adopted and 
maybe by some significant numbers based on the sponsorships and the 
statements made.
  I will oppose the amendment. I may be the only person opposing it, 
but I am deeply worried about it. The mere fact that we will vote in an 
hour on a highly complicated, very lengthy amendment that goes to a 
significant issue in this debate, and I cannot look at it, is an 
indication of the kind of trouble we may be getting ourselves into.
  I appreciate the constraints of the managers and the leadership to 
move this debate along. However, I am troubled. Let me state why. I 
have great respect for the authors. We are trying to accomplish 
something. I have been, myself, a candidate with an opponent who 
announced they would spend significant millions of their own money 
against me, so I am not unfamiliar with facing a challenger who has 
great personal wealth. However, it seems to me this is what I would 
call incumbency protection. We are all incumbents in the Senate. We 
raise money all the time during our incumbency. I suspect most sitting 
Members who have some intention of running again have amassed something 
between $\1/2\ million and $1 million. If you have been here for a 
couple of years, I suspect you have done that. If you have been here 
longer, I know colleagues have amounts in excess of $3, $5, and $7 
million sitting in accounts, earning interest, waiting for the next 
time they run.
  I don't like the idea of a multimillionaire going out and writing 
checks and running, I suppose. I understand the law. The Constitution 
says if an individual in this country wants to spend his or her money 
that way, there is nothing we can do here to stop them. What you are 
trying to do is level the playing field.
  It isn't exactly level, in a sense, when we are talking about 
incumbents who have treasuries of significant amounts and the power of 
the office which allows us to be in the press every day, if we want. We 
can send franked mail to our constituents at no cost to us. It is a 
cost of the taxpayer. We do radio and television shows. We can go back 
to our States with subsidized airfares. We campaign all across our 
jurisdictions.
  The idea that somehow we are sort of impoverished candidates when 
facing a challenger who may decide they are going to take out a loan, 
and not necessarily even have the money in the account but may decide 
to mortgage their house--I don't recommend that as a candidate. But 
there are people who do it. They go out and mortgage their homes. I 
presume if you mortgage your house, that is money in your account. It 
is not distinguished in this amendment. You go into debt.
  For people who decide they want to do that and meet that trigger, all 
of a sudden that allows me as an incumbent to raise, I guess, $3 
million at one level, $3,000 at one level, and $6,000 at another. The 
gates are open, and the race is on.
  I am just worried that we are going in the absolute opposite 
direction of what the McCain-Feingold bill is designed to do.
  Again, I find it somewhat ironic that we are here deeply worried 
about the capital that can be raised and the candidate who is going to 
spend a million dollars of his own money to level the playing field. 
But those who oppose this bill don't have any difficulty with that same 
individual writing out a million-dollar check in soft money, in a

[[Page 3972]]

sense. It is somewhat of a contradiction to suggest somehow that we are 
going to protect ourselves against that million-dollar giver and we 
don't have anything here to restrain this million-dollar giver in soft 
money. I find that somewhat ironic.
  Again, I respect those who fundamentally disagree with McCain-
Feingold. I don't agree with their arguments, but they have an argument 
to be made.
  It seems to me if we are going to go that route to do so, but the 
idea that all of a sudden we raise the threshold of hard money to 
$3,000 and $6,000 for an incumbent sitting with a treasury of 
significant money on hand, even though you may not be personally 
wealthy, but the fact is that you have this kind of money in your 
accounts--why not suggest, then, if you are an incumbent and, in the 
case of Wyoming, you go to $500,000, whatever the trigger is, I say to 
the Presiding Officer, or the Senator from Connecticut or California--
if I have that amount of money in my treasury, why not let the 
challenger, in a sense, reach the $3,000 and $6,000 level of individual 
contributions in order to challenge me if I have it not in my own 
personal account but in my political account?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First of all, there is no soft money in this amendment.
  Mr. DODD. I understand that. My point was those who oppose the bill 
feel as though individuals ought to be able to make whatever 
contributions they want in soft money. I was making the observation as 
a contradiction.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May I also say to you, if you are worried about the 
person who wants to put in their own money, and it will trigger raising 
the personal caps, you understand that before we are finished with the 
McCain amendment, it is going to be amended in terms of caps. Caps 
aren't going to remain at $1,000. You understand the caps are going to 
be raised.
  Mr. DODD. I understand some are going to try to do that. I am not 
going to support it. But I understand there will be an effort to do 
that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It will happen because that $1,000 is 26 years old with 
no interest or inflation added, and it remains the most significant cap 
on Senators and Representatives. And it is too low. You have to spend 
all your time raising money, which is the other side of the equation. 
If it gets raised, also the person who had an idea of putting his own 
money in can look at it again and say, well, if I can raise $3,000, or 
$6,000, whatever it is changed to, and the PACs are changed to double, 
it might be that they will choose not to put their own money in because 
they could actually have a shot at financing.
  When you put in all of the negatives that exist today in terms of the 
bias of big money, I think this bill is a good effort to try to 
equalize that. Is it equal in every respect? No, it is not. Does it 
take care of the fact that an incumbent may have already raised some 
money? No.
  But let me tell you when you have a situation that says to somebody 
who is, as was defined here, a super spender, who gets up into the 
10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, or 50's of the super spenders, to tell you the 
truth, I don't have an awful lot of concern about them, in fact, not 
having a fair shake in this election. They are going to spend enough 
money to make sure they do. They know that. They assess it and their 
money. They say they are going to put in whatever is necessary to get a 
fair shake.
  I am more worried about them putting in their money and the person 
running against them, say, in the northeastern United States, is not an 
incumbent; the person running is a challenger. There is no way, under 
current law, that person could raise enough money to become known and 
do what somebody who spends $40 million can. That is the kind of person 
I am worried about.
  Mr. DODD. That very race that I think my colleague is talking about 
was a fairly close race in the end. I can think of two specifically 
where, in fact, the individual raising that kind of money became a 
liability, and they lost.
  I would like to reclaim my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to ask you about one other subject.
  I think you should know what we are doing, respectfully, which is to 
say that anybody who puts in their own money, however they got their 
own money, when they get elected, they cannot use their Senate seat to 
raise money to pay off what they put in an election. You raised one 
where somebody mortgages their house and puts in the money. If they 
mortgage their house, they still have to put in this threshold money, 
which is a lot of money to be from a home mortgage.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate that.
  I come back to my point. I know there are super wealthy candidates. I 
guarantee that there are a lot more incumbents sitting with super 
treasuries seeking reelection than there are individuals with vast 
amounts of money seeking Senate seats. We have them, but it doesn't 
automatically mean that they are guaranteed a seat. You see it in 
several jurisdictions.
  My colleagues know what I am talking about and know the races 
specifically that I am referring to where millions of dollars was spent 
by individuals who financed their own campaigns, and they lost. In 
fact, I think they lost in no small measure because people were 
somewhat disgusted by the fact that they were giving the impression of 
buying a Senate seat. The mere fact you write checks out of your own 
personal account does not guarantee you a seat in the Senate.
  We are clearly moving in the wrong direction. My issue is not that 
there is too little money in politics. I think there is too much. I 
hear my colleagues say the $1,000 needs to be increased. My big worry 
is what happens to that $25 contributor, the $50 or $100 contributor 
who we used to rely on and call upon to help support these candidates? 
We don't pay attention to them anymore. We spend all of our time 
looking for the large contributors.
  By the way, a large contributor is $1,000 in my book or, a person who 
gives $2,000. Now we are going to raise it to $3,000 and $6,000 with 
the mere suggestion that you might finance $500,000 or $1 million in a 
Senate election.
  So the doors are open. Now the argument is made that we have done it 
here and we ought to do it over there for the other side as well. All 
of a sudden, we have opened the gates, and we are up to $3,000, and 
$6,000, and forget about that $50 contributor, that small individual we 
are trying to engage in the political life of America. They are not 
going to get any attention whatsoever. My view is that is dangerous. I 
think it is worthwhile that people are invested in the political life 
of America with their time and their financial resources. I have no 
objection whatsoever to the idea that people write a check to support 
candidates of their choice for State, local and national office.
  What I find deeply troubling is that they no longer will be solicited 
because their contribution doesn't amount to anything because we are 
going to go after the big-dollar givers, the $3,000 giver and the 
$6,000 giver. What percentage of Americans can actually do that?
  If we are financing elections across the board for the House and the 
Senate by only soliciting those kinds of contributions, or at least the 
bulk of those people, I think we are putting our democracy in peril.
  I understand the concern my colleagues and incumbents have about 
facing the wealthy opponent. But I don't think that concern should 
outweigh our determination to try to reduce the amount of money that is 
entering political life in America.
  By adopting this amendment, as much as I empathize and understand the 
concerns my colleagues have, it looks to me as though all we are doing 
is trying to protect ourselves rather than trying to level that playing 
field.
  If I am the only one to oppose it, I will do so.
  Despite the good intentions of the authors of this amendment, I think 
it takes us in exactly the wrong direction. I think it makes a mockery 
of McCain-Feingold. I think we are beginning to just shred that piece 
of legislation. I know there is a strong determination to get a bill, 
but a bill that

[[Page 3973]]

has McCain-Feingold's name on it, and ends up doing what this amendment 
would do, I do not think deserves the label it might otherwise get.
  With that, Mr. President, I will oppose the amendment and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the Senator 
from Connecticut, he will not be the only person opposing this 
amendment. I thank him for his eloquent, extraordinarily lucent 
description of this amendment and what it may mean. He is right on the 
mark. I share his sympathy, his empathy, for those who may be faced in 
the future with the circumstances some of our colleagues already have 
been faced with--running against a well-financed, independently wealthy 
opponent.
  I think the Senator from Connecticut puts his finger exactly on the 
problem. This moves us away from limiting the money in the system. This 
``cure'' creates even more financial pitfalls and political 
difficulties than the current system.
  This amendment, however well intentioned, has three major problems. 
First, and foremost, it is an amendment that will create different 
standards in different States. As a result of the different standards 
that are created, most likely it will be declared unconstitutional. It 
will allow different candidates to raise different levels of money in 
different States depending upon circumstances. I cannot imagine that a 
system so confusing and biased could be upheld in any court of law. I 
cannot imagine that any court would look favorably at this inequitable 
distribution of opportunity.
  Secondly, this puts even more political power in the hands of fewer 
and fewer people. When we began this debate we were trying to address 
this very problem--the concentration of political power in a wealthy 
few. Even with the limits as they were in the last election, almost 
half of all total contributions to Senate candidates came from donors 
who gave at least $1,000. So if the individual contribution limits now 
are raised to $3,000 or $6,000, or even higher if the underlying 
individual limits are changed by this amendment process, we know 
wealthy donors are going to control the field even more. Why we would 
want to do that in the name of campaign reform, I do not know?
  I heard somebody say this is in the spirit of McCain-Feingold. This 
flies in the face of McCain-Feingold. There is nothing in the spirit of 
McCain-Feingold in this amendment. This is not reform. This makes a 
mockery of reform.
  Finally, I cannot imagine why the compromise has not addressed one of 
the real problems that I see in this approach, which is that if an 
incumbent has $5 million in the bank or even $10 million in the bank, 
and his opponent declares that they want to spend some of their own 
money to mount a vigorous challenge, the incumbent gets to take 
advantage of the raised individual contribution limits. In my state of 
South Dakota, if my opponent wanted to spend over $686,000 of their own 
money, I could take advantage of the new limits even if I might have $5 
in the bank myself. If the same forces that want to pass this amendment 
turn around and triple the underlying contribution limits, I would be 
able to go out and raise as much as $18,000 from every individual who 
wants to contribute to my campaign.
  How is that fair? Regardless of what money we may have in the bank, 
how is it we would not look at that? Just because I might have a 
wealthy opponent, should I be allowed to open up the floodgates here 
and take whatever money I can raise? How is that limiting the influence 
of money? No, instead this protects incumbents. How is that in the 
spirit of McCain-Feingold? How can we seriously look at anybody and 
argue that this legislation benefits the true spirit and intent of what 
it is we are trying to do today?
  I think the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the Senator from 
Connecticut, has articulately put his finger on the problem. We have to 
oppose this if we really want to support meaningful campaign finance 
reform. Do not let anybody out there tell you that somehow, by 
supporting this, we are moving in the right direction. This moves us 
down the wrong track. We ought to oppose it. It ought to be defeated. I 
support McCain-Feingold, but I do not support this.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the comments 
of the Senator from Connecticut. I am convinced that if he wants to 
offer an amendment to the Domenici amendment that says these amounts we 
are talking about for self-funded candidates also apply to incumbents 
who have those amounts in their existing campaign funds, I would be 
happy to support such a modification of the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield, my fear is once we have done 
that, we are raising, of course, the hard limits, which takes us, as 
far as I am concerned, in the wrong direction with the bill. I respect 
those who say they are going to be raised anyway. But my concern is 
that if we keep on ratcheting up those levels, then we are running 
contrary to what I hope are the underlying motivations behind the 
underlying bill.
  So I merely pointed it out to show the inconsistency in someone's 
personal wealth and a person's political wealth. We are applying one 
standard on personal wealth and not the same standard on political 
wealth.
  I appreciate the point. Someone else may offer the amendment. But I 
thank the Senator for raising the point.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Connecticut is exactly right. The 
reason I would support that is I am one of those who would increase the 
limits. So this gives us an opportunity to support the increase in 
limits in a number of other ways. But I appreciate this debate.
  I will repeat what I said yesterday about my own experience, because 
I ran against a self-funded, wealthy candidate. If I had been under the 
restrictions of the present law, let alone the restrictions of McCain-
Feingold, I would never have gotten anywhere in the primary. The only 
way I was able to compete in the primary was to spend my own money and 
match the money that was being spent by a wealthy opponent.
  As I said yesterday, and repeat for my friend from Connecticut, who 
has an interest in Utah politics, my opponent--making the point of the 
Senator from Connecticut--outspent me three to one and lost. So that 
the expenditure of huge sums does not automatically result in somebody 
being elected.
  But, nonetheless, his willingness to spend $40 a vote in that primary 
made it impossible for anybody to challenge him unless it was, as it 
turned out, a self-funded candidate who would come along and spend $15 
a vote. And that is about how it worked out. Actually, I do not think I 
spent quite that much per vote. But he spent $6 million. I spent less 
than $2 million. I was able to get enough to get my message out and 
win, but if I had to raise that less than $2 million, at $1,000 a 
person, I guarantee you, I would not have been able to compete in any 
way. That is why I am sympathetic to the amendment of the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to colleagues, I will be 
relatively brief. I do not have the full context of this amendment and 
this debate, but my understanding is that this amendment is very 
similar to the amendment we voted on last night. I would like to repeat 
some statistics I presented last night that I think apply.
  Right now, do you know how many citizens contribute $200--just $200 
or more? One quarter of 1 percent. One-quarter of 1 percent of the 
people in this country contribute over $200. Do you know how many 
people contribute over $1,000? One-ninth of 1 percent of

[[Page 3974]]

the population. Do you know the reason? Because a whole lot of people 
cannot afford to give that kind of money to campaigns.
  What we have here is an amendment that purports to improve the 
situation by now creating a situation where you have people who are 
wealthy and have their own financial resources and finance their own 
campaigns now challenged by people who are viable because they are 
dependent upon people who are wealthy and have financial resources.
  The contest is between the wealthy with financial resources versus 
the people who have access and are dependent upon the wealthy with 
financial resources. And this is called a reform? If the first thing we 
do on the floor of the Senate is pass an amendment to put yet more 
money into American politics, I don't think people will find that all 
that reassuring.
  I say this because the more I follow this debate, the more convinced 
I am that public financing is the answer. From the time I came here, 
this has always been a core question. Bill Moyers, who is a hero 
journalist to me, gave a speech and sent me a copy of ``The Soul of 
Democracy,'' in which he argues basically what is at stake is a noble, 
beautiful, bold experiment, over 220 or 230 years, of self-rule. That 
is what is at stake, our capacity for self-rule.
  If you are worried about what to do about millionaires or 
multimillionaires running their own campaigns with their own resources, 
the way to deal with that is to have a clean money, clean election, 
have a system of public financing. We have seen some States such as 
Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Arizona lead the way on this, where 
basically people all contributed to a fund. Then you say, to abide by 
agreed-upon spending limits, you get public financing. Basically the 
people themselves, who have contributed $5 or whatever per year in a 
State or in the country, they control the elections in their government 
and the capital and all the rest. It is much more of clean politics.
  If someone says, no, I won't abide by that because I have zillions of 
dollars, and I will just finance my own campaign and go way beyond the 
expenditure limits, then out of that clean money/clean election fund, 
money is given to the candidate who has agreed to abide by this to 
match that. That would be the direction in which you would go.
  I don't know why Senators are so concerned about wealthy people 
running for office and financing their own campaigns and basically 
clobbering everybody else because they have the money. If this is the 
concern of my colleagues, they should embrace public financing. That is 
what we want. Then we have a system that is honest, clean, and which 
basically says all the people in the country contribute a small amount. 
We are willing to abide by this. As to those candidates who don't, who 
when they run finance their own campaigns, there is additional money to 
match that. That is the direction in which we should go.
  Before I take a question from my colleague, I want to say that one of 
the amendments I will bring to the floor is an amendment--it is an 
interesting proposition based upon an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 
decision in Minnesota--that says: You change three words in Federal 
election law and you make it possible for any State that so desires to 
apply some system of public financing, whatever the States decide it 
is, not just to State elections but to Federal elections. If Utah wants 
to do it or the people in Minnesota want to do it and they vote for it 
or the legislature votes for it, then they ought to be able to do it. 
We don't tell them what to do. We just say that if a State wants to 
apply some system of public financing, some kind of clean money, clean 
election to Federal races, they should be able to do so. That would be 
an amendment that goes in the direction we are going to have to go.
  McCain-Feingold is very important and should not be watered down 
because I think it is an important step in the right direction. 
However, I cannot believe that what we have here--and I am very worried 
this is a harbinger of what is to come--is an amendment that says we 
are going to vote for reform. We are going to now put more money into 
politics. Those of you who run for office, here is the way we will 
create a level playing field. You can be even more dependent upon the 
top one-quarter of 1 percent that now you can get $6,000 from or $5,000 
from, or wherever you want to take the spending limit, in which case we 
are even more dependent on those folks; they have more clout, even more 
power.
  And that is called reform. I just don't get it. Later on, there is 
going to be an amendment to raise campaign limits from 1 to 3 and 2 to 
6--unbelievable.
  One more time--then I will take a question from my colleague--one-
quarter of 1 percent of Americans made a contribution greater than $200 
in the 1996 cycle--probably about the same in the 2000 cycle--.11 
percent, one-ninth of 1 percent of the voting-age population, gave 
$1,000 or more. We are not talking about the population but the voting-
age population. Now you are going to give wealthy citizens even more 
clout? You are going to give them an even greater capacity to affect 
elections and call this reform?
  I yield for a question from my colleague.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank my friend. Since he has raised the issue of 
public financing in the campaign, I ask him if he would explain how the 
public financing would work with respect to special interest groups 
that raise their own money and run their own ads. We saw in the last 
election, for example, groups such as the Sierra Club and the National 
Rifle Association become very active in politics. We are no longer in a 
position where it is just Republicans running against Democrats, as far 
as the airwaves are concerned, but a whole host of groups.
  I ask the Senator, would he support public financing for political 
ads for even the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate the question. There is a three-part 
answer. You know I am long-winded. The first part is that you could 
have additional public financing to match that. The second part is that 
the amendment we are talking about here doesn't deal with that problem 
either. My colleague is raising yet another issue. I agree, it is a 
serious issue, but this amendment doesn't address that problem. My 
colleague can raise this question, but it doesn't make a lot of sense 
in the context of this amendment. That is yet a whole separate issue 
with which we have to deal.
  My third point concerns another amendment I am thinking of which gets 
at part of the problem he is raising. I am very worried that what we 
are going to have is a bigger problem with the Hagel proposal. As much 
as I respect my colleague from Nebraska, I plan to be in vigorous 
opposition against it. I am worried that if you do the prohibition on 
the soft money, it is going to shift to the sham ads, whoever is 
running those ads. The Senator mentioned some organizations. I could 
mention others. I am worried about that. It is like jello; you put your 
finger here and it just shifts to over here.
  In the McCain-Feingold bill, you deal with labor and you deal with 
corporations. I am very worried that there will be a proliferation of 
all sorts of organizations, and labor and corporations with good 
lawyers will figure out basically how to make sure that their soft 
money also goes into this.
  I would like to go back to the original McCain-Feingold formulation, 
which was in the bill that passed the House, to say that you have that 
60-day prohibition on soft money applied to all those sham ads, which I 
would say to my colleague from Utah would be a very positive step.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator for his response. I agree with him 
that my question didn't have anything to do with the amendment. It was 
stimulated by the Senator's endorsement of Federal funding. I thank him 
for his response. I am prepared to debate the other issues he raises in 
the appropriate context. I think we are both getting far away from the 
amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't think the first 75 percent of what I said was 
at all far away from it. Again, we have an

[[Page 3975]]

amendment that purports to be reform. The message to people in the 
country is, we are going to spend yet more money. Now we move from 
millionaires who can finance their own campaigns against people who are 
dependent upon millionaires who can give them ever larger and larger 
contributions, with the top 1 percent of the population having more 
clout, more influence, more say. I don't view that as reform.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I can remember the first time I went to New 
York City--amazing things to me--those tall buildings, those people--
you know, being from Nevada--teams of people milling around. But I have 
to acknowledge probably the most fascinating thing I saw was these 
people on the street playing these games. They would try to entice 
people to play. I learned later it was a shell game. I watched with 
fascination because nobody could ever win. No matter what you did, you 
always picked the wrong place for that little object they were trying 
to hide.
  I say that because I think that is what is happening with campaign 
finance reform. In 1987, I came to the Senate floor saying: We have to 
do something about campaign finance reform; we can't have another 
election like I have just been through.
  Well, I have been through two subsequent elections, and each has been 
progressively worse, as far as money.
  Over these years, each time we were going to bring up campaign 
finance reform, I looked with great expectation for the system to be 
made better. But like the shell game I saw in New York, you never 
picked the right spot. It was always gone when you got there, and we 
never did get to campaign finance reform. I can see that is what is 
happening today.
  All last week, I was kind of elated because Senators McCain and 
Feingold had worked to get their legislation on the floor. I felt there 
was movement and that we could finally do something--if nothing more, 
get rid of soft money. Based on what happened last night, and I see 
what is happening today, I am very disappointed. I can't see, with all 
due respect to my friends--and they are my friends, the Senator from 
Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona--how in the world they could 
support this amendment. If we are talking about campaign finance 
reform, this is going in the opposite direction, as has been so well 
put by the manager of the bill on our side, the ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, the senior Senator from Connecticut.
  The shell game is being played here. This is not campaign finance 
reform. I may not think the underlying campaign finance reform bill of 
McCain and Feingold is perfect, but it is something I can support. The 
Senator from Connecticut is not going to be alone. We already know he 
has a vote from the Senator from South Dakota, the Democratic leader. I 
acknowledged last night I wasn't going to vote for this thing. If we 
are going to have campaign finance reform, we are going to have 
campaign finance reform.
  As the Senator from Connecticut said, just because it has the name 
``McCain-Feingold'' on it doesn't mean it is campaign finance reform. 
We keep moving away from it. I don't know how anybody can support the 
underlying bill. I want to support campaign finance reform. I have 
wanted to support it since 1987. I have spoken on this floor as much as 
any other person about campaign finance reform. But today, again, I see 
the shell game. I hope that I am wrong.
  Yesterday, I acknowledged the great work of the Senators from 
Wisconsin and Arizona in moving this bill forward. I don't, in any way, 
want to imply anything negative other than disagreeing with the point 
of this legislation. But I want to say that I think the senior Senator 
from Kentucky has been masterful. I say that in the most positive 
sense. He has been one of the few people who has been willing to stand 
up and speak his mind. We have a lot of people who are doing things 
behind the scenes to try to deep-six this bill, but the Senator from 
Kentucky has never backed down a second, and I admire him. I disagree 
with him, but I admire him for what he has done. In my estimation, I 
think he has done very good legislating. I don't agree with him, but I 
have the greatest respect and even admiration for the way he stood up 
when few people would oppose this legislation, and he did that. I 
respect that.
  Mr. President, we should acknowledge what is happening here. This 
underlying McCain-Feingold legislation is slowly evaporating, and we 
are going to wind up with something else. It may have the name, but it 
is not going to be what I wanted to vote for.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that time be equally 
charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me briefly respond to my friends and 
colleagues from Connecticut, South Dakota, and Nevada in regard to this 
amendment. I certainly respect their opinions and respect their 
comments.
  Mr. President, the fact is that this amendment will enhance free 
speech. It is true this amendment will move toward a more level playing 
field and does address a problem that has arisen in the last few years 
when, because of a constitutionally protected loophole, the wealthy 
candidate is the only person in the country who can put an unlimited 
amount of money in a particular campaign--his or her own campaign. 
Everybody else is limited to $1,000 but not the candidate. So what has 
happened is there has become a great search every election cycle, where 
both the Republicans and the Democrats go out and they don't look for 
people with great ideas. Some mechanics may have great ideas. They 
don't look necessarily for people with a great deal of experience or 
who bring other attributes, although a mechanic may have all of those 
things. What they look for and what the great search around the country 
is for is people who have money--the more the better. If you can find 
someone who has that money and is articulate, and they are from a key 
State or from a State that is getting ready to elect a U.S. Senator, 
then you have found what you were looking for.
  There is an inequity in the current system. But that is not why this 
amendment is being offered, and that is not why we should vote for this 
amendment. We should not be concerned about the candidate who is 
running against the millionaire, not directly concerned about that 
candidate. It is not just to level the playing field or to make it more 
equal. What we should be concerned about is the public and whether the 
public will have the benefit of a free debate, free-flowing debate, a 
debate where both candidates have the ability to get their ideas out.
  This amendment enhances free speech, and it does it in a very 
rational way. Again, I point out to my colleagues who have come to the 
floor to criticize this amendment, this amendment does not allow soft 
money. This amendment deals with very regulated, very much disclosed 
hard money. It basically builds on the current system. Where there is 
the most accountability in the system today, and where we have had the 
fewest problems today is with hard money and with individual donors.
  That is what this amendment builds on. It simply says that a person 
who is faced with a millionaire putting his or her own money into the 
campaign has the opportunity, because of this amendment, to go out and 
raise money from many people. When they raise that money, in each case 
it will be disclosed very quickly. It will be open to public scrutiny. 
It will all be very much above board, and the end result will be not 
that the candidate who is the millionaire will have a smaller 
megaphone--that millionaire who is putting in his or her own money will 
have the same megaphone they had before this amendment--but what it

[[Page 3976]]

means is that the candidate who is facing that multimillionaire will 
also have the opportunity to have a bigger megaphone, to grow that 
megaphone if, in fact, he or she can go out and convince enough people 
to make individual contributions. That is what this amendment does.
  Will it put more money into the political system? Yes, it will put 
more money into the political system. I maintain, however, that the 
effect of that money will be to enhance the first amendment and not 
diminish the first amendment. It will be to enhance people's ability to 
communicate and get a message across without in any way hurting someone 
else's ability--namely, the millionaire--to get their message across.
  My colleague and friend, the minority leader, talked about the 
differences between the States. I understand what his perspective is, 
but I think, based upon the State he is from, he understands there is a 
fundamental difference between the expenditure of $1 million, or let's 
say half a million dollars, in South Dakota and a half a million 
dollars in the State of Ohio. The half a million dollars in South 
Dakota has a lot more impact than a half a million dollars in the State 
of Ohio. It seems to me it is incumbent upon us to make that 
distinction.
  How do we do it? First, I will talk about how we do not do it.
  We do not make any difference in regard to whether there is a 
multiple of three or multiple of six. We do not change that among the 
States. We do not change the categories among the States, but what we 
do say is that in a smaller State, when the millionaire puts in a 
certain amount of money, that money does have more of an impact in that 
smaller State than it has in a larger State and, therefore, we start 
the process earlier and we kick it in earlier.
  For example--and this is the chart my colleagues have--I will take 
the first State, and that is the State of Wyoming. Recognizing the 
difference that money has in Wyoming versus Ohio, we provide that the 
first threshold, which means you can raise $3,000 from a donor instead 
of $1,000 from a donor, that is triggered in Wyoming when the 
millionaire, the person who is self-financing their campaign, puts in 
$328,640. The candidate who is running against the millionaire in 
Wyoming would then have the opportunity to raise three times the limit 
for each donor, which is $3,000.
  In Ohio, we do not reach that threshold until that self-financed 
candidate has put in $974,640. There is a difference in the impact that 
money has in one State versus the impact in another State. We do not 
even kick that in until that person has put in close to $1 million in 
the State of Ohio.
  It makes eminent sense to do it this way. It has been well thought 
out, and, frankly, it enhances the chance that a court will look at 
this and say, yes, that is a rational approach.
  Again, this is an amendment that has a lot of protections built in, 
and probably the most important one was added last night. That was the 
concept that a wealthy candidate should not in any way be disadvantaged 
by the fact that he or she is exercising their constitutional right to 
put their own money into a campaign.
  How do we ensure that? We ensure it by simply saying that the amount 
of money the nonwealthy candidate can raise above the normal caps will 
be limited to the amount of money that the wealthy candidate puts in. 
If the wealthy candidate puts in $5 million, the nonwealthy candidate 
can only raise, with the enhanced caps from individuals, a total of 
that up to $5 million.
  It guarantees the wealthy candidate will not be disadvantaged, that 
he or she will not have a smaller megaphone and there will not be a 
disincentive for them to actually put their own money into the 
campaign.
  They will still have the ability to do that. They will not be 
penalized if they do that, but what it says is when that does happen, 
when the wealthy candidate does contribute a significant amount of 
money to his or her own campaign, then the nonwealthy candidate can go 
back, as a practical matter, to previous donors and try to get them to 
give an additional $1,000, $2,000, or $3,000, depending on where they 
are.
  It is a lot of work. It is something that is not easily done. It is 
something that will make sure there are more and more people involved 
in giving money, will involve more people in the process, and will 
enhance freedom of speech.
  In summary, this is a well-crafted amendment. It is an amendment that 
deals in a constitutional way with a problem of perception, and that 
perception is that someone today who is wealthy enough can buy a seat 
in the Senate. We know that may or may not be true in a particular 
case, and we also know that many people who are wealthy and who are 
self-financed are fine people and fine candidates. That is not the 
issue.
  What this amendment is aimed at dealing with is the perception, and 
the perception that someone can buy a seat in the Senate with their own 
money. It begins to level that playing field. It makes it more 
competitive. It enhances free speech, and it does not diminish in any 
way what that wealthy candidate can say or do or their ability to get 
their message out, but enables the person who is not wealthy to also 
get their message out. We have done it, I think, in a rational way.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, after a long night and legislative 
counsel drafting this amendment and then all of our collective staffs 
working on it to make sure we had a draft we could offer, we are now at 
that point. This amendment may need some technical and drafting changes 
as we move through this process, and that will be done.
  Essentially, Senator DeWine has explained the technical part of this 
bill. I want to, once again, talk about why this bill is imperative for 
the United States.
  While we are here on the floor debating a McCain bill to change the 
campaign laws of America because we are concerned about excess money 
coming from sources--soft money, hard money, too much of this, too much 
of that--and I am not sure I agree with everyone, but I am saying where 
we are there is a new and growing situation that involves this 
amendment and what we are trying to do. That is the right of wealthy 
Americans, men or women, to spend as much of their own money as they 
desire in a campaign. Nobody is going to change that. This amendment 
cannot change that. The Supreme Court has said that is a right.
  That right is being exercised in growing numbers by those who put not 
a few thousand, not a few million, but tens of millions of dollars of 
their own money into campaigns.
  What is wrong with that is not that they can put up $10 million, but 
their opponent is bound by 26-year-old caps that are so low that to 
match somebody who puts $10 million of their own money in, in a middle-
size State, the opposition must spend days upon days seeking $1,000 
contributions per election and seeking $5,000 per election from 
political action committees.
  I never have figured out how much a person would have to spend of 
their time to match a $10 million contribution from a wealthy person or 
superwealthy contribution. It is an enormous amount of time. It is 
frequently fruitless because you can't raise enough money to match.
  I am not concerned today about making sure the candidate who puts up 
millions is treated precisely as the person running against him, 
whether the person is incumbent or otherwise. However, what we do is 
say the man or woman running against the big contributor--the $5 
million, the $3 million, the $20 million, we even had over $50 million 
of their own money spent--the opposition candidate has to have a change 
in those $1,000 cap restraints and the $1,000 has to be raised 
substantially. The hard money that can come from parties has to also be 
changed substantially so the person running against a wealthy candidate 
who spends a lot of their own--and I just described that; the other 
side of the aisle described it also, somebody on the

[[Page 3977]]

other side of the aisle said as much as $50 million--in a simple way 
raise the level of funding that the opponent can raise from the 
American people, citizens of their State and from their party. That is 
fair. If it turns out in the process you do not match equal dollars, 
that is all right with this Senator. We tried very hard to make sure 
the person running against the wealthy candidate gets a fair share.


                           Amendment No. 115

  I send an amendment to the desk for myself, Senators DeWine, Durbin, 
Ensign, Feinstein, and Collins, and I ask it be immediately considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself, 
     Mr. DeWine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. 
     Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 115.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe we have agreed we will vote at 12:15.
  Mr. DODD. If I can make a point, my concern is that I don't know if I 
have the final version of this amendment. I gather still technical 
changes are being made as we stand here. I count 20 pages to this 
amendment. Am I right, roughly 20 pages?
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is 12 pages.
  Mr. DODD. We are just getting an amendment that raises hard money 
caps, based on triggers and formulas from 50 States. I am uneasy about 
this body taking on an amendment such as this without knowing the 
implications and going directly contrary to the thrust. While the bill 
focuses on soft money, many believe the issue of the amount of money in 
campaigns, raising this limit makes it that much easier later on for 
people to raise the caps on hard dollars. Nothing in here provides for 
the challenger who faces the incumbent with how many millions they may 
have in their own political account.
  I am troubled by this body on a matter such as this, when hardly a 
speed-reader would have time to read this amendment, understand it, 
digest it, and adopt it all in the next 10 minutes. It is troubling to 
me. I understand the need to move along. I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Connecticut, the choice is 
between 12:15 and 12:50. We debated it 3 hours yesterday and we debated 
it for 3 hours this morning. We can agree to vote at 12:15 or vote at 
12:50.
  Mr. LEVIN. When he says ``agree to vote,'' are you assuming there is 
a vote to--a motion to table either side?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am not assuming anything.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me say the current version of this 
amendment represents a significant improvement over where it was last 
night for a number of reasons.
  First, last night's version did not keep a cap on contributions once 
the trigger was triggered. The extra contributions triggered on but did 
not trigger off. This version intends to trigger off the extra 
increased contributions when the limit of the declaration of the 
wealthy person is reached. That is a significant improvement. That is 
consistent with the purpose of McCain-Feingold--limits, trying to hang 
on to limits for dear life.
  Those limits have been blown by the soft money loophole and this 
current version--and it is an improvement over the earlier version--at 
least restores limits because you are not just triggering on the 
increases from $1,000 to $3,000 or $1,000 to $6,000. You then trigger 
off the increases when the declared amount by the wealthy self-financed 
person is made or is reached, either one. That is an improvement.
  Second, I think the variation among the States is an improvement.
  However, there is still a major problem, and I will address my friend 
from New Mexico and Ohio on this problem. In the effort to level the 
playing field in one area, we are making the playing field less level 
in another area under this language. As the Senators from Connecticut 
and Nevada, and the Democratic leader, have pointed out, the playing 
field will be less level for the challenger. For instance, the 
challenger, who might want to put $1 million into the campaign, is 
self-financed to that extent. He or she may mortgage a home to get the 
$1 million so that he or she is able to compete against the incumbent, 
where the incumbent has $5 million in a campaign account. We make that 
situation less level, not more level, because the incumbent is able to 
then raise money at the higher contribution levels.
  It seems to me that is a significant flaw which we should attempt to 
address, and we should attempt to address it in this amendment before 
we vote on it.
  Now, the only way we can offer a second-degree amendment to a pending 
amendment under our unanimous consent is if the motion to table is made 
and fails. That is the only way in which a second-degree amendment can 
be offered. Since this is complicated language which is being presented 
to the Senate at this hour with very little opportunity for many 
Members to read it or think through it, I suggest we do one of two 
things. We either amend the unanimous consent in this case so we can 
vote after we have had a chance to second degree it, or at least 
consider the language so we can determine if we want to second degree 
the amendment. If that is not acceptable to the proponents, it seems to 
me we should move to table, the motion to table will be defeated, and 
then it will be open to a second-degree amendment. Since that is the 
only way in which anybody who wants to offer an amendment in the second 
degree can offer it, it seems to me that is an appropriate way to 
proceed.
  Let me summarize, I think this amendment is an improvement over what 
we began with in a number of ways. We have a trigger off as well as a 
trigger on. That is a plus. And there is variety among the States. That 
is a plus. However, it creates an unlevel field. As the Senator from 
Connecticut pointed out, along with the Senator from Nevada, there is 
an unlevel playing field which is created, a greater lack of a level 
playing field in the case of the incumbent who has that campaign fund, 
who is then being challenged by somebody who can self-finance to the 
extent of $\1/2\ million or $1 million. The incumbent who already has 
the financial advantage and the incumbency advantage is then also given 
the advantage of having the higher contribution limits.
  The effort to level the playing field in a very appropriate way, as 
the Senator from Ohio is doing, makes the playing field less level 
against the challenger.
  This would be up to the managers of the bill. But I suggest that the 
Members of the Senate be able to read this amendment, either delay the 
vote, or make it open to a second-degree amendment. Or, in the 
alternative, I suggest that we have a motion to table, which then 
presumably would be defeated, but which would open up the amendment to 
being read and considered and to a second-degree amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was talking to the assistant 
Democratic leader. We agreed that we ought to have this vote at 12:15. 
It is my understanding, I believe, that he is going to propound a 
consent agreement for that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this has been cleared with Senator Dodd and 
managers of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that we have a vote on 
or in relation to this amendment at 12:15, and following that vote, our 
party recesses would take place. We would be in recess and reconvene at 
2:15 today. The next amendment being offered would be a Republican 
amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, does 
that mean an up-or-down vote on the Domenici amendment?
  Mr. REID. No, it doesn't. We are under a unanimous consent agreement. 
Whatever happens happens.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me raise the issue. If the Democrat amendment is

[[Page 3978]]

not tabled, then it is open to second degrees. So the next amendment is 
not necessarily a Republican amendment.
  Mr. REID. The unanimous consent request indicates that if a motion to 
table is not offered, then it is anybody's opportunity.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If a second-degree amendment were a Democrat 
amendment, from a parliamentary point of view, we would be potentially 
in an extended discussion, which is what I see my friend from Michigan 
smiling about.
  What we feared when we entered into this consent agreement in the 
first place was the potential for anybody who wanted to kind of work 
mischief and to filibuster a second-degree amendment. I ask my friend 
from Michigan, is it his intent, then, to second degree the Domenici 
amendment once it is not tabled, thereby preventing Republicans from 
offering the next amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. No. I am not intending to prevent Republicans from 
offering the next first-degree amendment at all. I am not sure I want 
to offer a second-degree amendment. With an amendment this complex, I 
want there to be an opportunity for Members to read it, consider it, 
and decide whether or not to offer a second-degree amendment. I may try 
to offer a second-degree amendment along the lines that we talked 
about. In no way am I trying to prevent Republicans from offering 
amendments.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I don't know whether this is acceptable to the Senator 
from New Mexico. Since we were debating this issue all day yesterday 
and have been all day today, there are some Senators who, in order to 
make progress on the bill, might want to go to another amendment. I am 
wondering about temporarily laying it aside or staying on this with a 
motion to table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What would be the status of the Domenici amendment? If 
we would set it aside, it would be an amendment that has not been 
tabled, and that is subject to amendment pursuant to the unanimous 
consent agreement. Is that correct?
  Mr. DODD. No. Wait a minute. Reserving the right to object, my point 
is that under the unanimous consent request a pending amendment cannot 
be a second-degree amendment unless there is a tabling motion. If there 
is a tabling motion, and that does not prevail, then that amendment is 
subject to amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I assume we are going to do that right now. Are you 
going to try to table it? You are going to lose.
  Mr. DODD. It can be done in a number of different ways: withhold and 
lay the amendment aside; then bring up a Republican amendment after the 
recess lunches and work on this amendment; or vote on this amendment; 
or have a tabling motion; and, if you do not prevail, then the 
amendment is subject to future amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, let's 
continue the discussion for a moment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to proceed. I believe it is 
12 pages long. We have counted it. We have had hours in that Cloakroom 
with staff from every Senator who is interested. The amendment we 
started with was rather lengthy. We just added to it. But we have added 
what all of these Senators wanted as if they were sitting in there in 
terms of modifying the Domenici amendment to make it a real Domenici-
DeWine amendment which includes the state-by-state formula that he 
wants as well as proportionality that other Senators sought.
  I want a vote up or down when the time comes. I hope it will come 
quickly. If it doesn't, we will vote at whatever time this time 
expires. If somebody wants to table it, I would now, here and now, urge 
that we not table it. It is a very good amendment. If you want to fix 
it up, you can fix it up a little bit. It still has to go to 
conference. But essentially a vote to table this is a vote not to do 
anything about the growing situation of extremely wealthy Americans 
using their own money while, for the most part, the person running 
against him is encumbered by statutes in terms of what they can raise 
that are totally unreasonable versus a candidate who puts in $10 
million, $20 million, $30 million, or $40 million. That is the issue.
  At this point, I yield the floor and hope we will vote soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I say in all due respect to 
my good friend from New Mexico that you have provisions in here, as I 
look at this thing, where you have inserts that I can't even find. 
Insert 301 in someplace, insert from 301--I am looking at an amendment 
that I can't even follow. With all due respect, this is pretty serious 
stuff. I need to have a guide to get me through this. You are asking me 
to vote in a couple of minutes on a 12- or 15-page amendment that is 
very important. This is a significant amendment.
  It seems to me that we ought to take a little time either to get this 
right or not. But if you are going to rush this thing through without 
any explanation, I say to colleagues who want to, come over here to see 
an amendment insert that I can't find.
  We ought to vote to table it, or take a little time and then sort 
this out so at least Members know what they are voting on. But to vote 
on this right now under these circumstances would be a travesty. It is 
not the way to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request by the Senator from Nevada?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, Mr. 
President, let me point out a couple of things.
  One is we have spent a long time on this issue. Negotiations included 
virtually every Senator who was interested in this amendment. There are 
two parliamentary procedures. If the motion to table fails, yes, a 
second-degree amendment is in order. But a tabling motion to the 
second-degree amendment also is in order at any time. There is no 
timeframe.
  It is also available to further amendments in the future which could 
be designed to affect the Domenici-DeWine amendment as well. If this 
issue is to be revisited with another amendment, it could be done as 
well. You don't necessarily have to go to a second-degree amendment.
  I point out to my colleagues that we have 2 weeks. We have now been 
on this amendment for a number of hours, depending on at what they are 
looking. We ought to be able to get this issue resolved quickly and 
move on to other amendments.
  I can understand the frustration of the Senator from Kentucky because 
he was under the impression that the next amendment would be his 
amendment, or one of the supporters of his position on the overall 
bill.
  I hope we can have an up-or-down vote with the full and certain 
knowledge that another amendment to clarify or to change the underlying 
amendment would be in order at any time, and by having an up-or-down 
vote, we can move on with the amending process.
  I hope my colleagues can understand the logic of that. There is a 
limitation of time. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the vote will be at 12:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will be at 12:15.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, does the Senator from New Mexico yield 3 
minutes?
  Mr. President, first, I say that if this amendment is adopted, I want 
to make it clear, given the concerns raised by the Senator from 
Connecticut, which I think are legitimate, that we have agreed on 
working together to work out a technical amendment package that is 
agreeable to all of us.
  We have an agreement as to the concept of the amendment, and we will 
make sure that if the amendment is added to the bill it reflects our 
agreement. Without that, I certainly agree with the Senator from 
Connecticut that there will be problems.
  There needs to be changes, and there needs to be some time to 
evaluate and make the changes.

[[Page 3979]]

  I thank everyone for all the hard work that was put into this. It is 
a very complicated issue. Senators have very strong feelings on it. 
Ever since the Buckley case held that Congress cannot restrict a 
candidate's spending of his or her own personal wealth, we have 
struggled and struggled with how to handle the situation where 
candidates have such disparate, unequal personal fortunes. 
Understandably, there is a great concern among Members of this body 
about the possibility of facing a very wealthy challenger. Many of us 
have had that experience, including myself. To the extent that an 
incumbent Senator is wealthy, it is very difficult to find a viable 
challenger.
  The amendment offered by Senator Domenici yesterday was certainly 
well intentioned, but it had at least two significant flaws. First, it 
allowed candidates who faced a wealthy candidate to raise unlimited 
funds from their contributors under increased limits. It even 
permitted, in my view, a very serious problem. It even permitted 
parties to pump unlimited funds into a race based on a situation where 
somebody would put over $1 million of their own money into a race.
  Secondly, it did not recognize the obvious fact that $500,000 of 
personal spending in Maine is much more significant than $500,000 of 
personal spending in a State such as California or New York.
  I am pleased that we have addressed both of these problems in this 
compromise. I am not happy with the idea that we are raising individual 
limits in this way. I believe this sets a dangerous precedent both for 
the future of this debate and for future debates, but the amendment is 
much improved, and in the spirit of compromise, I intend to support it.
  However, this is not an amendment that I believe is essential to 
reform. In fact, I would rather see that we address this problem in a 
different way. But this is a process in which we have to show some 
flexibility. So while I will vote for it, I fully understand that some 
very strong supporters of our bill must vote against it. That is fine. 
I want to assure those who are watching that a vote against this 
amendment is not, to my mind, an antireform vote.
  I also add that with regard to those who have worked so hard on this 
amendment, especially on the other side of the aisle, if they are 
successful, I hope those Senators will be part of our reform effort and 
will join us as this process proceeds with the common goal of passing--
I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, are you in favor of the amendment or 
against the amendment?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am in favor of the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me conclude and say it is essential that those who 
are a part of adding these items and these new considerations to the 
bill be part of the solution, which is to pass this legislation without 
too many amendments that would actually undercut its ability to get 
through this body and be a good piece of public policy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The other side has time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I will be glad to yield to my colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to ask the Senator from Wisconsin a question. Would 
the Senator be open to a question?
  This amendment will create a less level playing field in one area; 
that is, when the incumbent has the large campaign fund, say, of $5 
million, and the challenger then puts in $1 million of his own, this 
opens it up to the incumbent to have the higher contribution limits, 
which is a tremendous advantage, on top of the incumbency advantage.
  Is the Senator from Wisconsin committed to an amendment which would 
try to correct that deleveling of the playing field that is created by 
this amendment?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from Michigan, 
I think that is a problem that should be addressed.
  Mr. DODD. I yield back whatever time we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered. 
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 115.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--30

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Hagel
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 115) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30 
p.m. having arrived----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, may I make one brief announcement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the next amendment will be offered on 
the Republican side. I had indicated to my colleague, Senator Dodd, it 
will be either in the area of soft money or an amendment concerning 
lobbyists. We are going to work that out during lunch. It will be laid 
down at 2:15 p.m. Of course, the amendment will be laid down at the 
beginning. We will not have the confusion that surrounded the last 
amendment, and everyone will be fully apprised of what is in it.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before adjourning, I ask our colleagues, if 
they have amendments on this bill, to get them to us, and those who are 
interested in having amendments offered, let us know so we can start to 
line up these amendments and make sure all interested parties are aware 
of what amendments are coming. It would be very helpful.

                          ____________________