[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4500-4508]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Specter amendment No. 140, to provide findings regarding 
     the current state of campaign finance laws and to clarify the 
     definition of electioneering communication.
       Fitzgerald amendment No. 144, to provide that limits on 
     contributions to candidates be applied on an election cycle 
     rather than election basis.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 145

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 145 and ask 
that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 145.

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

(Purpose: To apply the prohibition on electioneering communications to 
      targeted communications of certain tax-exempt organizations)

       On page 21, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 204. RULES RELATING TO CERTAIN TARGETED ELECTIONEERING 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 316(c) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 441b), as added by section 203, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Special rules for targeted communications.--
       ``(A) Exception does not apply.--Paragraph (2) shall not 
     apply in the case of a targeted communication that is made by 
     an organization described in such paragraph.
       ``(B) Targeted communication.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `targeted communication' means an 
     electioneering communication (as defined in section 
     304(d)(3)) that is distributed from a television or radio 
     broadcast station or provider of cable or satellite 
     television service whose audience consists primarily of 
     residents of the State for which the clearly identified 
     candidate is seeking office.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his 
remarks and in particular for his focus on the importance of what some 
call clean money, clean elections, others call public financing, 
partial or full public financing.
  Before I talk about this amendment, I want to give it some context 
with the argument I made on the floor of the Senate last week.
  I am bitterly disappointed my amendment was not adopted. That 
amendment was an effort to say that our States should have the option 
of applying a voluntary system of partial or full public financing to 
our races. A couple of Senators said to me during the vote that they 
did not want their State legislatures deciding ``how to finance my 
campaigns.'' They are not our campaigns. These campaigns belong to the 
people of the country. I do believe, until we move to some system of 
public financing or move in that direction with some reforms, we are 
going to continue to have a system that is wired for incumbents. 
Sometimes I think the debate is as much between ins and outs as it is 
between Democrats and Republicans.
  I want to put the defeat of that amendment in the context of some of 
the reform amendments being defeated and other amendments which I think 
significantly weaken this legislation, at least if one's interest is in 
reform and in trying to get some of the big money out of politics and 
bring some of the people back in.
  The acceptance last week of the so-called millionaire's amendment, 
where we tried to fix the problem of people who have wealth and their 
own economic resources and spending it on their own campaigns with 
basically another abuse, which is to take the limits off how much money 
people can contribute--I fear this week we are going to take the lid 
off individual campaign contributions as some have suggested, going 
from $1,000 to $3,000 or $2,000 to $6,000 a year.
  The point is, again, one-quarter of 1 percent of the people in the 
country contribute $200 or more and one-ninth of the voting age 
population in the country contribute $1,000 a year or more. How last 
week's support of the so-called millionaire's amendment can be 
considered a reform--it probably

[[Page 4501]]

will be challenged constitutionally as well.
  The point is, I do not know how bringing more money into politics, 
and more big money in politics, and having Senators--Democrats and 
Republicans--running for office more dependent on the top 1 percent of 
the population represents a reform.
  If the Hagel proposal passes, I think that is a huge step backward. 
If part of the Hagel proposal passes and we raise the limits on 
individual contributions, then we have created a situation where I have 
no doubt incumbents will have a better chance of going after those big 
bucks.
  Frankly, I think some of us probably will not be too successful, and, 
in any case, why in the world would you want a system more dependent 
upon the top 1 percent of the population who can make those 
contributions?
  I worry about a piece of legislation that has moved in this 
direction. There were some good victories. I always will give credit to 
colleagues for their good work, and I certainly give full credit to 
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their good work. But I am in 
profound disagreement, first of all, with defeat of the amendment last 
week which would have allowed people at the State level to organize--
grass roots politics at the State level. I am especially worried about 
creating loopholes in this bill or moving toward taking off the cap 
when it comes to the raising of hard money. Again, I do not believe it 
is much of a reform.
  I have heard some argue it is a fact that since 1974 there has been 
inflation and $1,000 is not worth $1,000. It is also a fact that one-
quarter of 1 percent of the people in the country contribute over $200. 
It is a fact that one-ninth of the people contribute over $1,000. It is 
a fact that most people do not have that kind of money and cannot make 
those kinds of contributions.
  Eighty percent of the money in the 2000 elections was hard money. 
That is PAC money included. If we take the limit off individual 
contributions and raise those limits in the direction some of my 
colleagues are talking about, we are moving toward politics yet even 
more reliant on big money.
  What in the world will we have accomplished if, in fact, we are 
ultimately going to have the same amount of money spent but in a 
different way, which now gives me the opportunity to talk about the 
amendment I offer today, which will plug a loophole in this bill. It 
has to do with the treatment of sham ads. The purpose of this amendment 
is simple: It is to ensure that the sham issue ads run by interest 
groups fall under the same rules and prohibition that the McCain-
Feingold legislation rightly imposes on corporations and union shame 
ads.
  I make this appeal to my colleagues: This was in the Shays-Meehan 
bill. This was in the original McCain-Feingold bill. I know people have 
had to negotiate and make different political compromises, but from the 
point of view of policy, what good will it do if we have a prohibition 
of raising soft money on political parties and a prohibition when it 
comes to unions and corporations, but then other interest groups and 
organizations will be able to, using soft money, put ads on television? 
The money will just shift.
  My argument is twofold: No. 1, I do not think it is fair to labor and 
corporations to say there is a prohibition on raising soft money for 
these sham issue ads and then not applying that standard to every other 
kind of group or organization, whether they are left, right, or center.
  No. 2, I think we are going to have a proliferation of new stealth 
groups and organizations, all operating within this loophole, so that 
soft money will shift from the parties to these sham ads. There is this 
huge loophole and all those ads will go into the TV ads.
  I say to my colleagues, I would rather point my finger at an opponent 
or another political party and say, look, your ads are not fair. I 
might say they are scummy or poisonous. Instead, we will have a 
proliferation of these stealth sham ads. This is a huge loophole in 
this bill.
  In the original McCain-Feingold, the same rules and prohibitions that 
apply to corporations and unions apply to all the other interest 
groups. That is the way it should be. It is not fair to corporations 
and unions. We know it is a loophole. We know we will be back in a 
couple years dealing with this problem, and there will be plenty of 
lawyers who will figure out how to create the organizations and put the 
money into the sham issue ads.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Minnesota is entirely correct; that 
is exactly what will happen.
  I wonder if he would be willing to modify his amendment to eliminate 
the exception for the media. The media are specifically exempt from all 
of these bills. If we are going to be pure, I say to my friend from 
Minnesota, why eliminate the media in the last 60 days if we are going 
to try to get true balance across the entire board?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could ask my colleague, I am trying to 
understand.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Just a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand it is just a question. We may be focusing 
in on different issues. I am focusing on one problem; you may be 
focusing on what you consider to be another problem.
  I don't identify the media with the sham issue ads. Whether I agree 
or disagree, it seems to me, the media are there to inform people. So 
the answer is no, I wouldn't want to include the media.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Obviously, the Senator gets better treatment on the 
editorial pages than the Senator from Kentucky, particularly in 
proximity to an election. I have noticed that in the last 60 days of an 
election.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand my colleague's point. I guess I say with 
a twinkle in my eye to the Senator from Kentucky, I think people in the 
country and certainly everybody in this Chamber should be very worried 
about just this loophole in the shifting of soft money to these sham 
ads. That is what we should worry about.
  I see a whole bunch of interest groups and organizations that will do 
it. I see a whole bunch of new ones that will be created that are going 
to do it unless we go back to the original standard that was in the 
original bill, and that is basically in the Shays-Meehan bill coming 
out of the House. I don't think I would include the media or journalist 
broadly defined, whether I agree or disagree with their particular 
editorials.
  Now, the soft money and issue ad provisions of McCain-Feingold 
restrict sham issue ads run by parties, corporations, and labor 
unions--that is important--but not by other groups. Limiting the ban in 
such a way seems to invite--this is what I am trying to say--a shift in 
spending to private groups in future elections, suggesting in the 
future years, even if this bill passes, that Congress is going to be 
predestined to revisit sham issue ad regulation to close yet another 
loophole in Federal election law.
  I say as a matter of policy, why not do it now. And I continue to 
make this argument.
  I argue this loophole is already pretty wide. The Campaign Finance 
Institute Task Force on Disclosure estimated that perhaps over $100 
million was spent by independent groups trying to influence Federal 
elections with sham ads during the 2000 cycle. I don't think this comes 
as any surprise to the Presiding Officer or any of my colleagues. Many 
colleagues have seen such ads run during their own election.
  The Brennan Center for Justice and the University of Wisconsin found 
these ads are overwhelmingly negative. Here is something I was not as 
aware as I should have been--again, I think many know what I am talking 
about; many have been the target of these negative ads; in some cases, 
some have perhaps been the beneficiaries of the negative ads against 
their opponent if that is what you like--the Brennan Center for Justice 
found specifically that more than 70 percent of these sham 
electioneering ads sponsored by groups are attack ads that denigrate a

[[Page 4502]]

candidate's image or character as opposed to 20 percent, the good news, 
of the candidate-sponsored ads.
  The point is, if you are concerned about poison politics, leave this 
loophole open, let these interest groups run these sham ads. 
Overwhelmingly they are negative, they can be vicious, they are poison 
politics.
  The study concluded:

       . . . candidates and the American public can expect a wave 
     of television advertising in the last 60 days of an election, 
     casting aspersions on a candidate's integrity, health, or 
     intentions.

  Why in the world do we want to keep this loophole? Why do we want to 
pass a piece of legislation where the soft money is going to all shift 
away from the parties to these sham issue ads which are so 
overwhelmingly negative, which so overwhelmingly epitomize poison 
politics?
  These groups are accountable to virtually no one, to nobody. And 
frankly, they do the dirty work for too many people in politics. I 
would like to do away with poison politics.
  Make no mistake about it, every Senator--I am not talking about ads, 
I say to the Presiding Officer, that are legitimately trying to 
influence policy debates--rather, this amendment only targets those ads 
that we all know are trying to skew elections but until now have been 
able to skirt the law. I am not talking about legitimate policy ads. I 
am not talking about ads that run on any issue. I am talking about the 
ads that end up bashing the candidate or whoever is running. They don't 
say just vote against them. I am talking about sham issue ads. Any 
group, any organization, any individual can finance any kind of ad they 
want. I am just applying the standard of this bill to where there is a 
huge loophole.
  Title II of McCain-Feingold consists of several sections known as the 
Snowe-Jeffords provision, named after similar legislation first 
proposed by my two colleagues from Maine and Vermont. This provision is 
an excellent first step toward curbing sham issue ads in that it 
prohibits such ads from being paid for with corporate or union treasury 
money.
  Under the bill as currently written, broadcast ads that mention a 
Federal candidate that are made within 60 days of a general election, 
or within 30 days of a primary, and are transmitted to an audience that 
includes the electorate of the candidate, are defined as 
``electioneering communications.'' That is a pretty tight test.
  Now the value of this difference, in addition, has been discussed 
previously in this debate, so I will not spend a lot of time on its 
merits now. Suffice it to say this amendment has been carefully 
crafted, and I believe it is fully constitutional.
  First, because it is totally unambiguous. It is perfectly obvious on 
the face whether an ad falls under this definition. This means there 
will be no ``chilling'' effect on protected speech, a concern raised by 
the Supreme Court in the Buckley decision because a group would be 
uncertain if an issue ad they intended to run would be covered or not. 
In other words, this is a bright-line test.
  Second, the test is not overly broad. A comprehensive study conducted 
by the Brennan Center of ads run during the 1998 election found that 
only two genuine issue ads out of the hundreds run would have been 
inappropriately defined as a sham ad. You want to have a tight test, 
you want to have a high standard, that is what we do.
  Snowe-Jeffords forces disclosure of all ads that fall under this 
definition, but under this bill, only corporations and unions may not 
spend funds from their treasury or soft money for this purpose. If a 
corporation or union wishes to run electioneering communications, they 
must use a PAC with contributions regulated by Federal law to do so. 
The point is, they have to do it with hard money. The point is, every 
other group and organization, pick and choose--it can be the NRA, it 
can be the Christian right, it can be the Sierra Club, it can be other 
organizations on the left, other organizations on the right, 
organizations representing every other kind of interest imaginable--
they can continue to use soft money and pour it into these sham ads.
  Why are we not applying this prohibition to them? Why are we creating 
this huge loophole? Do we want to pass a piece of legislation which is 
just like Jell-O? Push here, no, it doesn't go do parties and now it 
all goes into the sham issue ads.
  We will not be doing right for people in the country if we pass a 
bill that does not get, really, very much big money out of politics but 
just changes the way it is spent. Maybe it will even be less 
accountable.
  Here is the exemption in this bill for certain organizations: 
501(c)(4) groups and 527 groups--this exemption means that Sierra Club, 
National Rifle Association, Club for Growth, or Republicans for Clean 
Air would be able to run whatever ads they want using soft money to 
finance them. They would, for the first time, have to disclose how much 
they are spending, but there is no bar to such groups running sham ads 
under this bill.
  Fine. They can disclose how much they are spending. Three weeks 
before election, they pour in an unlimited amount of money with poison 
politics attacking Republicans, I say to the Chair, or Democrats, or 
independents. Why do we want to have this loophole?
  I want to see this soft money prohibition and this big money out. I 
do not want to see us have this loophole in this piece of legislation 
which may mean that we passed a piece of legislation that has shifted 
all of this big money in the worst possible direction. I think this is 
a mistake. Already these interest groups are spending over $100 million 
on sham ads to influence our elections. Over 70 percent of them are 
bitterly personally negative.
  So these groups already play a major role in our elections, and I 
predict, if we do not close this loophole now with this amendment, we 
will be back here in 2 years or 4 years, or I hope and pray people do 
not--maybe it will not be for another 20 or 30 years--trying to do what 
I am trying to do today. The reason will be that the center of power--
please listen to this--in Federal elections will move much closer to 
these unaccountable groups because they will be able to pump millions 
and millions of dollars in soft money into these sham ads. That is 
where this money is going to go.
  We will see what the other arguments on the floor are. I can 
anticipate some of them, and I will continue to make mine brief. But I 
say to the Presiding Officer, I do not know how many votes this 
amendment will get. I really do not know. But I will tell you this. My 
wife's family are from Appalachia--Harlan County, and Letcher County in 
Kentucky--the Isons. They talk about poor cities. When I am 80 years 
old, I at least am going to be able to tell my grandchildren--I am 
sorry, I have grandchildren now--my great grandchildren, great, great, 
great grandchildren, I hope and pray--that I laid down this amendment, 
I tried to close this loophole, I tried to do something that for sure 
would get more of the big money out of politics.
  I do not know what the vote will be, but I know I am here, and I know 
I have to be a reformer, and I know I have to make this bill better. I 
have to lay down this marker just as I tried to do last week in an 
amendment that should have passed. I cannot believe that colleagues, 
authors of this bill, did not support it. I cannot believe that during 
the vote I had people telling me: I don't want my State legislature or 
people in my State telling me how to finance my campaign--as if it were 
our campaign. I could not believe it.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, I could not believe Republicans, who 
always argue for States rights, voted against the proposition that 
every State ought to decide whether or not they wanted on a voluntary 
basis to apply some system of voluntary or partial public financing. 
Talk about encouraging grassroots politics. People in the country say: 
We can get at it in Arizona. They already have. You have clean money, 
clean elections. We can get at it in Minnesota, in Nevada. We don't 
know if we can ever be effective in D.C. toward public financing, but 
we can do it right here, we don't have to take expensive air trips to 
D.C. And it is defeated. Now I am trying to plug this

[[Page 4503]]

loophole, and tomorrow or the next day we are heading towards raising 
spending limits.
  Let me be clear, this amendment does not say any special interest 
group cannot run an ad. A lot of interests are special. That is fine. 
They are special to the people they represent, and sometimes they are 
special to the public interest, depending on your point of view. It 
only says these groups and organizations need to comply with the same 
rules as unions and corporations. Groups covered by my amendment can 
set up PACs, they can solicit contributions, and they can run all the 
ads they want. All this amendment says is they cannot use their regular 
treasury money. They can't use the soft money contributions to run 
these ads.
  This is an amendment about fairness. It is an amendment about 
leveling the playing field.
  I know some of my colleagues may come to the floor and oppose this 
amendment because, while they believe as a matter of policy this 
amendment is the right thing to do, they fear the Court may find that 
covering these special interest groups under the Snowe-Jeffords 
electioneering communication provision is unconstitutional. And, in all 
honesty, this is probably a question upon which reasonable reformers 
can disagree. But it is a debate worth having. I think this provision 
can withstand constitutional scrutiny, but it is probably not a slam-
dunk.
  Still, in a moment I want to talk about why I think the courts will 
uphold this amendment. But before I do--this has to be in the summary 
of this amendment tomorrow, before people vote--I want to make one 
important point. I have drafted this amendment to be fully severable. I 
have drafted this amendment to be fully severable. In other words, no 
one can suggest that even if the courts find this amendment 
unconstitutional, it would drag down the rest of this bill or even 
jeopardize the other provisions of Snowe-Jeffords.
  This creates a totally new section under title II of this bill. Under 
the worst case scenario, if the Supreme Court rules that groups covered 
by my amendment cannot be constitutionally barred from using treasury 
funds for these sham issue ads, then the rest of the legislation will 
be completely unaffected. The rest of the legislation will be 
completely unaffected. And we are going to have a debate on 
severability anyway.
  This is what gets to me. Colleagues will come out here--they did it 
on the amendment to allow States to light a candle and move forward on 
public financing--and they will say: Oh, no, if you get a majority vote 
for your amendment, then it could bring down the bill. The argument is 
the majority of Senators vote for the amendment and then later on the 
same majority of the Senators who vote for the amendment say they are 
going to vote against the bill because they just voted for an 
amendment? Come on. I am just getting frustrated out here. Let's vote 
for these amendments on the basis of whether they are good policy and 
whether or not they represent reform.
  I want to talk about this bill from the point of view of the 
constitutional arguments. I do it with a little bit of trepidation. I 
am not a lawyer, but I can certainly marshal some evidence for my point 
of view.
  A February 20, 1998, a letter signed by 20 constitutional scholars, 
including a former legislative director of the ACLU, which analyzed the 
Snowe-Jeffords provision on electioneering argued that, even though the 
provision was written to exempt certain organizations, the 
organizations that I don't want to exempt from the ban on 
electioneering communication, such omission was not constitutionally 
necessary. And the scholars noted:

       The careful crafting of the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment stands 
     in stark contrast to the clumsy and sweeping prohibition that 
     Congress originally drafted in FECA. Unlike the FECA 
     definition of electioneering, the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment 
     would withstand constitutional challenge without having to 
     resort to the device of narrowing the statute with magic 
     words. Congress could, if it wished, apply the basic rules 
     that currently govern electioneering to all spending that 
     falls within this more realistic definition of 
     electioneering. Congress could, for example, declare that 
     only individuals and PACs (and the most grassroots of 
     nonprofit organizations) could engage in electioneering that 
     falls within this broadened definition. It could impose 
     fundraising restrictions, prohibiting individuals from 
     pooling large contributions toward such electioneering.

  I argue colleagues can vote for this amendment in good conscience, 
but let me take a few moments to address in some detail and try to 
preempt some of the contentions we are likely to hear on the other 
side.
  The main argument that I think colleagues will hear advanced against 
the constitutionality of this amendment is based upon a 1986 Supreme 
Court case called the Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts 
Citizens for Life. In that case, a 5-4 decision, the Court found a 
flier produced by the group that urged voters to vote ``pro-life'' and 
mentioned candidates could be paid for using the group's regular 
treasury funds. But I think the five reasons why the Court would find 
this amendment, which is different constitutionally, is:
  First, it is important to note tonight at the onset that this 
amendment--and indeed the Snowe-Jeffords motion already in the bill--
only covers broadcast communications. It does not cover print 
communications such as the one issue in the Massachusetts Citizens for 
Life. Indeed, the group argued that the flier should have been 
protected as a news editorial. Snowe-Jeffords specifically exempts 
editorial communications.
  Second, the Court based its decision in part on the logic that the 
regulation of election-related communication was overly burden to small 
grassroots organizations.
  Under our amendment--and under Snowe-Jeffords the group would have to 
raise $10,000 on broadcast ads that mention a candidate 60 days before 
the election before their provision would kick in.
  Third, the Federal law that the Court objected to was extremely 
broad. And the Court specifically cited that fact as one of the reasons 
it reached its decision, saying ``regulation that would produce such a 
result demands far more precision than [current law] provides.''
  This amendment, which is patterned after the Snowe-Jeffords 
amendment, has that provision.
  Finally, and most importantly of all about this Court decision, the 
Court actually argued that the election communications of nonprofit 
corporations, such as the one covered in this amendment, could be 
regulated once it reached a certain level. In fact, this is what the 
Court said:

       Should MCFL's independent spending become so extensive that 
     the organization's major purpose may be regarded as campaign 
     activity, the corporation would be classified as a political 
     committee. As such, it would automatically be subject to the 
     obligations and restrictions applicable to those groups whose 
     primary objective is to influence political campaigns.

  Since this decision, these groups have operated outside the law with 
impunity.
  Take, for example, the organization Republicans for Clean Air. 
Despite its innocuous name, this was an organization created for the 
sole purpose of promoting the candidacy of George W. Bush during the 
last Republican primary election. That is another example, again with 
an unlimited amount of advertising soft money. And we now have a 
loophole in this bill that will enable them to do it again.
  If you are going to say corporations and unions can't do this 60 days 
before an election--they can't finance these sham issue ads for soft 
money--it should apply to all of these groups and organizations.
  If you do not, it is not only unfair to unions and corporations, you 
are going to have a proliferation of these organizations. Republicans 
for Clean Air, Democrats for Clean Air, People Who Do Not Like Any 
Party For Clean Air, Liberals For Clean Air, Conservatives For Clean 
Air, Citizens For Dirty Air--I don't know what it will be. Another 
example is the Club For Growth. This was an outfit that ran attack ads 
against moderate Republican congressional candidates in the primary.
  Both groups, which would be covered by my amendment, are not covered 
by this bill. But they could clearly be banned from running these sham 
issue

[[Page 4504]]

ads from their treasury funds under the Massachusetts Citizens for Life 
decision. It is that simple.
  By the way, this is amazing. In the 1986 decision, the Court 
concluded:

       The FEC maintains the inapplicability of current law to 
     MCFL to open the door to massive, undisclosed spending by 
     similar entities . . . We see no such danger.

  In all due respect to this Supreme Court, it is clear that the FEC 
had it exactly right and the Supreme Court had it exactly wrong. If we 
have seen money to the tune of $100 million this last election, it was 
these sham issue ads.
  I am going to say it won more time. I don't know whether this 
amendment will pass. I do not know whether it will get one vote. But I 
tell you this: I am going to be able to say later on that I at least 
tried to get this reform amendment passed. This is a huge loophole. In 
the Shays-Meehan bill, they plugged the loophole. In the original 
Feingold bill, they plugged the loophole.
  I will say it again. How can you say to corporations and to labor 
that they can't run these sham issue ads in the 60-day period before 
elections and the 30-day period before primaries but at the same time 
not apply that prohibition to every other group and organization, 
whatever cause they represent?
  And, No. 2, don't you realize that what everybody is going to do is 
set up another one of these groups and organizations? Then you will 
have a proliferation of influence groups and organizations. And 
individuals with all of this wealth and organizations that want to make 
these huge soft money contributions will make their soft money 
contributions to these sham issue ads run by all of these groups and 
organizations, which under this loophole can operate with impunity.
  We are going to take soft money out of parties and we are going to 
put it into the sham issue ads. Frankly, I don't want my colleague from 
Kentucky to count me as an ally. If I am going to be the subject of 
these kinds of poisonous ads, I would rather point my finger at the 
Republicans. Or if I were a Republican, I would rather point my finger 
at the Democrats. Or I would rather point my finger at the opposing 
candidates. I wouldn't want to be put in a position of not knowing 
exactly who these different groups and organizations were with all of 
this soft money pouring into these poisonous ads in the last 3 weeks 
before the election. That is the loophole that we have.
  I am not telling you that some of these groups and organizations, 
right, left, and center, are going to necessarily like this. But I am 
telling you, if you want to be consistent, that we have to support this 
amendment. If we don't want a huge loophole that is going to create 
maybe just as much soft money in politics as now, you have to support 
this amendment.
  If you want to try to get as much of the big money out of politics as 
possible, you have to support this amendment. If you hate bitter, 
personal, poison politics, you have to support this amendment. Because, 
before the Presiding Officer came in, I was saying that the Brennan 
Center said that 70 percent of the money spent by these sham ads by 
these groups and organizations is personal, negative, and going after 
people's character. I am glad to say that only about 20 percent of the 
candidates' ads do that.
  The Campaign Finance Institute at George Washington University in a 
February 2001 report found this to be the case. This is the quote.

       These undisclosed interest group communications are a major 
     force in U.S. politics, not little oddities, or blips on a 
     screen.

  Maybe when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in 1986 it was a blip 
on the screen. But today we are talking about tens of millions of 
dollars that go into these sham issue ads. These groups and 
organizations have become major players in our election. But the law 
doesn't hold them accountable.
  One more time: I think Senators are aware of this. Some of you have 
been candidates in which these special interest groups have come in and 
carpet bombed your State with these sham issue ads. Maybe they were run 
against you. Maybe they were run against your opponent. In some recent 
elections there have been more special interest group ads run than by 
the candidates of a party.
  May I make clear what is going on? We have to plug this loophole. If 
you just have the prohibition on the soft money to the party, and then 
you apply it to the sham issue ads by labor and corporations, and you 
don't apply it to any other group or organization--the 501(c)(4) groups 
and the 527 groups; the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, 
the Club for Growth, Republicans for Clean Air, and the list goes on 
and on--all you are doing is, No. 1, being patently unfair, by any 
standards of fairness, to corporations and labor, and, No. 2, you are 
inviting all of the soft money to go to these other groups and 
organizations. There will be a proliferation of them. We will have sham 
issue ads. There will be carpet bombing in all of our States and 
carpetbagging. Who knows where these ads come from?
  Even if all my other arguments on constitutionality fall--and I think 
they are pretty sound--I think there is an excellent reason to believe 
that the Court today would look at this issue in a completely different 
way than it did in 1986.
  As I said before my colleague came in, I have written a separate 
provision. This is a separate section of the bill. Even if this section 
were declared unconstitutional, I have written it so that it is 
severable, so it would not apply to Snowe-Jeffords or the rest of the 
bill. It does not put the rest of the bill in jeopardy at all.
  I think it is on constitutional ground, but it does not put the bill 
in jeopardy. We are going to have a vote on the whole issue of 
severability anyway. So no one can come out here and say, if this 
amendment is adopted, it will jeopardize the constitutionality of the 
bill.
  As I said before, I am getting tired of this other argument, which is 
that if a majority of the Members vote for the amendment, then this 
will bring the bill down. How does that happen--a majority of the 
Members vote for the amendment, and then a majority of the Members turn 
around and vote against the bill because of the amendment that the 
majority of the people just voted for? I do not think there is anything 
wrong with trying to strengthen legislation.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.
  I want to shout it from the mountaintop, I want to be on record, I 
think it would be a major mistake not to close this loophole. If we do 
not close this loophole, we are going to see millions of dollars of 
soft money flow to these special interest groups, we are going to see 
more and more of these sham issue ads with their shrill, bitter 
attacks. I think people in the country, and people in Minnesota, are 
going to wonder, why didn't we fix this problem when we had a chance.
  I think this amendment adds significantly to this bill. It makes it a 
better bill. It is better for politics. It is better for public policy. 
It is better for all of us. And most important of all, it is better for 
the people in this country and it is better for the people in 
Minnesota.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call I 
will initiate be charged equally against both sides.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before we go to a quorum call, I would 
like to say one thing. I think it comes with being 5 foot 5\1/2\. I 
won't say that we not go into a quorum call, but if people oppose this 
amendment, they should come out and debate it, really. If they oppose 
this amendment, they should come out here and debate it.
  Mr. President, if we go into a quorum call equally divided, how much 
time do we have? Are we moving on to the Hollings amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 48 minutes; the 
Senator from Kentucky has 90 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We move on to the Hollings amendment at what time?

[[Page 4505]]


  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  It is my understanding we move to the Hollings constitutional 
amendment at 2 o'clock. That being the case, there are 45 minutes 
remaining. It is my understanding that the Senator has used about 45 
minutes. Is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Approximately. So half of the next 45 minutes would be 
charged to the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. OK. I say to my colleague, I will reserve that. I hope 
at some point in time before the vote tomorrow I will have an 
opportunity to respond to whatever criticism there might be of this 
amendment. I have done a lot of work getting ready for this amendment. 
I am ready for the debate. I am not talking about my colleague from 
Nevada, but I think the Senators who oppose this----
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I, of course, supported the Senator from Minnesota in his 
other amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. REID. I believed that the amendment the Senator offered last week 
did nothing other than to allow States to do what they believe is 
appropriate. That was not adopted. I was disappointed it was not 
adopted because I think there is so much talk that goes on in this body 
about States rights, and there was no better example than that that I 
have seen in this body in a long time in talking about States rights. 
If a State did not want to do as indicated in the Senator's amendment, 
then they would not have to do it.
  So I appreciate very much the work the Senator has put on that 
amendment, and this amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  If I may, before we go into a quorum call, I will take just a couple 
minutes.
  I repeat one more time what I said about the whole question of 
constitutionality. On the whole question of the Snowe-Jeffords 
provision, of any other provision, there could be a challenge. This 
amendment uses the same sham issue test, ad test, as the Snowe-Jeffords 
language in the bill. I think it is constitutional. But if bulletproof 
constitutionality is the standard, then I do not know why we adopted 
the Domenici millionaire's amendment because I think that most 
definitely subjects this bill to a constitutional challenge--arguing 
that millionaires have the same first amendment rights as the rest of 
us.
  Most important of all, this amendment is fully severable. If the 
Court does strike it down, it is a separate provision; the rest of the 
bill will be unaffected. We are also going to have a separate vote on 
the whole question of severability. I certainly plan on voting for 
severability.
  So I want to make it clear, I hope Senators will vote on this on the 
merits of the proposal. Don't get the soft money out of this place--
parties--and let it shift to these sham ads. Don't have a prohibition 
that applies to corporations and unions and none of these other groups 
and organizations. It is not fair to them, and there will be a 
proliferation of these groups and organizations. The soft money will 
flow to them; and we are going to have these sham ads which are 
destructive and personal and bitter, and that is going to become 
American politics.
  This amendment plugs that loophole. Vote up or down on the basis of 
whether you think it is good public policy. Come out here, someone, and 
tell me why it is not good public policy.
  Well, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and the time will be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a book. I don't agree with all 
of its analyses. It has a catchy title and was written by Jim 
Hightower. The title is, ``If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote, They'd 
Have Given Us Candidates.''
  The reason I mention this book is there is this one graphic that is 
interesting: The percentage of the American people who donate money to 
national political candidates. Ninety-six percent of the American 
people donate zero dollars. The percentage who donate up to $200 is 4 
percent. The percentage who donate $200 to $1,000 is .09 percent. And 
the percentage who donate $1,000 to $10,000 is .05 percent. The 
percentage who donate from $10,000 to $100,000--and he points out in 
his book that you need a magnifying glass for this one--is .002 
percent.
  The percentage who donated $100,000 or more--you need a Hubble 
telescope, he says, for this one--is .0001 percent.
  I use this graph from my friend Jim Hightower's book for two reasons. 
First of all, I have an amendment that tries to make sure a lot of this 
big money doesn't get--it is like Jell-O, you push it here, it shifts. 
It shifts from the party into the sham issue ads, not to the 
corporation, not to labor, but to every other group and organization. 
There will be a proliferation of it. This amendment plugs that 
loophole.
  The Shays-Meehan bill basically has the same approach. This was 
originally part of the Feingold-McCain bill. I made it clear this 
provision is 100-percent severable. This is a separate provision. In 
any case, we will have a debate on severability. I have made it clear 
it is hard to make the argument that when a majority vote, you can't 
make the argument that to vote for this reform would bring the bill 
down.
  I think we voted for other reforms that have a better chance of 
bringing down the bill. But it doesn't make sense. You say the majority 
voted for this amendment; now they are going to vote against the bill 
that has this amendment.
  The other point I want to make is with this graph, what we are doing 
here is voting down reform amendments, such as the amendment last week 
that would have allowed States to light a candle and move forward with 
some voluntary system of partial or public financing, or maybe vote 
down this amendment, which would be a terrible mistake.
  We are going to revisit this. This is going to be the loophole, I 
promise you. Let's do the job now, while we can. At the same time, they 
want to raise the hard money limits. Now we are supposed to feel better 
that we have gotten rid of a lot of soft money. That is what is 
significant about this effort by Senators McCain and Feingold. That is 
a significance that cannot be denied. But the problem is, it may shift 
to the sham issue ad. The other problem is, since 80 percent of the 
money spent in 2000 was hard money, PAC money included, you are going 
to raise the hard money limits.
  It is crystal clear what people are talking about with one another. 
Why are we going to do that? Why are we going to bring yet more big 
money into politics and make people running for office more dependent 
on the top 1 percent of the population? How did that get to be a 
reform? And then I hear Senators say, well, the point is, if you go 
from 1 to 3 or 2 to 6, we will have to spend only one-third of the 
time.
  Permit me to be skeptical. Everybody will be involved in this obscene 
money chase. They will be just chasing $3,000 contributions and $6,000 
contributions. Somehow, people in Minnesota are going to be more 
reassured that we are putting more emphasis on the people who can 
afford to make $3,000 or $6,000, or maybe it will go from 1 to 2, or 2 
to 4, and we are doing something that gives people more confidence in a 
political process that is more dependent upon the people who have the 
big bucks.
  I raise this because I want to know why I am not having a debate on 
my amendment. I would like to know why Senators don't come out here and 
speak against this amendment. I don't mind people disagreeing or having 
other points of view. That is what it is about. But I would be 
interested in the opponents coming out here and opposing this 
amendment. Don't just wait until the last 5 minutes and get up and say 
we oppose the amendment, or we

[[Page 4506]]

oppose it because there has been an agreement to oppose the amendment, 
because it will bring down the bill, or because it is not 
constitutional. I am trying to deal with arguments, but maybe there are 
arguments I don't know about.
  This is very similar to what passed in the House. Well, it is my 
nature to like everybody and have a twinkle in my eye, so it looks as 
if in the world's greatest deliberative body, that there is not going 
to be a lot of deliberation or debate on this. I will have other 
amendments. This is a reform amendment, and this is the right thing to 
do.
  I yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will momentarily yield back all the 
time in opposition to this amendment.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment 
occur in a stacked sequence at 6 p.m. with 15 minutes to be equally 
divided between Senators Wellstone and Feingold.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want to 
make clear that my understanding is that we will vote on the 
constitutional amendment of Senator Hollings, and after that vote there 
will be 15 minutes of debate?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, and then a second vote.
  Mr. REID. No objection, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, consistent with the agreement, I yield 
back the balance of the time in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if someone else has business involving this 
amendment, I will be happy to yield the floor. However, in the meantime 
I will take the opportunity to speak on the constitutional amendment to 
be offered at 2 o'clock by my friend, the junior Senator from the State 
of South Carolina, Mr. Hollings.
  I have been involved in debating this issue of campaign finance 
reform for many years. In fact, when I first came to the Senate I could 
not believe I'd ever be involved in another election like the one I 
went through in 1986. But I have been through two since then. And in 
each campaign, the money problem got more magnified and worse. So I am 
happy that we are having this debate. I am happy we are having the 
debate, and I extend my appreciation to Senators McCain and Feingold 
for giving us this opportunity. I also applaud and congratulate the two 
leaders, Senators Lott and Daschle, for setting up a procedure where we 
can have this free-wheeling debate. I think it has been very good. It 
has been great for the Senate. I think this best represents what this 
institution is all about.
  Underlying this debate is the threshold question: Are we able to 
withstand legal challenges to whatever we wind up doing here, or is 
this just a waste of time because the bill will be struck down by the 
courts as unconstitutional, as an infringement on rights guaranteed by 
the first amendment? I think the bill is constitutional, but I have 
been surprised by the courts before and I can't say with certainty that 
is the case.
  Some say it is constitutional, some say it is not constitutional. We 
have heard from renowned legal experts from all over the country, in 
letters and in newspaper opinion columns, and in testimony they have 
given to Committees of Congress. There are mixed opinions as to whether 
or not this legislation is going to be upheld as constitutional.
  With my legal background, I personally think there is a sufficient 
foundation for this bill to withstand the parameters of our 
Constitution. I think it certainly should be considered constitutional. 
But many of my colleagues in this Chamber have been prosecutors, 
attorneys, who have served in various capacities, including teaching 
the law, and they have some disagreement as to whether or not this bill 
is constitutional.
  So it is fair to say that there is a lot of disagreement as to 
whether or not what we are doing is going to be upheld as 
constitutional. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have, on 
various occasions, disagreed. I believe it is, but many others 
disagree.
  I repeat, we have heard many lawyers and experts analyze not only 
what we are doing with this bill, but what the Supreme Court said in 
their decision in the Buckley v. Valeo case. And after all the experts 
have weighed in, what we are left with is that we really don't know 
right now.
  Because of this uncertainty, I signed on a long time ago to Senator 
Hollings' effort to amend the Constitution, to overrule Buckley v. 
Valeo.
  In effect, this constitutional amendment will allow us in the 
Congress of the United States to set financial limits and do other 
things to improve the election process in our country. 
Constitutionally, until we do that, I do not know how far we can go in 
regulating campaign finance money. I do not know how far we can go in 
regulating issue ads, even the ones that are deceptive or misleading. I 
do not know how far we can go in regulating how corporations or unions 
spend their money in political campaigns.
  In spite of my positive feeling about this underlying legislation, 
there is an uncertainty hanging over this debate like a cloud. Some 
Members will not vote for certain amendments because of the 
constitutional uncertainty. Other Members want to insert amendments 
they believe to be unconstitutional. They do it for other reasons; that 
is, they want to kill this bill.
  This week we will debate the question of severability, whether the 
bill as a whole stands or falls if any one of the provisions is struck 
down by the courts. When we take this issue up, the issue of 
constitutionality moves front and center to this debate.
  Every one of my colleagues who has questioned the constitutionality 
of any portion of this bill should support the Hollings-Specter 
bipartisan constitutional amendment because that amendment will clarify 
once and for all the power of this body, the Congress of the United 
States, to regulate campaign finance in this country.
  In simple terms, the amendment says the Congress shall have the power 
to set reasonable limits on campaign contributions and expenditures and 
that Congress shall have the power to enforce this provision through 
appropriate legislation. In other words, it gives this body the power 
to do something about reforming our broken campaign finance system in a 
way that is unambiguous and free from doubt. The amendment does not 
require that any of the current reform bills be enacted. It does not 
matter whether one supports McCain-Feingold, the Hagel bill, or any 
other approach, or whether one is opposed to reform entirely. Even if 
the amendment is enacted, one can still vote against specific reform 
legislation.
  Even those who are opposed to any kind of reform should support this 
amendment because it at least makes clear what we can and cannot do 
with campaign finance reform. It allows us to do what we were sent here 
to do: Debate the issue, whatever it might be, consider alternatives to 
whatever that issue might be, and vote our beliefs, what our 
constituents believe, in a way that is final, binding, and free from 
doubt or ambiguity.
  I recognize that amending the Constitution is not something to be 
taken lightly. Our Constitution is rightfully the envy of the world for 
it establishes firm and lasting rules for our Federal Government and 
our State governments and gives the people rights that cannot be taken 
away. We have been studied by historians and scholars, we have been 
analyzed as a country, and everyone agrees the reason we have had our 
lasting legacy of freedom is because of our Constitution.
  We cannot change it on a whim, that is for sure, and we cannot change 
it in

[[Page 4507]]

the heat of battle or in a passing moment of passion, but in order to 
be lasting, while still remaining just, it must be flexible to change 
with changing times. That is what the Constitution is all about. We 
should, in general, only amend it in response to a national crisis that 
cannot be resolved any other way.
  I believe we are attempting to resolve this campaign crisis. I say to 
the Presiding Officer and all those within the sound of my voice that 
we do have a crisis. When you have a State the size of the State of 
Nevada, and in 1998 two candidates, equally financed, spent over $20 
million in the State of Nevada--that is a crisis.
  I repeat, Mr. President, what I have said on this floor before. My 
friend and colleague, the other Senator from the State of Nevada, and I 
were involved in a bitterly contested race in 1998, a race in which we 
both spent about 4 million of hard dollars, campaign dollars. We spent 
$8 million between us. Then our State parties spent another $6 million 
each, or $12 million between them, on issue ads. That is $20 million 
total. These State party issue ads were all negative against my 
opponent and all negative against me. I do not think they did anything 
to better the body politic. They certainly did nothing to better 
people's feelings about who I think were two good people running for 
office.
  That was not the end of it. Then we had independent expenditures 
coming in: the National Rifle Association, the League of Conservation 
Voters. They would have ads running against me; people who believed in 
me would have ads running against my opponent. I have no idea how much 
money these outside groups spent, but probably another $2 million to $3 
million.
  The State of Nevada at that time had less than 2 million people. That 
is too much. Something is wrong with the system. If there were ever a 
national crisis, something pressing on a national scope, it is this. 
Two-thirds of all voters do not even bother going to the polls. These 
people should be voting.
  My wife and I have a home in Nevada. We also have a home here in 
Washington. We moved from a home where we raised our children to a 
smaller place, a condo. Somebody doing some work there boasted to my 
wife that he did not vote. It was his way of protesting. Protesting 
what? I guess the system that he thinks does not meet his expectations. 
I met the man. He is a very nice man. It is too bad, but I think a lot 
of these negative ads have turned off people like him.
  There is a national crisis. We should resolve it by amending our 
Constitution. Make no mistake, we are experiencing, I repeat, a 
national crisis, a crisis of confidence. The American people have lost 
trust in their government. Two thirds of the voters do not bother going 
to the polls. We need to do something about this.
  The American people have lost trust in us. That is too bad. People on 
that side of the aisle, 50 Republicans, and where I stand, 50 
Democrats--these are good people on both sides of the aisle, people who 
you can trust on a handshake; we do not need a written contract, we do 
not even need a handshake. All we need is someone saying what they are 
going to do, because they are good and trustworthy people.
  What is going on in the campaign process is hurting us, hurting the 
body politic, hurting our country, hurting the State of Nevada. Because 
the public does not see us as trustworthy. We need to do something 
about it.
  I appreciate the Senator from South Carolina, who has spent a 
lifetime doing things that are right. In South Carolina, he recognized 
the evils of segregation a long time ago and as a young Governor spoke 
out against it. He realized the imbalance of segregated schools, and he 
participated in the Brown v. Board of Education brief writing. Fritz 
Hollings from South Carolina is a fine man. I could go on for a long 
period of time about what a fine man he is and what he has done to 
better the State of South Carolina and our country. He is an example of 
why people should feel good about their Government because, even though 
there are not many people who have the experience and the background of 
Fritz Hollings, there are good people in this body.
  I admire Senator Hollings for offering this constitutional amendment. 
He has mounted this effort on a number of occasions. He hasn't gotten a 
two-thirds vote--that is too bad--and I do not think he will get two-
thirds votes this afternoon, and that is a shame.
  When Americans do not trust their elected officials, when they do not 
think they have their best interests at heart, that is a crisis. When 
average Americans think they are shut out of the system because they 
cannot afford to make campaign contributions--that is a crisis.
  I used to have fundraising events where I raised money $5, $10, $20 
an effort. People would give money in small amounts, and it would add 
up. When I was elected Lieutenant Governor in the State of Nevada in 
1970, I had as much money as anybody running for Lieutenant Governor; I 
won; I spent $75,000. That was slightly different from 1998 spending--
over $10 million.
  We need to do something. Average Americans should believe they can 
participate in the system. That is why I admire my friend from 
Minnesota, who offered an amendment that says in the State of 
Minnesota, in the States of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South 
Carolina, if the State wants to implement some type of matching funds 
system or do something else in the political process as far as money is 
concerned, let them do it; it should be up to them. Unfortunately, we 
voted that down.
  We need a constitutional amendment. I believe the system is broken. I 
know Senators McCain and Feingold are doing the best they can to fix 
it. I support them in their efforts. If we pass the bill the way it is, 
and it still has a lot of problems, then there are things we will have 
to come back and fix. But if we don't take care of McCain-Feingold 
here, we will not be able to come back and debate it for another few 
Congresses, years from now.
  No matter what we do in McCain-Feingold, we need to make sure the 
Buckley case is overturned so we can fix the many parts of the system 
that are simply broken. We need to pass the amendment that will be 
offered this afternoon. It is the first step in being able to even talk 
about reform.
  I remind my colleagues of an important point. Let's do our duty and 
send the amendment on to the States. It takes two-thirds of the States 
to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. Let's at least give them a 
chance to decide. Give Senator Hollings what he needs; that is, a two-
thirds vote out of this body.
  The American people believe we are taking advantage of a broken and 
corrupt system to keep ourselves in power. In my personal opinion, the 
``millionaire'' amendment that passed last week was just that; it was 
more legislation to take care of us. In my opinion, the ``millionaire'' 
amendment was a guise to help incumbents.
  For example, under the amendment that passed last week, if I decide 
to run for reelection in 2004, say I start to campaign with $3 million 
in the bank, money donated by ordinary people. As I indicated, since we 
don't go out and raise money at $20 a whack anymore, we have to raise 
hundreds and thousands of dollars, and with soft money it is tens of 
thousands of dollars. Say I have hard money in the bank amounting to $3 
million and soft money is no longer allowed. That would be a miracle, 
but say that is the case. Under the amendment that passed, some poor 
guy or woman who runs against me--I don't mean ``poor'' in the sense of 
not having anything--say they mortgage their home, and take a loan out 
someplace, and spend their own money. I would be able to increase my 
fundraising limits because they mortgaged their home. This is what the 
millionaire amendment does. It has nothing to do with millionaires. It 
has everything to do with protecting us. It is an incumbent advantage 
measure in this underlying bill. I believe that was not the right way 
to go.
  I hope the efforts of my friend from South Carolina bear fruit. I 
believe what he is doing is the right thing to

[[Page 4508]]

do. In the court's 5-4 decision in Buckley v. Valeo; five justices 
voted for, four against it. We have to pass a law, as we do many times, 
to correct what five members of the Supreme Court have done. They are 
the Supreme Court, and they, in effect, invite us to change what we 
don't like about what they have done. I accept that invitation.
  I invite my colleagues to change the Constitution and overturn 
Buckley v. Valeo, so we can do what this country needs us to do. So 
that we can look at what happens with the campaign finance system and 
be able to fix a little bit here, fix a little bit there, and not have 
to go through this unwieldy procedure of debating whether it is 
constitutional, unconstitutional, a first amendment problem, or not a 
first amendment problem.
  I think we should do something to restore the confidence of the 
people, to let them become more involved in the process. I think 
passing this amendment is a step in the right direction.
  I have spoken for 25 minutes, I say to my friend from South Carolina, 
extolling the virtues of this constitutional amendment. I have not only 
extolled the virtues of the constitutional amendment but I have 
extolled your virtues.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You have gone too far now.
  I thank the distinguished Senator, but the Senator from Nevada has 
gone a little far. I want him to be believed about this constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I hope I am believed about this. The Senator is doing the 
right thing. We have a constitutional crisis in this country created by 
Buckley v. Valeo, and we should change it. We should not have to go 
through this process we have been working through all last week and 
this week: Is this constitutional? Is that provision constitutional? 
Are we violating the first amendment?
  I think this constitutional amendment should get a two-thirds vote. 
If people don't like McCain-Feingold, they still should vote yes. If 
they like it, they still should vote yes. I am a proud sponsor of the 
Senator's amendment. I can't express publicly enough how much I admire 
and appreciate the work of the Senator on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Nevada. He is more than gracious to me personally. It is reciprocated 
because there is no one I admire more in the Senate. I have watched him 
over the years. He is so conscientious. And what is wrong this minute: 
We really are not conscientious about our duties and responsibilities 
in the Senate.
  I will mention the no-no word, ``corruption,'' and I do so very 
sincerely because the system has become corrupted.
  Now the distinguished Presiding Officer never had a part in this, but 
I can say the rest of the Members have, except the newcomers. That is 
the best way to put it.
  Welcome to the $7 million club. That is the average cost of the last 
campaign in order to become a Senator. Unless you have $7 million by 
the time of the next election, you are not going to be able to keep the 
job. Therein is the corruption. Our effort, our determination, our 
endeavor, is to keep the job rather than doing the job. That is why we 
don't have anybody here but us chickens. This Chamber is intentionally 
empty. Why? Because we are all out trying to get that $7 million in 
order to continue to serve. Mr. President, that's nearly $1.2 million a 
year, each year, for 6 years. That's more than $3,000 every day 
including Sundays and Christmas Day. I am a little behind this morning 
because I have not collected $3,000. In fact, I am behind this past 
week because I didn't get my $22,000. And others believe they are 
behind. So the whole system now of considering the people's problems 
and their business is corrupted.
  I was here back in 1966 and early on in the war in Vietnam. It amused 
me the other day when they said we finally had some debate going on in 
the Senate.
  The reason we have a debate is because this is the first subject we 
know anything about. All the rest of it is canned speeches that the 
staff gives you, and you come out and you talk about Kosovo, you talk 
about the defense budget, or you talk about the environment, and you 
read scientific statements and everything--but we know about money. Oh 
boy, do we know.
  It is 2 o'clock.

                          ____________________