[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4585-4606]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 27, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill 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.
       Hagel amendment No. 146, to provide meaningful campaign 
     finance reform through requiring better reporting, decreasing 
     the role of soft money, and increasing individual 
     contribution limits.


                           Amendment No. 146

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the Hagel amendment No. 146. The 
Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the remaining time on the proponent 
side of the Hagel amendment is how much?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eighty minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I expect Senator Hagel to be here momentarily. I yield 
myself 5 minutes of the Hagel proponent time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I never thought I would be putting a 
Richard Cohen column in the Congressional Record for any purpose on any 
issue, and certainly not on campaign finance reform. But I think this 
liberal columnist of the Washington Post must have had an epiphany. His 
column this morning I think is noteworthy, and I want to read a couple 
parts of it before putting it in the Record.
  Richard Cohen said this morning in the Washington Post with regard to 
the underlying bill that it would do damage to the first amendment. He 
said:

       There is no getting around that. The AFL-CIO is right about 
     it. The American Civil Liberties Union is right too. Some 
     senators who support McCain-Feingold do not quibble with that 
     assessment; they say only that no bill is perfect. . . .

  Further in the article, Cohen says:

       The trouble is that the lobbyists on K Street will 
     ultimately figure out a way around any campaign finance 
     reform. This is virtually a physical law in Washington, like 
     water seeking its own level. It happened following the 
     Watergate reforms, and it will happen this time, too.
       And so when that happens we will be left with nothing much 
     in the way of reform. But we will be left with a bit less 
     free speech. Specifically, we will be left with severe 
     restrictions on so-called issue advocacy. Sometimes these 
     efforts are scurrilous and underhanded: Remember the scuzzy 
     attack by friends of George Bush on John McCain's record on 
     cancer research? But sometimes such attacks are valuable 
     additions to the political debate. However you judge them, 
     they are speech by a different name, and the First Amendment 
     protects them all.

  He goes on to say:

       Still, Congress has no business enacting a law--any law--
     that contains provisions it knows will not pass 
     constitutional muster. . . .
       So there is a great desire to do something--almost 
     anything, it seems, to convince the public that not all 
     Washington is for sale. Much of the Washington press corps, 
     symbiotically tied to government for its sense of importance, 
     also cries out for reform. But this particular reform comes 
     at a steep price, even the criminalization of what heretofore 
     was free speech.
       No doubt the power and wealth of special interests pose a 
     problem for the political system. But worse than the ugly 
     cacophony of a last-minute smear campaign is the chill of any 
     government-imposed silence. That's not reform. It's 
     corruption by a different name.

  I ask unanimous consent that the Richard Cohen column be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 27, 2001]

                       . . . Preserve Free Speech

                           (By Richard Cohen)

       To tell the truth, I had no intention of ever writing about 
     campaign finance reform, as in

[[Page 4586]]

     the McCain-Feingold bill. It is a complicated matter, clotted 
     with arcane terms like ``soft money,'' ``hard money'' and 
     now--and God help us--``non-severability.'' This is the sort 
     of mind-numbing issue that I felt could be better handled by 
     a panel of experts on the Jim Lehrer show--people with three 
     names, like Doris Kearns Goodwin.
       But an unaccountable sense of professional obligation got 
     the better of me. I have done my reading, done my 
     interviewing, consulted some very wise people and asked 
     myself one basic question: What is it that I hold most dear 
     in American public life? The answer, as always: the First 
     Amendment.
       Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of those wise men I 
     consulted, tried to make me see matters differently. He 
     essentially stated his case in an eloquent speech on the 
     floor of the Senate, pleading for campaign finance reform as 
     a way to restore the people's confidence in the political 
     system--to make us all feel that the votes of our 
     representatives are not for sale.
       Oddly enough, it was just that quality--a restoration of 
     faith or idealism--that attracted me to Sen. John McCain's 
     presidential campaign. Here was a candidate who in words, 
     deeds and something undefinable had many convinced that good 
     people could do good in government, and that the power of 
     money had to be met by the power of ideas. McCain deserves 
     all the credit he can get for putting the issue before the 
     public.
       But his bill would do damage to the First Amendment. There 
     is not getting around that. The AFL-CIO is right about it. 
     The American Civil Liberties Union is right too. Some 
     Senators who support McCain-Feingold do not quibble with that 
     assessment; they say only that no bill is perfect and no 
     constitutional right is absolute. In this case, they say, we 
     will have to give up some free speech rights to gain some 
     control over a very messy and sometimes corrupt campaign 
     finance system.
       The trouble is that the lobbyists of K Street will 
     ultimately figure out a way around any campaign finance 
     reform. This is virtually a physical law in Washington, like 
     water seeking its own level. It happened following the 
     Watergate reforms, and it will happen this time, too.
       And so when that happens we will be left with nothing much 
     in the way of reform. But we will be left with a bit less 
     free speech. Specifically, we will be left with severe 
     restrictions on so-called issue advocacy. Sometimes these 
     efforts are scurrilous and underhanded: Remember the scuzzy 
     attack by friends of George Bush on John McCain's record on 
     cancer research? But sometimes such attacks are valuable 
     additions to our political debate. However you judge them, 
     they are speech by a different name, and the First Amendment 
     protects them all.
       McCain-Feingold has various restrictions on issue advocacy. 
     I will not bore you with the details. But those details are 
     what so worries the AFL-CIO, the ACLU and--if they are to be 
     believed--some of the GOP opponents of the bill in the 
     Senate.
       Probably, the courts will toss these provisions--that's why 
     non-severability is so important. (Non-severability means 
     that none of the law will take effect if any part of it is 
     ruled unconstitutional.) McCain calls non-severability 
     ``French for `kill campaign finance reform,' '' and 
     undoubtedly he is right. Still, Congress has no business 
     enacting a law--any law--that contains provisions it knows 
     will not pass constitutional muster.
       But Congress is feeling real sorry for itself. Many of its 
     members work long and hard and don't make anything like the 
     money you can get just for failing at a big corporate job. On 
     talk radio, they're denounced by intellectually corrupt 
     personalities who make much more money, work many fewer hours 
     and talk about Congress as if it were entirely on the take.
       So there is a great desire to do something--almost 
     anything, it seems, to convince the public that not all 
     Washington is for sale. Much of the Washington press corps, 
     symbiotically tied to government for its sense of importance, 
     also cried out for reform. But this particular reform comes 
     at a steep price, even the criminalization of what heretofore 
     was free speech.
       No doubt the power and wealth of special interests post a 
     problem for the political system. But worse than the ugly 
     cacophony of a last-minute smear campaign is the chill of any 
     government-imposed silence. That's not reform. It's 
     corruption by a different name.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I also noted with interest David Broder's column this 
morning. Broder can best be described as something of a moderate on the 
campaign finance issue. He has been at several different places over 
the years. He makes this point about raising the hard money limit.
  Much has changed in America since 1974, the year that Richard Nixon 
was forced to resign from the Presidency. Since then, we have had six 
other Presidents, the arrival of the Internet, and enough inflation to 
make the 1974 dollar worth 35 cents. That debate will, of course, occur 
during the course of the Hagel amendment.
  Broder goes on to point out:

       Twenty-six years ago, Congress said that contributions 
     below $1,000 were free of that taint. Is there something 
     magical about that figure, or could it be bumped up to $2,000 
     or even $3,000 in order to finance robust campaigns without 
     forcing candidates to spend as much time organizing 
     fundraisers or dialing for dollars as they do in the current 
     money chase?

  Further in the article:

       Democrats and liberal interest groups claim that raising 
     the $1,000 limit would benefit only a few wealthy givers. 
     Only one-tenth of one percent of adult Americans made a 
     political contribution of $1,000 in the last cycle. Of 
     course, politics would be healthier if more Americans 
     contributed something, but only a small minority now check 
     their returns to divert $3 of their taxes to the presidential 
     campaign fund--which would cost them nothing.

  All this does is reflect a basic lack of interest in politics on the 
part of the Americans, which is not something we applaud, but it is 
certainly understandable.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent David Broder's column be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 27, 2001]

                         Raise the Limit . . .

                          (By David S. Broder)

       Much has changed in America since 1974, the year that 
     Richard Nixon was forced to resign from the presidency. Since 
     then, we have had six other presidents, the arrival of the 
     Internet and enough inflation to make the 1974 dollar worth 
     about 35 cents.
       This week the Senate faces the question of whether a 
     campaign contribution limit of $1,000 should be adjusted 
     upward for the first time since it was written into law in 
     1974. Amazingly enough, there are people inside and outside 
     Congress who would jeopardize the passage of meaningful 
     campaign finance legislation in order to preserve that $1,000 
     limit.
       The Senate clearly has enough votes in sight to pass the 
     McCain-Feingold bill, whose central provision would ban 
     unlimited ``soft-money'' contributions to political parties 
     from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals. These 
     contributions, which can run from $100,000 upward and often 
     are extorted by persistent pressure from candidates and 
     officeholders, are rightly seen as potential sources of 
     political corruption.
       But before McCain-Feingold comes to an up-or-down vote, 
     senators will confront the question of lifting the $1,000 
     limit on individual contributions to federal candidates. That 
     ``hard money'' limit applies to regulated contributions that 
     the candidates can use to buy ads or pay for other campaign 
     costs. Raising the hard-money limit will offset some of the 
     revenue lost to the parties if the six-figure soft money is 
     banned.
       Common sense says--and the Supreme Court has held--that 
     contribution limits are justified by the public interest in 
     preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. 
     Twenty-six years ago, Congress said that contributions below 
     $1,000 were free of that taint. Is there something magical 
     about that figure, or could it be bumped up to $2,000 or even 
     $3,000 in order to finance robust campaigns without forcing 
     candidates to spend as much time organizing fundraisers or 
     dialing for dollars as they do in the current money chase?
       Some Democrats and liberal interest groups, avowedly 
     champions of reform, are finding creative rationalizations 
     for opposing an increase in the hard-money contribution 
     limit. Notable among them is Sen. Tom Daschle of South 
     Dakota, the Democratic leader, who has been warning that if 
     the $1,000 limit is raised (or raised by an unspecified ``too 
     much'') he and others will have to reconsider their support 
     for the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban.
       It may be sheer coincidence that Democrats caught up to 
     Republicans in the past election in the volume of soft-money 
     contributions, while Republicans actually increased their 
     hard-money lead, collecting $447 million to the Democrats' 
     $270 million. Republicans have more contributors, especially 
     small donors, thanks to their well-established direct-mail 
     solicitations, while Democrats have failed to cultivate a 
     similar mass base.
       Democrats and liberal interest groups claim that raising 
     the $1,000 limit would benefit only a few wealthy givers. 
     Only one-tenth of one percent of adult Americans made a 
     political contribution of $1,000 in the last cycle. Of 
     course, politics would be healthier if more Americans 
     contributed something, but only a small minority now check 
     their returns to divert $3 of their taxes to the presidential 
     campaign fund--which would cost them nothing.
       The reality is that campaigns are going to be funded by 
     relatively few people, but the notion that the $2,000 
     contributor of today is more corrupting than the $1,000 
     contributor of 1974 is nonsense.
       The second argument is that raising the contribution limit 
     is bad because the goal

[[Page 4587]]

     should be to reduce the amount spent on campaigns. Why? 
     Political communication is expensive in mass-media America. 
     Candidates are competing not only with each other but with 
     all the commercial products and services vying for viewers' 
     attention with their own ads and promotions. Contributions of 
     reasonable size that help candidates get their messages out 
     are good for democracy, not a threat.
       McCain and Feingold are seeking to negotiate what a 
     ``reasonable'' increase in individual limits would be. Such 
     an amendment would strengthen their bill, not damage it, and 
     certainly should not provide an excuse for Daschle or other 
     Democrats to abandon it.
       Political journalism lost a notable figure last week with 
     the death of Rowland Evans, for many years the co-author with 
     Robert Novak of one of the most influential columns in this 
     country. Like his partner and many others of us, Evans had 
     his biases, but his hallmark was the doggedness of his 
     reporting. A patrician by birth, he brought a touch of class 
     to his work, and he will be missed.

  Mr. McCONNELL. It is noteworthy that nothing in the bill is going to 
quiet the votes of people with great wealth. Here is a full page ad 
today, in the Washington Post, paid for by a gazillionaire named Jerome 
Kohlberg who firmly believes everybody's money in politics is tainted 
except his. His money, of course, is pure. This is the same individual 
who spent $\1/2\ million in Kentucky in 1998 trying to defeat our 
colleague, Jim Bunning, and I have defended his right, obviously, over 
the years to do what he wants to do with his money.
  It further points out that no matter what we do in the Senate, people 
of great wealth are still going to have influence. You are not going to 
be able to squeeze that out of the system. The Constitution doesn't 
allow it. This is a classic example of how big money is financing the 
reform side in this debate, underwriting Common Cause, underwriting 
ads.
  Essentially, great people of great wealth are paying for the reform 
campaign. They are free to do that. I defend their right to do it, but 
I think it is noteworthy.
  I ask a reduced version of this ad in today's Washington Post be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           The Time Has Come

       After two rejections by the Senate of a meaningful Campaign 
     Finance Reform Bill it is now time for the Congress to act.
       This is not a Democrat or Republican problem. The two 
     operative parties of government now are ``those who give'' 
     and ``those who take,'' coupled with the exorbitant amounts 
     of money involved. This collaboration calls into question the 
     legitimacy of our elections and of the candidates in pursuit 
     of office.
       Citizen voters are increasingly making it evident that they 
     are disgusted with the process, and questioning the integrity 
     of a system that flies in the face of equal representation. 
     They feel more certain with each election cycle that they are 
     getting a President or Congress mortgaged with ``due bills'' 
     that must be repaid by legislative favors.
       It is a system that is inimical to our democratic ideals. 
     One that convinces citizens that their government serves 
     powerful organizations and individuals to their detriment. It 
     is this perception that any new legislation must finally 
     address.
       The time has come for the Congress to demonstrate the 
     statesmanship that the people of our country expect and 
     deserve.--Jerome Kohlberg.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I see Senator Hagel is here and fully capable of 
controlling his time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to my colleague 
from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, a week ago yesterday Senator Hagel, our 
colleague from Nebraska, took the floor of the Senate and with straight 
talk said some things that made a great deal of sense. They bear 
repeating at this point in this debate.
  First, he said it was time for this debate. Our current campaign 
finance laws make absolutely no sense. That is true. Since the 
proponents are bound and determined to take up their version of what I 
call ``alleged reform,'' before we get to the business of tax relief, 
the energy crisis, foreign policy, and national security concerns, not 
to mention a host of other pressing issues, it is time, certainly, to 
dispense with this issue. However, in so doing, let me remind my 
colleagues of our first obligation. That is to do no harm.
  Senator Hagel warned we must be careful not to abridge the rights of 
Americans to participate in our political system and have their voices 
heard. He understood and underscored the paramount importance of the 
first amendment to the Constitution, that being the freedom of speech.
  Second, the Senator from Nebraska then emphasized we should not 
weaken our political parties or other important institutions within our 
American system. He stressed we should encourage greater participation, 
not less.
  I want my colleagues and all listening to listen to Senator Hagel.

       I start from the fundamental premise that the problem in 
     the system is not the political party; the problem is not the 
     candidate's campaign; the problem is the unaccountable, 
     unlimited outside moneys and influence that flows into the 
     system where there is either little or no disclosure. That is 
     the core of the issue.

  On that, Senator Hagel was right as rain on a spring day in Nebraska.
  He went on to say political parties encourage participation, they 
promote participation, and they are about participation. They educate 
the public and their activities are open, accountable and disclosed. 
And, then he nailed the issue when he said:
  ``Any reform that weakens the parties will weaken the system, lead to 
a less accountable system and a system less responsive to and 
accessible by the American people.
  ``Why,'' Senator Hagel asked, ``Why do we want to ban soft money to 
political parties--that funding which is now accountable and 
reportable? This ban would weaken the parties and put more money and 
control in the hands of wealthy individuals and independent groups 
accountable to no one.''
  It makes sense to me, Senator.
  Finally, Senator Hagel warned the obvious. In this regard, I simply 
do not understand why Members of this body and the proponents of 
alleged reform--and all of the twittering media bluebirds sitting on 
the reform windowsill--are so disingenuous with the obvious. It seems 
to me either they are blinded by their own political or personal 
prejudice or they just don't get it or they just don't want to get it.
  Senator Hagel warned last week:

       When you take away power from one group, it will expand 
     power for another. I do not believe that our problems lie 
     with candidates for public office and their campaigns. I 
     believe the greatest threat to our political system today is 
     from those who operate outside the boundaries of openness and 
     accountability.

  Three cheers for Chuck Hagel. He has shined the light of truth into 
the muddle of reform.
  My colleagues, at the very heart of today's campaign law tortured 
problems are two simple realities that cannot be changed by any 
legislative cleverness or strongly held prejudice.
  First, private money is a fact of life in politics. If you push it 
out of one part of the system it re-enters somewhere else within the 
shadows of or outside the law. Its like prohibition but last time 
around it was prohibition with temples, bedrooms, and labor union 
payoffs.
  More to the point with members of this body deciding every session 
some two trillion dollars worth of decisions that affect the daily 
lives and pocketbooks of every American, there is no way anyone can or 
should limit individual citizens or interest groups of all persuasions 
from using private money, their money, to have their say, to protect 
their interests, to become partners in government--unless of course you 
prefer a totalitarian government.
  Second, money spent to communicate with voters cannot be regulated 
without impinging on the very core of the first amendment, which was 
written as a safeguard and a protection of political discourse.
  We got into this mess by defying both of these principles with very 
predictable results. Lets see now, here is a reform, let us place 
limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates.
  Whoops, those who want to have their say now run ads that are called 
issue advocacy, and we are running at a full gallop in that pasture--
can't stop that expression of free speech; it is constitutionally 
protected, or at least it

[[Page 4588]]

was until yesterday in Senator Wellstone's amendment. When my 
colleagues placed tight limits on contributions to candidates and 
called that reform, we went down the same trail again. Whoops, those 
who want to have their say in a democracy began giving to political 
parties with unregulated soft money.
  So now we have hard regulated disclosed and soft unregulated 
disclosed, and express advocacy and issue advocacy, and they are all 
wrapped up in a legalistic mumbo-jumbo that defies understanding or 
enforcement and has given reform and the Federal Election Commission a 
bad name.
  My friends, this money-regulating scheme is bankrupt. Yet here we are 
again with the same medicine show, same horse doctor, and the same old 
medicine. But this time around we are to ban soft money given to 
political parties, and then to really make sure that works, we are 
going to restrict independent issue advocacy. We have solved the 
problem. Right? Wrong.
  Whoops, instead of less money, we will have more--lots and lots of 
money. Pass McCain-Feingold, or the bill that is the underlying bill 
now, as amended, and interest groups will bypass the parties and 
conduct their own campaigns. Why give to individual candidates or their 
political party when you can run your own independent advocacy 
campaign, especially given the amounts of money these organizations 
have at their disposal? We are not talking thousands here, folks. We 
are talking millions. Talk about a negative ad Scud missile attack in 
2002. I will tell you what. With this bill, there will be no party 
missile shield for those candidates trying to weather the storm.
  This entire business reminds me of the times I would take my three 
children to a well-known fast-food pizza and entertainment center; I 
think it is called Chuck E. Cheese's. As I recall, for the price of one 
ticket, my kids would run amok from one game to the next, the favorite 
being called Whackamole, where kids would smack mole-like creatures 
whose heads popped out of dozens of mole holes. Smack one down, and 
another two would suddenly jump up. Well, campaign reform is a lot like 
Whackamole.
  Well, not to worry now; we will fix that. Let's just add on another 
layer of reform. We will just limit ads that mention candidates within 
60 days of an election. Now, last week, that ban was limited to 
corporations and unions and by groups they support if the ad was run on 
television and radio--not any mention of newspapers, posters, or 
billboards, just radio and television. Yesterday, in a fit of 
consistent unconstitutionality, we added another layer, making the ban 
apply to all groups. Thus, now the bill limits free expression.
  Good grief, Mr. President. How in the world can we say we will 
improve the integrity of any political system by letting politicians 
restrict political speech? Can you imagine how everybody concerned will 
try to game the speech police?
  By the way, there is an exemption for journalists. I used to be a 
journalist. Have we stopped to figure out who and what is a journalist 
and how we will get around that loophole? That is another story 
altogether. Hello, ACLU. How many court cases, indeed?
  What a deal. Pass this so-called reform and candidates will spend 
more time asking for contributions, the very thing they want to avoid, 
forced by the current low limits to beg every day. Our political 
parties will lose their main source of funds or become hollow shells, 
and if the speech controls are upheld, why, our political discussion 
will be both chilled and contorted. Of course, the real campaigns would 
be run by the special interests with independent expenditures rather 
than by the candidates and the parties.
  My colleagues, we have a choice. We can continue to go down this road 
of one party basically trying to unilaterally disarm the other and 
destroying our two-party system and the first amendment in the process 
or we can really support something that truly deals with the real 
problems within our campaign finance laws, and that ``something'' is 
the legislation offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Hagel.
  His reform does three basic things:
  First, he protects the first amendment to the Constitution and calls 
for full and immediate disclosure and identity.
  Second, he addresses the basic reason that our campaign funds are 
going around, under, and over the public disclosure table today, the 
antiquated limit on the amount of contributions that citizens may give 
to candidates unchanged over two decades.
  Third, he proposes a limit on soft money that is of concern to me, 
but at least it is semi-reasonable. I will accept the cap given the 
full disclosure and the increase of the amount of money that our 
individual citizens could and should be giving to candidates.
  Finally, if we are truly serious about getting a reform bill passed, 
if we want a bill signed by the President as opposed to an issue, it 
might be a good idea to see if the base bill amended by Senator Hagel 
would fit that description.
  President Bush listed six reform principles:
  First, protect the rights of individuals to participate in democracy 
by updating the limits on individual giving to candidates and parties 
and protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue 
advocacy. Hagel passes; the underlying bill, as amended to date, does 
not.
  Second, the President said we should maintain strong political 
parties. Hagel passes that test; the underlying bill without Hagel does 
not.
  Third, the President said we should ban the corporate and union soft 
money. I don't buy that, but under Senator Hagel, he does limit soft 
money.
  Fourth, the President said we should eliminate involuntary 
contributions. Hagel doesn't deal with that issue. The underlying bill 
as amended or, to be more accurate, as not amended, does not meet this 
criterion.
  Fifth, require full and prompt disclosure. The Hagel bill meets this 
test.
  Sixth, to promote a fair, balanced, and constitutional approach. 
Here, the President supports including a nonseverability provision, so 
if any provision of the bill is found unconstitutional, the entire bill 
is sent back to Congress for further deliberation.
  Well, we still have that issue before us. However, the bottom line is 
that if you want a campaign reform measure that President Bush will 
sign, you should support the measure I have cosponsored with Senator 
Hagel.
  There is one other thing. Too many times, common sense is an uncommon 
virtue in this body. Here we have a paradox of enormous irony. 
Legislation that is unconstitutional, that endangers free speech, that 
advantages independent special interests and the wealthy and that will 
cripple the two-party system and individual participation has been 
labeled and bookshelved by many of the hangers-on within the national 
media and the special interests that are favored in the legislation as 
being ``reform.'' I just heard on national television before driving to 
work that reform was being endangered. What is endangering reform, on 
the other hand, is these same folks branding the effort by my colleague 
as a poison pill.
  Well, colleagues and those in the media, all that glitters is not 
gold. All that lurks under the banner of reform is not reform. There 
are a lot of cacti in this world; we just don't have to sit on every 
one of them. McCain-Feingold, the current bill, is another ride into a 
box canyon. On the other hand, legislation I have cosponsored with 
Chuck Hagel is a clear, cold drink of common sense, a good thing to 
have on any reform trail ride.
  I salute you, sir, and yield the floor.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am overwhelmed with my colleague from 
Kansas. I note that the senior Senator from Arizona was taking note, 
making reference to all of his hangers-on friends.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a 10-second comment?
  Mr. HAGEL. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. As usual, the Senator from Kansas illuminated, 
enlightened, and entertained all at once, and I enjoyed it very much.

[[Page 4589]]


  Mr. HAGEL. If he passes the Senator's test, then we are making 
progress and we are grateful.
  The Senator from Wyoming is present. I understand he would like to 
make some comments. I ask Senator Thomas, how much time does he need?
  Mr. THOMAS. I think 10 minutes, if that is satisfactory.
  Mr. HAGEL. I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, following the 
remarks of the Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from New York be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hagel for the time and 
also thank Senator Hagel for the work he has put in on this bill. I 
supported this bill in the beginning, last year--I was an original 
cosponsor--because I think it deals with the issue that is before us, 
and deals with it in a way that is relatively simple, that we can 
understand, and does the things that, in the final analysis, we want to 
have happen.
  I have the notion that after spending all last week and another week 
this week on this whole matter of campaign reform, it is not very clear 
as to what has been done, what is being suggested, where we will be 
when it is over, which is the most important thing. What is it that we 
would like to have happen? I must confess, it has been very confused. 
That is why I supported the Hagel bill; it makes it rather clear that 
it does the things we want to do. It ends up providing an opportunity 
for more participation in the election process and for a constitutional 
limit, if there are some limits, and the strong parties which, of 
course, is the way we govern ourselves.
  First of all is the constitutional importance of free speech. That is 
the most important thing we have to protect. This country was founded 
on the principle that people could express themselves and express 
themselves in the political process and be able to participate in it.
  Kids ask often: How did you get to be in politics? I can tell you 
how. I got involved in issues. I got involved in agriculture, in 
talking about the process. It became very clear as I worked in the 
Wyoming Legislature that politics is the way we govern ourselves. The 
decisions by the people are made in the political process, are passed 
through the governmental process, and that is how it works. That is how 
I became involved. I think it is a way many people have become involved 
and, indeed, they need to be involved that way.
  The first amendment is based primarily on a premise that if free 
society is to flourish, there has to be unfettered access and 
willingness to participate. McCain-Feingold, I believe, has unintended 
consequences. It limits political expression, certainly specifically 30 
days before the primary and 60 days before the general election. We had 
some amendments about that yesterday. We need to be very careful about 
that in terms of our ability to participate and our ability to exercise 
that right of ours that is constitutional--free speech.
  The Supreme Court upholds laws which prevent ``the appearance of 
corruption,'' but surely that doesn't mean the Congress ought to ban 
the freedom of speech. In fact, in the Buckley case:

       Discussion of public issues and debate on the 
     qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of 
     the system of government established by our Constitution. The 
     First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such 
     political expression in order ``to assure the unfettered 
     interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and 
     social changes desired by the people.''

  That is what it is all about.
  State parties would be limited. My background and involvement as I 
moved through this process was being active in the State party. I was 
secretary of our State party. State parties are out there to encourage 
people to participate, to organize in counties, to bring county 
organizations and chairmen and young people into the party to represent 
the views they share. That is what parties are for. To limit the 
opportunity for those parties to do those things seems to me to be very 
difficult.
  Parties cannot, under this process, use already-regulated soft money 
for party building. I think that is wrong. McCain-Feingold, in my view, 
federalizes elections. We already allow for a mix of Federal and State 
funds to be used for basic participation. Parties would be able to 
assist challengers. We should not make it terribly advantageous to be 
an incumbent. There ought to be challengers so we can make changes. 
State parties do that.
  These are the issues that are very important and we need to preserve 
them and we need to understand them. We need to be clear about. It is 
my view that McCain-Feingold would decrease voter turnout, would 
decrease the interest in participation in elections. That is the 
strength of this country, for people to come together with different 
views and express those views in elections so the people, indeed, are 
represented. It would devastate the parties if McCain-Feingold were 
passed as it is proposed. It would devastate grassroots activity.
  Political involvement ought not be limited only to professionals or 
people who have expert legal advice on the intricacies of Federal 
legislation.
  I just came from a meeting with some folks who were talking about how 
difficult it is for trade associations to deal with people within their 
trade associations unless they get some kind of approval from the 
company and it can only last for 3 years and they can only do it in one 
company. Those are the kinds of restrictions that should not exist.
  Frankly, I get a little weary of the corruption idea all the time, as 
if everyone in this Chamber votes because of somebody providing money. 
In my view and in my experience, you go out and campaign and tell 
people what your philosophy is, you tell people where you are going to 
be on issues, and they vote either up or down to support you. The idea 
that every time there is a dollar out there you change your vote is 
ridiculous. I am offended by that idea, frankly. I do not think it is 
the way it really is. In any event, McCain-Feingold fails on a number 
of points. It presents constitutional roadblocks regarding speech and 
restricts State parties from energizing voters.
  The Hagel bill deals clearly with many things. It increases the 
opportunity for hard money, brings it up to date for inflation. No. 2, 
it provides a limit to soft money at a level that can be controllable. 
Most important, it provides for disclosure. It provides the opportunity 
for voters to see who is participating in the financial aspect of it. 
Then they can make their decisions.
  I think it is something that brings accountability to campaign 
finance. It is something the President will reform. I am very pleased 
to be a supporter of the Hagel bill. I urge my friends in the Senate to 
support it as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
senior Senator from New York is recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senator Hagel to deal with soft money, not by 
banning it, as the McCain-Feingold bill does, but by capping donations 
to national parties at $60,000 per year per individual. Worse still, 
not only does this amendment set an awfully high cap for soft money, it 
would not limit soft money when given to State parties, even when the 
obvious purpose is to influence Federal elections.
  Let me say right off the bat that I commend Senator Hagel for his 
effort in this area. He is sincerely concerned about the mess that our 
campaign finance system has become and has offered the solution he 
believes is the best one. His integrity and his sincerity in offering 
this amendment are unquestioned by just everybody in this Chamber.
  But in my judgment, and with all due respect to my friend from 
Nebraska, his amendment falls far, far short of what is needed to clean 
up our campaigns. This proposal is to reform what Swiss is to cheese: 
It just has too many holes. Enacting it would be worse than doing 
nothing, in my judgment, for the

[[Page 4590]]

simple reason that it would carry the stamp of reform and lead the 
public to expect a better system while failing to live up to the label.
  Should Hagel become law--which I hope it does not--people will say a 
year after: They tried it. They tried to do something and it failed. 
And you can't do anything.
  Their cynicism, their disillusionment with the system, will actually 
increase, despite the sincere effort of the Senator from Nebraska.
  The main problem with the amendment is how it treats soft money. 
Imagine that candidate Needbucks wants to run for the Senate. The 
election is 2 years away. He goes to his old friends, John and Jane 
Gotbucks, who have done quite well in the booming economy of the last 8 
years, and asks them to donate soft money to the party.
  Under the Hagel amendment, Mr. and Mrs. Gotbucks can give $240,000 in 
soft money--$60,000 limit per person, $240,000 per couple per cycle. 
Under McCain-Feingold, that would not be allowed.
  But that is not everything. Throw in the $300,000 in hard money that 
John and Jane can give under this amendment, and you know what they 
say: Pretty soon we are talking about real money. The total that a 
couple can give is $540,000 in hard and soft money to a candidate under 
the Hagel legislation.
  Mr. President, $540,000 a couple limits? That is reform? Give me a 
break. In fact, that is the kind of money that can't help but catch the 
gimlet eyes of our friend, candidate Needbucks, and his party.
  Let's suppose, in addition, that John and Jane Gotbucks happen to run 
a corporation. The Hagel amendment would allow their corporation, and 
all others like it, to give legitimate, regulated money to the parties 
for the first time since the horse was the dominant mode of 
transportation and women couldn't even vote. We are allowing corporate 
money back into the system after nearly 100 years when it was not 
allowed.
  Maybe it is instructive to remember how all this came about. In 1907 
Teddy Roosevelt was burned by revelations that Wall Street corporations 
had given millions to his 1904 campaign. Of course, one of his famous 
wealthy supporters, Henry Clay Frick, came to despise Roosevelt for his 
progressivism and commented, ``We bought the S.O.B. but he didn't stay 
bought.''
  But Teddy Roosevelt rose above the scandal and, as he so often did, 
blazed the trail of reform. He signed the Tillman Act, which outlawed 
corporate contributions, into law.
  And now, for the first time in a century, this amendment would take 
us back to the Gilded Age when corporate barons legally--legally--could 
give money directly to political parties.
  My friend from Nebraska may say his amendment isn't perfect but at 
least it keeps most of this corporate and union soft money out of the 
system. But even that modest claim really isn't accurate. Public 
Citizen has analyzed the $60,000 cap in the Hagel bill and determined 
that 58 percent of soft money given to the national parties in the 2000 
election cycle would be permitted under these caps.
  Even if this were pass-fail, 42 percent is an F. And we have not even 
reached the worst part of this amendment yet. Bad as it is to allow 
soft money in $120,000 increments rather than get rid of it, the 
amendment would do absolutely nothing to limit soft money flowing to 
the State parties.
  In short, the Hagel amendment is like taking one step forward and two 
steps back--a step forward in terms of some limits, two steps back in 
terms of corporate contributions and soft money to parties. One step 
forward, two steps back. My colleagues, we are not at a square dance; 
we are dealing with serious reform.
  The public is clamoring for us to do something. The Hagel bill is so 
watered down, has so many loopholes in it, it is like Swiss cheese 
that, again, you may as well vote for no reform at all, in my judgment.
  If you tell our friends, our givers, Mr. Gotbucks and his company, 
that they can only give the minuscule sum of $60,000 a year to the 
national parties but they can give unlimited amounts to State parties 
for use in Federal elections, what do you think their lawyers are going 
to tell them to do? And when State parties get that money, they will 
use it to run issue ads, to get out the vote, and do other things that 
clearly benefit Federal candidates, just as they do now.
  Let's not forget how this works.
  Just last year, as then-Governor Bush was gearing up his run for the 
nomination, he set up a joint victory fund with 20 State Republican 
parties. This fund raised $5 million for then-candidate Bush that was 
meant to be used in the general election. The fund took in soft money 
contributions ranging from $50,000 to $150,000 from wealthy individuals 
and their families. This scheme, clearly intended to legally get around 
the limits, would continue unabated and could actually increase under 
the amendment that my friend from Nebraska has proposed.
  In short, regulating soft money without dealing with the soft money 
that goes to State parties is like the person who drinks a Diet Coke 
with his double cheeseburger and fries: It does not quite get the job 
done.
  It isn't enough to say the States will regulate soft money on their 
own. Mr. President, 29 States allow unlimited PAC contributions to 
State parties, 27 States allow unlimited individual contributions to 
State parties, and 13 States allow unlimited corporate and union 
contributions to State parties. So the notion that States will take 
care of soft money at the State level just does not stand up. There is 
no evidence that they will.
  So then, if this amendment is so filled with holes, if it is, indeed, 
the original Swiss cheese amendment, why is it being proposed?
  Well, the proponents, including my good friend from Nebraska, say 
they are concerned that banning soft money will doom our parties and 
drive all of the money now sloshing around our campaign system into the 
hands of independent and unaccountable advocacy groups who will run ads 
and engage in other political activity.
  In the first place, there is a glaring inconsistency at the heart of 
this argument. On the one hand, opponents of McCain-Feingold--such as 
the Senator from Kentucky, who has led the fight against reform for 
many years--say they cannot support the bill because it treads on free 
speech. On the other hand, they say we do not dare enact the bill 
because then all of these outside groups will be using their first 
amendment rights in speaking out instead of the parties. And now on the 
third hand they say, well, we have always said regulating soft money is 
unconstitutional, but now we support capping soft money.
  That is like being a little bit pregnant. You either exalt the first 
amendment above everything else and say there should be no limits or 
you don't and you support real reform like my friends from Arizona and 
Wisconsin have propounded.
  As the New York Times put it this morning, my colleague from Kentucky 
``has flipped. He cannot now clothe himself in the Constitution in 
opposing real reform'' as long as he votes for the Hagel amendment.
  For my part, I agree with Justice Stevens, who said Buckley v. Valeo 
got it wrong. ``Money is property--it is not speech,'' he wrote in a 
decision last year.

       The right to use one's own money to hire gladiators, or to 
     fund speech by proxy, certainly merits significant 
     constitutional protection. These property rights, however, 
     are not entitled to the same protection as the right to say 
     what one pleases.

  The more important response to this amendment, however, is not to 
point out the proponents' contradictions on the first amendment but to 
chide them for greatly exaggerating the demise of our political 
parties.
  Soft money isn't the cure for what ails the parties; it is the 
disease. All of us in this business know the parties have become little 
more than conduits for big money donations by a privileged few. The 
parties do not have any say. They are simply mechanisms which people 
who want to give a lot of money go through to make it happen. If we

[[Page 4591]]

keep going down this road, we risk that parties will become empty 
shells. They are so busy channeling money in large amounts that they do 
not do the get out the vote and the party building and the educating 
that parties should do and did do until this soft money disease 
afflicted and corroded them, as it does our entire body politic.
  The reality is, banning soft money will be good for our political 
parties, not bad. Banning soft money will strengthen our parties by 
breaking their reliance on a handful of super-rich contributors and 
forcing them to build a wider base of small donors and grassroots 
supporters.
  Let me quote the former chairman of the Republican Party, William 
Brock:

       In truth, the parties were stronger and closer to their 
     roots before the advent of this loophole than they are today. 
     Far from reinvigorating the parties themselves, soft money 
     has simply strengthened certain specific candidates and the 
     few donors who make huge contributions, while distracting the 
     parties from traditional grassroots work.

  The fact is, the parties in this country got along just fine without 
soft money in the 1980s, before this form of funding exploded, to say 
nothing of their 200-year history before that.
  Is my friend from Nebraska saying the great two-party tradition in 
this country, which is one of the main causes of our political 
stability and the envy of the rest of the world, rests on the thin read 
of soft money contributions? I hope not. Let me tell the Senate, if 
that is true, then we are way too late in terms of strengthening the 
parties.
  Ultimately, the basic premise of Senator Hagel's argument, which is 
that the donors who now give soft money to the parties will simply 
shift it to existing independent groups, is also way off base. 
Corporations and unions won't be able to just run their own ads 
favoring a candidate in lieu of giving soft money or get 501(c)(4) 
groups to run the ads for them because the bill prohibits campaign ads 
by corporations and labor within 60 days of an election. As Charles 
Kolb, president of the Committee for Economic Development, a business 
group supporting reform, has said:

       We expect that most of the soft money from the business 
     community will simply dry up.

  Corporations that find it easy to give to a party are not going to 
set up their whole elaborate mechanism to try to get around reform. A 
few will; most won't.
  It is true that individuals will be able to make independent 
expenditures supporting campaigns, but how many of them will really do 
that? Writing a fat check to the party is vastly easier than trying to 
run an ad or organize voters. As Al Hunt wrote in the Wall Street 
Journal last week:

       The notion that Carl Lindner or Denise Rich is going to be 
     heavily into issue advocacy is comical.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield me an 
additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 3 additional minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. We all know that people such as Johnny Chung aren't 
giving for ideological reasons. They are giving because to them our 
Government works ``like a subway--you have to put in coins to open up 
the gate.''
  But, of course, at the end of the day there is nothing we can do to 
stop independent political spending by individuals. That is clearly 
protected by the first amendment. The important point is that after 
this bill passes, any individuals or outside groups who want to support 
Federal candidates won't be able to coordinate their expenditures with 
candidates. They will have to go at it alone, if they really want to, 
without the key information they need about strategy and timing that 
make an ad campaign effective. So let them do it. The wall against 
coordination will go a long way to keeping out special interest 
influence and is a vast improvement over the current system giving 
directly to the parties.
  Mr. President, I quote the words of someone who has invested a lot in 
this debate, someone who cares about reform, someone I greatly respect. 
Last year that person said:

       The American people see a political system controlled by 
     special interests and those able to pump millions of dollars, 
     much of it essentially unaccountable and defended by 
     technicality and nuance. As our citizens become demoralized 
     and detached because they feel they are powerless, they lower 
     their expectations and standards for Government and our 
     officeholders.

  I completely agree with that speaker whose name was Chuck Hagel. If 
we agree that pumping millions of unaccountable dollars into the system 
threatens public confidence, which is the lifeblood of any democracy, 
we have to do something serious about it. We cannot say we are 
reforming when a couple can give $540,000 through soft and hard money 
to a candidate. That is not reform. That will not, I am afraid, bolster 
people's confidence in the system.
  I am afraid the Hagel amendment is more words than action. While the 
system continues its long agonizing slide into greater and greater 
dependence on the most fortunate few, if we simply pass Hagel, we will 
do nothing to stop that slide. I urge defeat of the Hagel amendment and 
support of the original McCain-Feingold effort.
  Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. We 
have had some rivalries when it comes to the dairy industry. I 
appreciate the use of the Swiss cheese analog. As a Cheesehead from 
Wisconsin, that is the most persuasive thing he could possibly use.
  Senator Schumer has brought forth the absolutely basic point. First 
of all, under the Hagel amendment, corporate and union treasuries will 
be writing direct checks to the Federal parties, something we have 
never allowed.
  Secondly, every dime of soft money that is currently allowed can just 
come through the State parties back to the Federal parties. No reform.
  Third, when it comes to the limits that are raised, both soft and 
hard money under the Hagel amendment, any couple in America can give 
$540,000 every 2 years.
  Finally, under the Hagel amendment, there is no prohibition on 
officeholders and candidates from raising this kind of money.
  Those are four strikes against the bill, and you only need three.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Nebraska for the opportunity today to extend my full support for 
campaign finance reform. Again, I convey my sincere appreciation for 
the work of Senators McCain and Feingold and Senator Hagel, as well as 
all of my colleagues who are involved in this effort to reform the 
campaign finance system.
  As a veteran of four Statewide campaigns myself, and as a newly 
elected Senator fresh from the campaign trail, I believe, as many of my 
colleagues do, that the current campaign finance laws are, in a word, 
``defective.''
  Our country was founded on principles such as freedom and justice. As 
I see it, the present system for financing Federal campaigns undermines 
those very principles.
  I believe that in its present form the campaign finance system tends 
to benefit politicians who are already in office. Some folks call it 
incumbent insurance. I prefer to call it a problem. Thus, I 
wholeheartedly believe the time has come for meaningful campaign 
finance reform.
  There is an old adage we all know that goes: Don't fix it unless it 
is broken. Well, many aspects of our campaign finance system today are 
broken, and they do need fixing.
  Before us today we have several legislative remedies for this flawed 
system. Not one, though, as far as I am concerned, is a panacea for the 
maladies afflicting our current campaign finance laws, nor can they be. 
Both the McCain-Feingold bill and the Hagel bill

[[Page 4592]]

include provisions which I support. I am a cosponsor of Senator Hagel's 
legislation because I am particularly sympathetic to the bill's 
provision to limit soft money contributions rather than prohibit them.
  In an effort to pinpoint the culprit for the faults in the present 
campaign finance system, I believe soft money has become the scapegoat. 
As my friend from Louisiana pointed out last night, there is a popular 
misconception that the McCain-Feingold bill bans all soft money. This 
is not accurate. McCain-Feingold bans only soft money to the political 
parties.
  While I agree that unlimited soft money contributions raise important 
questions, I also believe that banning soft money to the parties would 
only be unproductive and ultimately ineffective. Chances are, if we 
succeed in blocking the flow of soft money from one direction, it will 
eventually be funneled to the candidates from another. Furthermore, 
some soft money contributions are used for valuable get-out-the-vote 
efforts and for the promotion of voter registration and party building, 
all very valuable efforts that promote our system.
  A more realistic approach in lieu of banning soft money would be to 
cap the contributions at $60,000, as prescribed by the Hagel bill. 
Thus, I favor the provision to limit soft money in Senator Hagel's 
bill. Also, I strongly support the provisions on disclosure outlined in 
McCain-Feingold, that are also included in the Hagel amendment. A lack 
of accountability within the current system is at the core of the 
problem. As a matter of fact, if we could enact substantive changes to 
disclosure laws and remove the facades which special interest groups 
hide behind, we, at the very least, will be heading in the right 
direction. This action to increase disclosure, combined with 
limitations on soft money contributions, will not only refine our 
current system, but will reform it.
  As an individual who spent the majority of the past year on the 
campaign trail, I have put a great deal of thought into what I believe 
is the right direction for campaign finance reform. My Senate race has 
made me all too familiar with the shortcomings of the current system. 
My campaign experience with one group in particular has bolstered my 
support for efforts to limit so-called issue ads. This organization 
funded by undisclosed contributors ran soft-money issue ads throughout 
my campaign criticizing my stance on one issue, which was unrelated and 
irrelevant to their purported cause.
  Unfortunately this is not the only example of issue-ad tactics I 
encountered during my most recent campaign. So it only follows that I 
am pleased with the Snowe-Jeffords provision, which addresses these so-
called issue ads funded by labor and corporations. This provision will 
hold labor and corporations more accountable for these ads by imposing 
strict broadcasting regulations and increasing disclosure requirements.
  I was very encouraged last night by the passage of Senator 
Wellstone's amendment, which expands the Snowe-Jeffords provision to 
also cover the ads run by special interest groups, whose sole purpose 
is to mislead voters. This leads me to my final point and the reason 
why I have come to the floor this morning. I want to express my strong 
support for this Hagel amendment we are currently debating. The passage 
of this amendment is crucial for the improvement of our campaign 
finance system. I commend Senator Hagel for introducing a measure that 
realistically addresses soft money contributions. Additionally, the 
Hagel amendment does not supersede the critical aspects of McCain-
Feingold--most notably the Snowe-Jeffords, and now Wellstone, issue-ad 
provisions, which are imperative if our goal is true reform. The Senate 
has the opportunity to repair our flawed campaign finance system. And 
if we don't seize the moment and take action now, it will always be a 
flaw in our democracy.
  Again, I commend my colleagues on their efforts, and I am hopeful 
that we will succeed in approving this amendment and ultimately in 
approving a meaningful campaign finance reform package this session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 54 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 15 minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee. I join my colleagues in opposing the Hagel amendment, and I 
do so reluctantly on a personal level, but not on a substantive level. 
I have enjoyed working with the Senator from Nebraska on many issues. I 
respect and like him.
  I regret to say that the amendment he brings to the floor today is 
simply not reform. I should say that again and again and again. It is 
not reform. It is not reform.
  You don't have reform when you are institutionalizing for the first 
time in history the capacity of soft money to play a significant role 
in the political process, when the McCain-Feingold goal and objective, 
which I support, is to eliminate altogether the capacity of soft money 
to play the role that it does in our politics. So it goes in the exact 
opposite direction.
  I will come back to that in a moment because I want to discuss for a 
moment where we find ourselves in this debate and really underscore the 
stakes in this debate at this time.
  Last night, I voted with Senator Wellstone, together with other 
colleagues who believe very deeply in a bright-line test and in the 
capacity to have a constitutional method by which we even the playing 
field. I regret that some people who oppose the bill also chose to vote 
with Senator Wellstone because they saw it, conceivably, as a means of 
confusing reform and creating mischief in the overall resolution of 
this issue which Senator Feingold and Senator McCain have brought 
before the Senate.
  Let me make it clear to my colleagues, to the press, to the public, 
and to people who care about campaign finance reform, the next few 
votes that we have on this bill are not just votes on amendments, in my 
judgment; they are votes on campaign finance reform. They are votes on 
McCain-Feingold itself. There will be a vote on the so-called 
severability issue which, for those who don't follow these debates that 
closely, means that if one issue is found to be unconstitutional, we 
don't want the whole bill to fall. So we say that a particular 
component of the bill will be severable from the other components of 
the bill, so that the bill will still stand, so that the reforms we put 
in on soft money, or the reforms we put in on reporting, or the reforms 
we put in on the amounts of money that can be contributed, would still 
stand even if some other effort to have reform may fall because it 
doesn't pass constitutional muster.
  Now, opponents of this bill, specifically for the purpose of 
defeating McCain-Feingold, specifically for the purpose of creating 
mischief, will come to the floor and say: We don't want any 
severability. The whole bill should fall if one component of it is 
found unconstitutional, which defeats the very purpose of trying to put 
to a test a new concept of what might or might not pass constitutional 
muster. It is not unusual in the Senate for legislators, many of whom 
are lawyers, to make a judgment in which they believe they have created 
a test that might, in fact, be different from something that previously 
failed constitutional tests.
  And so, as in this bill, we are trying to find a way to create a 
playing field that is fair, Mr. President. Fair. Many people in the 
Senate legitimately believe that it is not fair to have a limitation on 
corporations and unions, but then push all the money into a whole 
series of unregulated entities that will become completely campaign 
oriented and, in effect, take campaigning out of the hands of the 
candidates themselves. They won't be regulated at all, while everybody 
else is regulated.
  That is what Senator Wellstone and I and others were trying to 
achieve last night--a fairness in the playing field. I understand why 
Senator Feingold and

[[Page 4593]]

Senator McCain object to that. I completely understand it. They want 
fairness. They understand that that is important to the playing field, 
but they have tried to cobble together a fragile coalition here that 
can hold together and pass campaign finance reform.
  Some people suggest they would not be part of that fragile coalition 
if indeed they were to embrace this other notion of a fair playing 
field. However, the Senate is the Senate. It is a place to deliberate, 
a place for people to come forward and put their ideas, legislatively, 
before the judgment of our colleagues.
  Last night, the Senate worked its will, albeit, as in any legislative 
situation, with some mischief by some people who seek to defeat this. 
But we are in a no worse position today than we were before that 
amendment passed last night, because if we defeat the notion that this 
should be non-severable, we can still go out of the U.S. Senate with 
legislation and we still can put this properly to test before the 
Supreme Court, which is, after all, the business of our country.
  That is the way it works. Congress passes something, and the Supreme 
Court decides whether or not it is, in fact, going to meet 
constitutional muster.
  That said, I believe it is vital for us to proceed forward on these 
next votes with an understanding of what is at stake. The Hagel 
amendment would gut McCain-Feingold. Effectively, the vote we will have 
this morning will be a test of whether or not people support the notion 
of real campaign finance reform and of moving forward.
  Let me say a few words about why the amendment Senator Hagel has 
offered really breaches faith with the concept of reform itself.
  The Hagel amendment imposes a so-called cap on soft money 
contributions of $60,000. That would be the first time in history the 
Congress put its stamp of approval on corporate and union treasury 
funds being used in connection with Federal elections. The Hagel 
amendment would legitimize soft money, literally reversing an almost 
century-long effort to have a ban on corporate contributions and the 
nearly 60-year ban on labor contributions. That is what is at stake in 
this vote on the Hagel amendment.
  The Hagel amendment would institutionalize a loophole that was not 
created by Congress, but a loophole that was created by the Federal 
Election Commission.
  Worse--if there is a worse--than just putting Congress' seal of 
approval on soft money is the impact the amendment would have on the 
role of money in elections. What we are seeking to do in the Senate 
today is reduce the impact of money on our elections.
  I will later today be proposing an amendment that I know is not going 
to be adopted, but it is an amendment on which the Senate ought to 
vote, which is the best way to really separate politicians from the 
money. I will talk about how we will do that later. It is a partial 
public funding method, not unlike what we do for the President of the 
United States.
  George Bush, who ran for President, did not adhere to it in the 
primaries, but in the general election he took public money. He sits in 
the White House today partly because public funding supported him. 
Ronald Reagan took public money. President Bush's father, George Bush, 
took public money. They were sufficiently supportive of that system to 
be President of the United States, and we believe it is the cleanest 
way ultimately to separate politicians from the money.
  That is also what we are trying to do in the McCain-Feingold bill. It 
does not go as far as some would like to go, but it may be the furthest 
we can go, given the mix in the Senate today. It seeks to reduce the 
role of influence of money in the American political process.
  The Hagel amendment would actually undo that and reverse it. It would 
enable a couple to contribute $120,000 per year, $240,000 per election 
cycle, to the political parties. In the end, the Hagel amendment would 
allow a couple to give more than $500,000--half a million dollars--per 
election cycle to the political parties in soft money and hard money 
combined.
  We have heard the statistics. Less than one-half of 1 percent of the 
American population give even at the $1,000 level. Let me repeat that. 
Less than one-half of 1 percent of all Americans give even at the 
$1,000 level, and here is the Hagel amendment which seeks to have the 
Senate put its stamp of approval on the rich, and only the rich, being 
able to influence American politics by putting $500,000 per couple into 
the political system. That increases the clout of people with money, 
and it reduces the influence and capacity of the average American to 
have an equal weight in our political process.
  Looked at another way, the amendment would allow five senior 
executives from a company to give $60,000 per year for a total of 
$300,000 of soft money annually. That could be combined with an 
additional $60,000 straight from the corporate treasury. That is hardly 
the way to get money out of politics.
  Even with its attempted cap of soft money, the Hagel amendment leaves 
open a gaping loophole through which unmonitored soft money can still 
flow. It does nothing to stop the State parties from raising and 
spending unlimited soft money contributions on behalf of Federal 
candidates.
  It is absolute fantasy to believe the State parties are not, as a 
result of that, going to become a pure conduit for the money that flows 
in six-figure contributions from the corporations or the labor unions 
or the wealthiest individuals.
  It simply moves in the wrong direction. It codifies forever something 
we have restricted and prevented. It is the opposite of reform. It 
undoes McCain-Feingold, and I urge my colleagues to keep this reform 
train on its tracks. We need to complete the task, and we must turn 
away these efforts to overburden this bill or to directly assault its 
fundamental provisions.
  I yield back whatever time remains to the manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield to my friend and colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from Tennessee, 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hagel amendment 
and would like to take a few minutes to paint the larger picture of 
where we are in campaign finance and show the critical importance, I 
believe, of adopting this amendment today, especially in light of what 
I hope to have a chance to do later this week, which is to talk a 
little bit more about the effects of the McCain-Feingold legislation.
  I stress now the absolutely critical importance of adopting the Hagel 
amendment really for three reasons. I will come back to these charts 
because they give an overall perspective that I found very useful in 
talking to my colleagues and in talking to others to understand the 
complexities of campaign finance and the critical importance of 
maintaining a balance between Federal or hard money and soft or non-
Federal money.
  The Hagel amendment really does three things: No. 1, it gives the 
candidate more voice; yes, more amplification of that voice. I think 
that is what bothers most people. If we look at the trend over the last 
20 years, that individual candidate, Joe Smith, over the years has had 
a voice which stayed small and has been overwhelmed by the special 
interests, the outside money coming in, the unions, to where his voice 
has gotten no louder.
  There is nothing more frustrating than to be an individual candidate 
and feel strongly about education, health care, the military, and say 
it on the campaign trail, but have somebody else giving a wholly 
different picture because you have lost that voice over time. The Hagel 
amendment is the only amendment to date that addresses that loss of 
voice over time.
  No. 2, disclosure. Most people in this body and most Americans, I 
believe, understand the critical importance of increased disclosure 
today. What makes people mad is the fact that

[[Page 4594]]

money is coming into a system and nobody knows from where it is coming. 
In fact, we saw in past elections the amount of money that came from 
overseas. It comes through the system and flows out, and nobody knows 
where it is going or who is buying the ads on television. How do you 
hold people accountable?
  Those are what really make people mad: No. 1, the candidate has no 
voice; No. 2, the lack of accountability of dollars coming into the 
system and out of the system.
  Does that mean we have to do away with the system? I do not think so. 
We have to be very careful how we modernize it and reform it, but let 
us look at the candidate's voice and let us look at disclosure.
  The fundamental problem we talked about all last week, money in 
politics--is it corrupt, is it bad, is it evil? I say no, that is not 
the problem. I come back to what the problem is--the candidate, the 
challenger, the incumbent does not have the voice they had 
historically.
  Let me show three charts. They will be basically the same format. It 
is pretty simple. There are seven funnels that money, resources, can be 
channeled through in campaign financing. I label the chart ``Who Spends 
the Money?'' I will have these seven funnels on the next three charts.
  First, I have Joe Smith, the individual candidate who is out there 
campaigning. I said his, or her, voice over time has been diminished. 
Why? Because you have all of these other funnels--the issue groups: We 
talked about the Sierra Club, the NRA, the hundreds of issue groups 
that are out there right now spending and overwhelming the voice of the 
individual candidate.
  Why does the individual candidate not have much of a voice today, 
relatively speaking? We see huge growth in these three funnels--
corporations, unions and issue groups--but we have contained for 26 
years, since the mid-1970s, how much this individual candidate can 
receive from an individual or from a PAC. We have contained the voice 
but have seen explosive growth in certain spending.
  What makes the American people mad is indicated across the top. 
Individual candidates is one way for money to come to the system; 
political action committees is a very effective way. The parties in the 
box, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and other parties can 
raise money two ways: Federal dollars and non-Federal dollars. Notice 
all of this money in the yellow and green is ``disclosed.'' The 
American people want to know where the money comes from and where it 
goes. This is all disclosed. There is control over that.
  However, the explosive growth has occurred in corporations, unions, 
and issue groups. The problem--and the American people are aware of 
this, and we have to fix it--there is no disclosure. Nobody knows from 
or to where money is coming and going. I should add there is money 
coming into the system from overseas and China. We have to address 
disclosure.
  The contribution limits right now apply just to the individual 
candidates. An individual can only give so much to an individual 
candidate. A PAC can only receive so much and give so much.
  With the party hard money, the Federal money, again, there are 
contribution limits. Some people argue, as Senator Hagel argues: Let's 
fix this and address the disclosure issue. The Hagel amendment does 
that. Let's address contributions limits; instead of stopping here with 
individual candidates, PACs and party hard money, extend it so that all 
of the party, the hard and the soft money, has contribution limits.
  I said I will use the seven funnels from the chart. Money flows into 
the system at the top and goes out of the system below, the problem 
being the individual candidates do not have much of a voice.
  The next chart looks complicated, but it is useful for understanding 
from where the money comes. I show how money flows into the funnel. On 
the left side of the chart, the funnels are the same. There are seven 
ways money gets to the political system. The problem is the individual 
candidate's voice has not been amplified in 25 years. We have to fix 
that, and we can, through the Hagel amendment.
  Individuals can give to individual candidates. PACs can give to 
individual candidates, such as Joe Smith out there. Party hard money, 
the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, independent, they can give 
to individual candidates, and that is the only way an individual 
candidate can receive money to amplify his or her voice.
  PACs can receive money from individuals, but they can also receive 
money, or be set up by corporations through sponsorships, by unions 
through sponsorships, and issue groups can establish PACs.
  I happen to be chairman of the National Republican Senatorial 
Committee, and I can receive money as part of the senatorial committee 
from PACs, from individuals, party non-Federal money from individuals, 
but also corporations, unions, and issue groups can give party soft 
money.
  Corporations receive money from earnings, and unions receive money 
from union dues. We tried to address this. I think it needs to be 
addressed.
  Now straight to the Hagel amendment. There is not enough of a voice 
here. Contribution limits probably are too narrowly applied, and we 
need to move them over.
  No. 3, we don't have enough in terms of disclosure. This is what the 
Hagel-Breaux amendment does and why it is absolutely critical to 
maintain balance in the system.
  Next, disclosure and no disclosure. In this area, the Hagel amendment 
increases disclosure by requiring both television and radio media buys 
for political advertising to be disclosed. You would be able to know 
who, on channel 5 in Middleton, TN, purchased ads and for whom they 
purchased those ads. Again, much improved disclosure on this side.
  Contribution limits: Party soft money had no contribution limits. 
Under the Hagel amendment, there is a cap, a limit on how much an 
entity contributes to the Republican Party or to the Democratic Party 
or to the Republican Senatorial Committee or to the Democratic 
Senatorial Committee. The contribution limits have been extended.
  Third, and absolutely critical if we agree that the individual 
candidate's voice has been lost by this input on the right side of my 
diagram, we absolutely must increase the hard dollar limits, how much 
individuals can give individual candidates and how much PACs can give 
individual candidates. It has not increased in 26 or 27 years, since 
1974. It has not been adjusted for inflation. If it is adjusted for 
inflation, you come to the numbers that Senator Hagel put forward, the 
$3,000.
  It increases the voice of the individual candidate. If you increase 
the voice of the individual candidate, you return to that balance where 
the candidate Joe Smith out there all of a sudden has more of a voice, 
again, with contribution limits.
  An additional advantage is a challenger out there or an incumbent 
will have to spend less time. Now it requires so much money to amplify 
that voice of the candidate out there trying to get $1,000 gifts from 
hundreds and hundreds of people at 1974 levels; only worth about $300 
today in terms of value, it lets you spend less time on the campaign 
trail doing that.
  In summary, I urge support of the Hagel amendment because it 
addresses the fundamental problems we have in our campaign system 
today. Not that money in and of itself is corrupt or even corrupting, 
but the fact is that the individual candidate does not have sufficient 
voice. The Hagel amendment raises those limits from both individuals 
and PACs. It addresses the issue of soft money coming into the party 
system by capping soft money given by both individuals as well as other 
entities coming into the system at a level of $60,000. It improves 
disclosure by requiring television and radio media buys for political 
advertising to be fully and immediately disclosed.
  I urge support of this amendment. I know it will be very close. I 
hope this

[[Page 4595]]

placement of balance, this understanding of balance, will in turn 
attract people to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. If the Chair will notify me when 10 minutes expires.
  I say to my colleague from Tennessee, his chart looks like a chart 
made up by a heart surgeon. It looks like a pulmonary tract following 
various arteries and capillaries.
  Let me repeat what I said last evening to my friend from Nebraska. I 
have great respect for him, as I do the junior Senator from Nebraska, 
the Presiding Officer. I disagree with them on this amendment.
  There is a fundamental disagreement here. Aside from the mechanics of 
the amendment and how much hard money is raised and how much soft money 
you cap and who gets disclosed or not disclosed, it seems to me to be 
an underlying, fundamental difference in not only this amendment but 
others that have been considered and will be considered. That 
underlying difference is whether or not you believe there is too much 
money already in politics or not.
  If you subscribe to the notion that politics is suffering from a lack 
of money, then the Hagel amendment or various other proposals that will 
be offered are your cup of tea. I think that is the way you ought to 
go. If you truly think there is just not enough money today backing 
candidates seeking public office, truly you ought to vote for this 
amendment or amendments like it. If you believe, as I do as many 
Members on this side that there is too much money in the process--that 
the system has become awash in money, with candidates spending 
countless hours on a daily basis over a 6-year term in the Senate, over 
a 2-year term in the House, literally forced to raise thousands of 
dollars every day in your cycle to compete effectively in today's 
political environment then you believe as I do that we must move to put 
some breaks on this whole money chase.
  It has been pointed out in my State, the small State of Connecticut, 
you have to raise something like $10,000 almost daily in order to raise 
the money to wage an effective defense of your seat or to seek it as a 
challenger. In California, in New York, the numbers become 
exponentially higher. I happen to subscribe to the notion that we ought 
to be doing what we can to slow this down, to try to reduce the cost of 
these campaigns and to slow down the money chase that is going on. But 
all these amendment are just opening up more spigots, allowing more 
money to flow into a process that is already nauseatingly awash in too 
much money. I believe that, and I think many of my colleagues do as 
well. I know most of the American public does.
  If you want to know why we are not getting more participation in the 
political process, I think it is because people have become disgusted 
with it. Today it is no longer a question of the people's credibility 
or people's ability, but whether or not you have the wealth or whether 
you have access to it.
  My concerns over the Hagel amendment are multiple. First of all, as 
has been pointed out by Senators Feingold, Schumer, and Kerry, and 
others who have spoken out on this amendment, this is codifying soft 
money by placing caps on it. Caps which we all know are rather 
temporary in nature. Caps that are only to be lifted. So even if you 
subscribe to the notion that you are going to somehow limit this, the 
practical reality is we are basically saying we ought to codify this. 
That as a matter of statute, soft money ought to be allowed to come 
into the process, most of it unlimited, unregulated, and unaccountable. 
I think that would be a great mistake.
  We are allowing a $60,000 per calendar year cap on soft money 
contributions from individuals to the national parties. It would be the 
first time in literally almost 100 years, since 1907, when Teddy 
Roosevelt, a great Republican reformer, thought there was just too much 
money coming out of corporations into politics. So Congress banned it. 
It was one of the great reforms of the 20th century in politics.
  For the first time since 1943, with the passage of the Smith-Connally 
Act, and again in 1947 with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, 
Congress would be allowing the use of union treasury money in Federal 
elections. For almost 60 years we banned such funds from unions, almost 
100 years from corporations. Now we are about to just undo all that. We 
are suggesting that we allow it up to $60,000 per year. We will cap 
that right now in the Hagel bill, but there are also proposals here 
that would allow for indexing the hard money limits for future 
inflation.
  It is stunning to me we would include the indexed for inflation 
factor in politics. We index normally in relationship to the consumer 
price index, for people on Social Security or for people who are 
suffering, who are trying to buy food, medicine, clothes or pay rent, 
so we index it to allow them to be able to meet the rising cost of 
living. We are now going to index campaign contributions so the tiny 
minority of wealthy Americans can give more than $1,000--in this case, 
$3,000 per election or $6,000 per election cycle. Such indexing will 
enable the wealthy to have a little more undue access and influence in 
the political process.
  That is turning the consumer price index on its head. The purpose of 
it was to help people who are of modest incomes to have an increase in 
their benefits to meet their daily needs. We are now going to apply it 
to the most affluent Americans. Those contributors who want more access 
and more control in the political process will get the benefit of the 
consumer price index. That, to me, is just wrong-headed and turning 
legitimate justification for such indexing on its head.
  The hard money provisions are also deeply disturbing to me. Here we 
are going to say that no longer is a $1,000 per election limit the 
ceiling. We are going to raise that per election limit. Under the Hagel 
amendment, the individual hard dollar limit for contributions to 
candidates has been increased to $3,000 per election. This means an 
individual may contribute $6,000 per election cycle. A couple could 
contribute double, or $12,000 per election cycle.
  Let me explain this to people who do not follow the minutiae of 
politics. All my colleagues and their principal political advisers know 
this routinely. There we say $3,000 per individual per election. What 
we really mean is that an individual may contribute $6,000 per election 
cycle, because it is $3,000 for the primary and another $3,000 for the 
general election. Normally when we go out and solicit campaign 
contributions we do not limit it to the individual. We also want to 
know whether or not their spouse or their minor or adult children would 
like to make some campaign contributions. As long as such contributions 
are voluntary, then those individuals may contribute their own limit, 
all the way up to the maximum of $6,000 per year.
  So here we are going from $1,000 or $2,000--because the ceiling is 
really not $1,000, it is a $2,000 contribution that an individual may 
make to both a primary or general election--and we are now going to 
pump this up to $6,000 per year. Basically, that is what it works out 
to be. It could also be $12,000 per year for a couple. How many people 
get to make these amounts of contributions?
  I find this stunning that we are talking about raising the limit 
because we are just impoverished in the process. It is sad how it has 
come to this, that we are hurting financially. A tiny fraction of the 
American public--it has been pointed out less than one-quarter of 1 
percent--can make a contribution of $1,000 per election. Last year, 
1999-2000, there were some 230,000 people out of a nation of 80 million 
who wrote a check for $1,000 as a contribution for a campaign; a 
quarter of a million out of 280 million people actually made 
contributions for $1,000.
  There were about 1,200 people across the country who gave $25,000 
annual limit. That is the present cap, by the way under current law.
  Let me go to the second case. Under present law, you can give a total 
of $25,000 per year. Again, I apologize to people listening to this. 
There are actually people out there who write checks for $25,000 to 
support Federal candidates for office. Understand, we think this is 
just too low. This is just

[[Page 4596]]

too low. We are struggling out here; I want you to know that. We are 
impoverished. We need more help. So $25,000 from that individual, 1,200 
of them in the country--1,200 people out of 280 million wrote checks 
for $25,000. But, you know, we do not think that is enough. This bill 
now raises it to $75,000. How many Americans can write checks for 
$75,000 per year?
  There is a disconnect between what we are debating and discussing and 
what the American public thinks about this. The chasm is huge. We are 
talking about people writing checks that are vastly in excess of what 
an average family makes as income a year to raise a family. And our 
suggestion is there is too little money in politics. We spend more 
money on potato chips, I am told.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 10 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I am told by one of my colleagues we spend more money on 
potato chips than we do on politics.
  Maybe that is a good analogy, because I think too many Americans 
think this has become potato chips, in a sense. It has almost been 
devalued to that as a result of this disgusting process. I regret using 
the word ``disgusting,'' but that is what it has become, when we are 
literally sitting around here and debating whether or not--with some 
degree of a notion that this is a reasonable debate--to go from $25,000 
a year to $75,000 a year.
  If you take this amendment in its totality, that same individual with 
soft money contributions and hard money contributions could literally 
write a check for $540,000 to support the candidate of their choice in 
any given year. That is, in my view, just the best evidence I could 
possibly offer that this institution is out of touch with the American 
public, when it tries to make a case that there is too little money in 
politics today.
  Put the brakes on. Stop this. Reject this amendment. We can live with 
these caps that we presently have. There is absolutely no 
justification, in my view, for raising the limits. What we need to do 
is slow down the cost and look for better means by which we choose our 
candidates and support them for public office.
  This is about as important a debate as we will have. I know the 
budget is coming up. I know health care and education are important, 
but this is how we elect people. This is about the basic institutions 
that represent the people of this Nation. We are getting further and 
further and further away from average people, and they are getting 
further and further away from us.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the McCain-
Feingold proposal. It is not perfect, but it is a major step in the 
right direction. I urge rejection of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield to my friend and colleague, the 
original cosponsor of this amendment, 10 minutes to the senior Senator 
from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska for 
yielding me time. I rise in strong support of the Hagel amendment to 
the McCain-Feingold bill.
  Let me make two points this morning in reference to two arguments on 
the side that opposes the Hagel amendment.
  The first argument I have heard on the floor by my colleagues and 
friends is that somehow the Hagel amendment institutionalizes soft 
money going to political parties, as if it makes it legal or something.
  I would say to people who make that argument, where have you been? 
Both political parties receive huge amounts of unregulated, 
unrestricted money in terms of amounts that can be given to both 
political parties.
  I have in my hand a list. The first page is of soft money 
contributors to Democrats in our Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, 
and the second page lists over 100 soft money contributors to the 
National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. There is an exactly 
similar list that could be made for the House of Representatives, the 
other body, which would list all the soft money contributors to the 
House's respective political committees. The same is true for the 
National Democratic Committee and the National Republican Committee.
  The Hagel amendment restricts their ability to do what they are doing 
to $60,000 a year. Now, you don't think that is going to be one large 
restriction on the current practice which is legal under the Supreme 
Court decision? You bet it is.
  Let me give you an example of what is occurring now without the Hagel 
amendment. On my side of the aisle, just to the Senate Campaign 
Committee, in the last cycle, the American Federation of State and 
County Municipal Employees gave our side $1,350,000. On the Republican 
side in relation to soft money going to their campaign committee, 
Freddie Mac gave them $670,250. Philip Morris gave them $550,000. On 
our side, the Service Employees International Union gave us $1,015,250.
  So the arguments somehow that the Hagel bill institutionalizes or 
legitimizes or makes legal the concept of soft money contributions to 
political parties is nonsense. What it does do is restrict it for the 
first time by an act of Congress to no more than $60,000 contributions. 
Every one of the contributors shown on these two pages is substantially 
in excess of $60,000. In fact, the lowest one--they quit counting them 
at $100,000. They do not even bother to list them below $100,000. There 
are two pages of over 100 soft money contributions currently going to 
the political parties to do voter registration, to do party-building 
activities, get-out-the-vote activities. For the first time an effort 
by Congress will say that they cannot give $1,350,000 to Democrats and 
they cannot give $670,000 to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee; 
they are limited to $60,000 for party-building activities.
  So the concept that somehow the Hagel legislation makes something 
legitimate that is not legal already is simply nonsense. It is already 
legal. For the first time, the Hagel bill restricts it, and in a major, 
major way.
  The second point I will make is the following. The popular concept 
and the argument that I read daily in the press and listen nightly to 
in the news is that McCain-Feingold somehow eliminates soft money in 
Federal elections. Nothing could be further from the truth. I get 
deeply upset by people in the press reporting this issue when they say 
that somehow the debate is over eliminating soft money in Federal 
elections. It does not do that. It limits it only to the political 
parties that can best use the money in a fair and balanced manner.
  The list behind me, which has been floating around for several days 
now--and I think it has caught the attention of many of our 
colleagues--is a list of advocacy groups that are not restricted by the 
soft money contributions that will be able to continue to be spent 
right up to the election--unrestricted, unreported, and are not 
affected in any way by this so-called soft money ban.
  You all remember some of the names on this list because you have seen 
them time and again on the airways in your States attacking you. And 
not being able to respond to these types of groups is the real fallacy 
of this legislation. Do you remember Charlton Heston? Do you remember 
``Moses'' campaigning against many people on my side of the aisle, 
through the National Rifle Association? Well, if the McCain-Feingold 
bill passes, they would still be on the air; they would still have 
Charlton Heston, and they would still be attacking Democrats for their 
support of gun control. They could not be affected by the legislation 
that is working its way through the Senate. They use soft dollars. If 
anyone thinks somehow prohibiting Members from helping them raise money 
is going to have an effect on them, believe me, it will not. They have 
plenty of sources without anybody helping them. They have enough money 
to continue to run the ads, primarily against Democrats who support gun 
control.

[[Page 4597]]

  Do you remember the ``Flo'' ads on Medicare, Citizens for Better 
Medicare? Old Flo was there almost daily going after people who did not 
support what they thought was an appropriate Medicare reform bill and 
Medicare modernization. They will continue to have Flo on television. 
Flo will continue to be supported by soft money dollars, unrestricted, 
in any amount.
  Do you remember Harry and Louise? The Health Insurance Association of 
America would totally be unaffected by the McCain-Feingold bill. They 
would continue to do their ads right up to the election.
  Believe me, anyone who has the idea that 60 days before the election 
is going to adversely affect their activities has not been around very 
long. These groups do not wait until 60 days before the election. They 
start 2 years before an election. They are on the air in many of our 
States right now, today, going after incumbents that they do not like. 
They are unrestricted in how they can raise their money or how much 
they can spend. They don't care too much what happens 60 days before an 
election because their damage is already done. They will spend a year 
and 10 months beating you up. The only groups that are able to help in 
responding in kind is our State parties and our national parties.
  So my argument is simple. No. 1, the McCain-Feingold bill does not 
restrict soft money where it should be restricted: Special interests, 
single interest organizations, which could continue to operate, going 
after candidates every day right up to an election. I know that most of 
these groups also do not have a lot of moderates. By definition, 
special interest groups generally are not moderate-type organizations. 
They generally reflect the hard-core positions of both of our parties.
  Therefore, moderate Members who find themselves in the center of the 
political spectrum do not have any of these groups that are going to be 
out there defending their positions of moderation on particularly 
controversial issues. But the extreme wings of both of our parties, in 
many cases, will continue to be out there using unlimited amounts of 
soft money.
  If we are talking about Members being somehow beholding to these 
organizations, if you have these groups on your back for 2 years, see 
if they do not have an affect on how you vote and what your positions 
are going to be, particularly if the only groups that can help you in 
order to defend your position are the State parties which will not have 
a level playing field and the same ability to run ads. These groups are 
not keeping with what the American people would like to see us do.
  Therefore, my point is that the Hagel bill is a legitimate 
compromise. No. 1, it restricts the amount of soft money to $60,000 
that can go to parties. That is a major restriction to both of our 
parties over what we currently are getting in terms of the millions 
from individual groups and individuals that the Hagel amendment would 
dramatically bring down to a more reasonable amount.
  Secondly, I think it is incredibly unfair. It creates a very serious 
unlevel playing field to say to Members in the real world that we will 
allow all of the special interest, single-issue organizations to 
continue to use soft money-- unrestricted in terms of the amount, 
unrestricted in how they can spend it--and yet we will be defenseless 
in terms of the parties coming to our defense.
  I urge the support for the Hagel amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina, Mr. Edwards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, last night we voted on an amendment that 
was adopted by the Senate, the Wellstone amendment. I will add a few 
comments about that briefly and then talk about Senator Hagel's bill.
  First, I want to make clear that the idea of leveling the playing 
field and doing something about these 501(c)(4) advocacy groups is an 
idea I support. It makes a great deal of sense. So it is a substantive 
matter. I support the reasoning behind the Wellstone amendment, but I 
remain concerned about the serious constitutional questions raised by 
the Wellstone amendment given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court, in 
1984, ruled that these corporations, these advocacy groups, 501(c)(4) 
advocacy groups are treated differently than unions and for-profit 
corporations for purposes of electioneering.
  That serious question still remains, but I don't think that amendment 
or the fact that it has passed should in any way undermine our effort 
to pass McCain-Feingold, to support McCain-Feingold, and to do what is 
necessary to change the campaign finance system in this country.
  With respect to Senator Hagel's bill, first, I thank him for his work 
in this area. I know he is trying to do a positive thing. There are 
some fundamental problems with his bill.
  No. 1, not only does it not solve the problem of soft money, it 
arguably makes it worse. Although he places limits on soft money 
contributions to national parties, all that has to be done to avoid 
that problem is to raise the money through State parties. In addition, 
he does absolutely nothing about the fundamental issue, which is the 
appearance that candidates and elected officials are raising unlimited, 
unregulated contributions in connection with elections. There is 
nothing under his amendment that would prevent a candidate for the 
Senate from calling to a State party, raising $500,000, $1 million 
contributions that can then be used for issue ads in connection with 
that candidate's election. There is a fundamental flaw in the bill.
  In addition to that, it legitimizes what has been used to avoid the 
legitimate Federal election laws, which are soft money contributions 
that are flowing into these issue ads. We should not put our stamp of 
approval on the soft money process.
  Furthermore, we should not have candidates for Federal office, 
candidates for the Senate, continuing to be allowed to call 
contributors, ask for these huge contributions to be made to State 
parties, and that money can then be spent on that candidate's election. 
The problem is not solved and arguably the problem, in fact, is made 
worse.
  With respect to Senator's Breaux's argument that this long list of 
interest groups can continue to raise soft money and spend soft money, 
the response to that argument is that the McCain-Feingold bill 
prohibits any of us, an officeholder or a candidate for office, from 
calling and asking for unlimited soft money contributions from those 
special interest groups. It removes us, the elected officials, which is 
ultimately what this is all about, the integrity of the Senate, the 
integrity of the House of Representatives, the integrity of the 
Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I ask for another 2 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Make it 1 minute.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I will do it in 1 minute.
  It removes us from that process, which is a critical fact, because 
what we are trying to do is restore the integrity of the candidates, 
the integrity of the election process, and the integrity of the 
Congress. No longer would we be able to call and ask a contributor to 
make a large contribution to the NRA or some special interest group, 
for that money to be used in connection with our campaign.
  Fundamentally, the Hagel bill does not solve the problem. The problem 
continues to exist. McCain-Feingold moves us in the right direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes of my time to my friend 
and colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Nebraska 
for the work he has done in this area. You have not heard my voice on 
campaign

[[Page 4598]]

finance reform in the last several years, largely because I believed 
the legislation that was on the floor was not campaign finance reform. 
I do believe now that the Hagel amendment brings to the floor the kind 
of reasonable and appropriate adjustment in the campaign finance law 
that fits and is appropriate for the political process.
  Just for a few moments, I will address some of the comments of my 
colleague from Connecticut a few moments ago, when, in a rather 
emotionally charged way, he suggested that the political process is 
awash in money. I only can judge him by his statement, but I have to 
assume that the perspective he has offered is from a 1974 view.
  If you step back into 1974 and look forward into the year 2000, that 
judgment can be made, that the political process is awash in money. But 
you cannot buy a car on the street today for a 1974 price, as much as 
you or I might wish. You cannot buy a house today at a 1974 price. Is 
he alleging that the auto industry and the real estate industry and all 
other industries of our country are awash in money? He has not made 
that statement, nor should he.
  This is the reality: In 1980, I ran for political office in the State 
of Idaho as a congressional candidate for the first time. I spent about 
$185,000 on that campaign. At that time a campaign for Congress was 
about $175,000. Today that same campaign costs about $800,000 or 
$900,000. Why would it cost so much? At that time I was paying about 
$5,000 for polling advice. Today that same candidate would pay $13,000 
or $14,000. At that time I was paying $400 or $500 for a political ad. 
Today in Idaho, I would pay $3,000 or $4,000 for a political ad. Does 
that mean politics is awash in money or does it simply mean you are 
having to pay for the cost of the goods and services you are buying for 
the political process today in 2000 dollars and not 1974 dollars?
  I do believe that is what the Senator from Connecticut meant, but 
what he alleges is that there is all of this money out there when, in 
fact, it is the money that comes to the system based on what the system 
has asked for and what it believes it needs to present a legitimate and 
responsible political point of view.
  There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong or what needs to be 
adjusted is how that money gets directed and how that money gets 
reported so the public knows and can make valid and responsible 
judgments when they go to the polls on election day whether candidate X 
or candidate Y has played by the rules and is the kind of person they 
would want serving them in public office.
  I do believe that is what the Hagel amendment offers. It offers to 
shape and control and disclose in the kind of legitimate and 
responsible way that all of us should expect, and that is important to 
the credibility of the political process.
  It is tragic today when politicians malign politicians and suggest 
that there is corruption and evil in the system. Not all of us are 
perfect, but about 99 percent of us try to play by the rules. We are 
judged by those rules. For any one of us to stand in this Chamber and 
suggest that the system is corrupt and therefore, if we are in it, we 
are also corrupt or corruptible is a phenomenal stretch of anyone's 
imagination and should not happen. It is too bad it does happen. Only 
on the margin has it happened in the past. Usually those individuals 
who fail to play by the rules ultimately get destroyed by those rules.
  What we are trying to do is to adjust those rules in a right and 
responsible fashion that brings clarity to the process, that reflects 
the fact that you cannot run a 2002 campaign in 1974 dollars or cents, 
for that matter. You cannot reach back well over a quarter of a century 
and expect that you can find the goods and services that you once 
purchased back then as something you will employ now in the political 
process.
  So when the Senator from Connecticut gets so excited about the money 
that is in politics, why don't we be more concerned about directing it 
and clarifying it instead of trying to step back a quarter of a century 
to buy the goods and services that he bought then and that I bought 
then for the political process that have gone up by at least 25 or 30 
percent in the interim?
  Let me talk for a few moments on disclosure. Without question, 
disclosure is critical. The public clearly deserves to know and we have 
the tools and the technology today to disclose almost on a daily basis, 
certainly within a weekly process. Everyone should have their Web page 
and be up on the Internet and allow the world to know where their money 
is coming from and who is giving it. What is wrong with that? Nothing 
is wrong with that. And we should all be held accountable for it. The 
soft money issue--well, I think my colleague from Louisiana painted it 
very clearly: Disarm the political party, but let the open and 
uninhibited speech on the outside go unfettered. We can't touch that. 
The Constitution has said so. And we should not touch it.
  What is wrong with a full, open, and robust political process? 
Nothing is wrong with that. That is how we make choices in this 
country, how we decide who will represent us in a representative 
republic. That is the way our system works. Those are the kinds of 
judgment calls the public ought to be allowed to make, and the Hagel 
amendment, in a very clear, clean, and appropriate fashion, makes those 
kinds of determinations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to Senator Dodd that I believe he gave one of 
the best speeches I have ever heard on the floor on this question.
  I have two colleagues on the other side whom I like very much. I 
think Senator Hagel commands widespread respect, as does Senator Craig. 
I want to pick up, so I don't go with some rehearsed remarks, with what 
Senator Craig said. He talked about he didn't understand what the 
Senator from Connecticut was saying because we have this open and full 
process. That is on what we really ought to be focusing.
  The fact of the matter is, that is the issue, I say to my colleague 
from Idaho. The vast majority of the people in the country don't 
believe this is an open and full process. Too many people in the 
country believe if you pay, you play; if you don't pay, you don't play. 
Too many people believe that their concerns for themselves and their 
families and their communities are of little concern to Senators and 
Members of the House of Representatives because they don't have the big 
bucks and because they are not the big players or the heavy hitters. 
That is exactly the point.
  When we talk about corruption, I want to say again that I don't know 
of any individual wrongdoing by any Senator of either party. I hope it 
doesn't happen. But I do think we have systemic corruption, which is 
far more serious. That is when you have a huge imbalance between too 
few people with too much wealth, power, and say, and the vast majority 
of people who feel left out. If you believe the standard of 
representative democracy is that each person should count as one, and 
no more than one, we have moved dangerously far away from that. I think 
that is what my colleague from Connecticut was saying.
  It is within this context that I have to say to my good friend from 
Nebraska that I do not believe the American people will believe this is 
a reform amendment if they should see a headline saying ``U.S. Senate 
Votes to Put More Big Money into American Politics.''
  We now have, with the Hagel proposal, a huge loophole, unlimited soft 
money that now goes directly into State parties, and in addition we are 
talking about going from $1,000 to $3,000 and $2,000 to $6,000, when it 
comes to individual contributions.
  Again, I was so pleased to hear my colleague from Connecticut say 
that when one-quarter of 1 percent of the population contributes $200 
or more and one-ninth of 1 percent contributes $1,000 or more, why do 
we believe it is a reform to put yet more big money

[[Page 4599]]

into politics and to have all of us more dependent upon these big 
givers, heavy hitters, or what some people call the ``fat cats'' in the 
United States? It doesn't strike me that this represents reform. I 
think it really represents more deform. And I am not trying to be 
caustic, but I just think this proposal on the floor of the Senate now 
is a great step backward. I hope my colleagues will vote against it.
  Finally, I realize that with the proposal of my good friend from 
Nebraska, one individual would be authorized--if you are ready for 
this--to give a total of $270,000 in hard and soft money to a national 
party in an election cycle--$270,000? People in the Town Talk Cafe in 
Willmar, MN, scratch their heads and say: That is not us. We can't 
contribute $270,000 to a party in one cycle. We can't contribute 
$1,000, going to $3,000, or $3,000 going to $6,000. This is not reform. 
We want you to pass McCain-Feingold with strong amendments, which will 
be a bill that represents a step forward.
  This proposal of my friend from Nebraska is not a step forward. It is 
a great leap, not even sideways but backward. I hope Senators will vote 
against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the Senator 
from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think everybody knows I would prefer 
not to have restrictions on soft money contributions to parties. The 
reason for that is I would like for the parties to be able to defend 
candidates and compete with these outside groups, that I confidently 
predict are not going to be restricted by anything we do here in this 
debate under the first amendment to the Constitution.
  But legislating is always a matter of compromise. It seems to me the 
Hagel proposal casts a middle ground between people such as I who would 
not restrict the parties' ability to compete with outside groups, and 
people such as the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin 
who would take away 40 percent of the budget of the RNC and the DNC and 
35 percent of the budget of the two senatorial committees--a middle 
ground. We have the prohibitionists on one side who want to completely 
gut the parties, and those such as I who would like to see the parties 
continue to have an unfettered opportunity to compete with outside 
groups. What Senators Hagel and Breaux have done is try to strike a 
middle ground.
  In addition, they deal with what I think is the single biggest 
problem in politics, the hard money contribution set back in 1974 when 
a Mustang cost $2,700. Let's look at campaign inflation, which has been 
much greater than the CPI for almost everything else. For a 50-question 
poll, over the last 26 years, the cost has increased 150 percent. The 
cost of producing a 30-second commercial, over the last 26 years, has 
increased 600 percent. The cost of a first-class stamp, over the last 
26 years, has increased 240 percent. The cost of airing a TV ad, per 
1,000 homes, over the last 26 years has increased 500 percent. 
Meanwhile, the number of voters candidates have to reach--which is the 
way they charge for TV time--has gone up 42 percent over the last 26 
years.
  Back in 1974, when this bill was originally passed, the Federal 
Election Campaign Act, we had 141 million Americans in the voting age 
population. In 1998, it was 200 million in the voting age population. 
An individual's $1,000 contribution back in 1980 to a $1.1 million 
campaign represented only .085 percent of the total. That was the 
average cost of a campaign in those days. If the contribution limits 
had been tripled for the last election to adjust for inflation since 
1974, an individual's $3,000, which would have been allowed had we 
allowed indexation initially, to the average $7 million campaign would 
have been only .04 percent of the total--less as a percentage of the 
campaign than it was 26 years ago. There is no corruption in that.
  In addition to that, raising the contribution limits on hard money 
gives challengers a chance. They typically don't have as many friends 
and supporters as we do. To compete, they have to pool resources from a 
much smaller number of people. One of the big winners, if we indexed 
the hard money limit, would be challengers. The contribution limits 
date to a time of 50-cents-a-gallon gasoline and 25-cent McDonald's 
hamburgers.
  This is absurd. That is the single biggest problem we need to deal 
with. Michael Malbon, one of the professors active in this field, said:

       We expected thousand-dollar contributors to include many 
     lobbyists who would favor incumbents. That is not what we 
     found. In Senate races in 1996 and 2000, 70 percent of the 
     thousand-dollar contributions went to non-incumbents.

  With regard to constitutionality, let me say again that I am not wild 
about limiting the party's ability to speak while allowing outside 
special interest groups to use large, unregulated, undisclosed 
contributions.
  There is a legitimate constitutional question as to whether the 
courts will uphold the restrictions on the ability of political parties 
to engage in free speech.
  The all-or-nothing debate over banning soft money has grown a bit 
tired and stale for many in the Senate--and, I would guess, many in the 
press who have had the misfortune of covering this issue for the past 
several years.
  Senator Hagel and Senator Breaux along with their cosponsors have 
sought a middle ground that leaves neither side particularly happy--
which leads me to believe that they have probably gotten it about 
right.
  Those like myself who want to see our great political parties prosper 
and compete with unregulated outside special interest groups prefer no 
additional restrictions on soft money.
  Those, like my colleague from Arizona or my colleague from Wisconsin, 
who want to take away 30 to 40 percent of the budgets of the great 
political parties by banning all non-Federal money are adamant that it 
must be their way or no way. A total ban on party soft money is their 
starting point in the negotiation and, unfortunately, their ending 
point.
  I say to my friend from Nebraska, he has probably hit it about right. 
He is somewhere in the middle between me and my colleague from Arizona, 
John McCain.
  I commend the cosponsors of Hagel-Breaux for their thoughtful effort 
to find a third way, a middle ground between those who want a total 
ban--the prohibitionists, you might call them--and those who want 
unfettered speech by America's political parties.
  I want to briefly touch on two points in discussing the bipartisan 
Hagel-Breaux compromise. First, I want to talk about the dire need to 
increase the hard money limits, and, then I will offer my thoughts as 
to why the Hagel-Breaux compromise is more likely to be upheld as 
constitutional than McCain-Feingold.
  I must state again that I am not wild about limiting the parties' 
ability to speak while allowing the outside special interest groups to 
use large, unregulated, undisclosed contributions to drown out the 
voices of parties and candidates.
  There is a legitimate constitutional question as to whether the 
courts will uphold restrictions on the ability of political parties to 
engage in issue speech.
  Ultimately, however, I believe that Hagel-Breaux is far more likely 
to be upheld than McCain-Feingold.
  First, and most importantly, McCain-Feingold completely bans party 
soft money from corporations and unions. The Hagel-Breaux compromise, 
however, only places a cap on party soft money from unions and 
corporations, thus leaving unions and corporations with a meaningful 
avenue for supporting America's political parties.
  There is a significant qualitative and constitutional difference 
between a ban and a cap. For example, the Supreme Court in Buckley 
upheld a contribution cap in the 1974 law. The legacy of Buckley is 
reasonable caps, not bans. A cap sets limits on the right to speak. A 
ban completely forecloses the right to speak. I would argue that we 
should have neither. But, if you have to choose one, then the lesser 
restriction

[[Page 4600]]

has a far greater chance of being upheld under first amendment 
analysis.
  In short, there is clearly a constitutional difference between a 
reasonable cap and a total ban. It is the difference between 
prohibition and moderation. I submit to my colleagues that corporations 
and unions participating in American politics and supporting our great 
parties is a virtue, not a vice. It may be wise--as Senators Hagel and 
Breaux suggest--to moderate that influence, but it is certainly unwise 
to prohibit it.
  Let me touch on one other point--a myth, really. We have heard some 
in the Senate argue that corporations and unions have been banned from 
politics for the better part of the 20th century. No myth could be more 
pervasive or more untrue. Corporations and unions have never been 
banned from participating in politics in America. Anyone who knows the 
history of labor unions will tell you that the unions have been and 
continue to be one of the most significant players in American 
politics. Regardless of what you think of the labor unions, what they 
are doing today with non-Federal money is not illegal activity. I hear 
speaker after speaker on the other side get up and directly imply that 
labor unions are somehow doing something illegal by participating in 
politics. I may disagree with the unions on some of their issues, but I 
will firmly and proudly defend their right to participate in politics. 
The often-repeated and implicit statement that big labor is engaging in 
illegal activity by participating in politics is just plain wrong, and, 
that implicit and pervasive allegation should stop.
  There is absolutely nothing in the Tillman Act or the Taft-Hartley 
Act that prohibits corporations and unions from giving to political 
parties. This is a gross misstatement and misreading of the plain 
language of well-established law.
  Of course, the Hagel-Breaux compromise--unlike McCain-Feingold--seeks 
a constitutional middle ground on regulating outside groups by 
requiring that files on ad buys be available for public inspection. 
This increases accountability without requiring donor disclosure and 
membership lists of outside groups who dare to speak out on public 
issues in proximity to elections. The McCain-Feingold, Snowe-Jeffords 
approach has been struck down as recently as last year by the Second 
Circuit Court of Appeals. I commend my colleagues for recognizing the 
boundaries of the first amendment's guarantee of free speech and free 
association.
  Finally, unlike McCain-Feingold, Hagel-Breaux recognizes that there 
is not only a first amendment, there is a tenth amendment. The tenth 
amendment limits the Federal Government's powers to mandate and dictate 
to States. McCain-Feingold tramples the tenth amendment almost as 
vigorously as it does the first amendment.
  For example, McCain-Feingold would tell State and local parties that 
they must follow Federal law and Federal contribution and expenditure 
limits for a whole host of activities in years where there happens to 
be a Federal candidate on the State or local ballot.
  Let me give you an example: Under McCain-Feingold, if the Sioux City 
Republican Party decided next year that it wanted to register voters in 
the final 4 months before election day to increase turnout for the 
Sioux City sheriff's race, then it would have to pay for the voter 
registration with money raised under strict Federal contribution 
limits. The same would be true if the local party in Sioux City wanted 
to print up buttons and bumper stickers that said ``Vote Republican'' 
to increase turnout for the local jailer's race. The Sioux City 
Republicans would have to operate under Federal law on contribution 
limits.
  Hagel-Breaux, on the other hand, avoids understanding the varied and 
diverse role of political parties at the national, State and local 
level and avoids such massive, overbearing, and unwise Federal 
regulation.
  Finally, the Hagel-Breaux compromise provides a rational 
justification for its limits. The Hagel-Breaux compromise takes the 
exact contribution limits upheld by the Supreme Court in Buckley and 
adjusts those limits for a quarter-century of inflation. I believe 
there is a good chance that the courts would view that sensible 
rationale as reasonable and constitutional.
  In closing, let me say that I am not wild about this legislation, but 
I think it seeks and finds a middle ground, a third way for Senators on 
both sides of the aisle to come together and move forward in the spirit 
of bipartisan compromise. I commend my colleague from Nebraska and my 
colleague from Louisiana for their willingness to step into the breach.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Connecticut. 
Let us start with a few basic truths. We are supposed to have limits. 
They have been completely evaded, destroyed by the soft money loophole. 
The current law says no individual is supposed to give more than 
$1,000, or give more than $25,000 in a year totally, and because of the 
soft money loophole, there are no limits. That is a given. The question 
is whether or not we want to close the soft money loophole.
  It seems to me, unless we close this soft money loophole, we are 
going to destroy public confidence in the election process in this 
country, and the cynicism which exists and the impact and effect of 
large money on politics is simply going to grow.
  How do we close the soft money loophole? In McCain-Feingold we close 
it. We simply end the soft money loophole, not just for national 
parties, but also to make sure that Federal officials and officeholders 
and candidates do not raise money for State parties in a way to avoid 
our new prohibition. That is missing from the Hagel amendment.
  We have to be clear on that critical point because we have seen 
charts which say: Look, we are going to reduce the amount of soft money 
in the campaigns because we are going to put a cap on the amount of 
soft money. Putting aside the fact that this goes exactly opposite the 
principles in McCain-Feingold and putting aside the fact that Hagel 
then would enshrine soft money into our national law, it also means 
that unless you close the possibility and end the possibility of 
Federal candidates, Federal officeholders, and national parties just 
simply raising money for State parties in Federal elections, you leave 
the loophole open.
  What the Hagel amendment does is shift the loophole. It does not 
close it. It continues to allow Federal officeholders, Federal 
candidates, and national parties to raise the money for State campaigns 
and State parties that will in turn continue to use that money in 
attack ads and in so-called sham issue ads. It does not close the soft 
money loophole, it shifts the soft money loophole.
  That is simply not good enough. That is not campaign finance reform. 
That is sham reform.
  The other thing it does, relative to hard money limits, is it raises 
the hard money limits to $75,000 per year per individual which means 
that a couple can give in a cycle of 2 years $300,000 in hard money 
contributions. That is not reform. That simply says that big money, big 
bucks, and big contributions will continue to be solicited by those of 
us who are in office, those of us who seek office, and those of us who 
are in the national parties. That means that the role of big money in 
these campaigns is going to continue.
  I close by quoting something the Supreme Court said in the Missouri 
case, in the Shrink Missouri Government PAC case a year or two ago. 
This is what the Supreme Court said about the appearance of 
impropriety, the appearance of corruption created by big contributions:

       While neither law nor morals equate all political 
     contributions, without more, with bribes, we spoke in Buckley 
     of the perception of corruption ``inherent in a regime of 
     large individual financial contributions'' to candidates for 
     public office as a source of concern ``almost equal'' to quid 
     pro quo improbity. The public interest in countering that 
     perception was, indeed, the entire answer to

[[Page 4601]]

     the overbreadth claim raised in the Buckley case. This made 
     perfect sense. Leave the perception of impropriety 
     unanswered, and the cynical assumption that large donors call 
     the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take 
     part in democratic governance. Democracy works ``only if the 
     people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is 
     bound to be shattered when high officials and their 
     appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of 
     malfeasance and corruption.''

  I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in 1971 when the Senate last visited this 
issue in earnest, it did so with every belief that the legislation that 
would be produced would end abuses of our Federal electoral system. It 
helped for a time until loopholes came to light and new abuses 
surfaced.
  In every series of actions on this issue, there have been unintended 
and unexpected consequences. I want to talk about one of those 
consequences, and that is the effect that the current Federal campaign 
finance law has had on American politics.
  It has converted American politics by requiring and facilitating a 
fundamental alteration in the conduct of campaigns. It takes candidates 
into the shadows--the closeted shadows--of an office dialing for big 
dollars and the flickering shadows of a television studio spending 
those big dollars on self-serving or, more frequently, attack ads 
disparaging the opponent.
  What is given up by going into the shadows? What is given up is the 
public's open participation in the critical purposes of a political 
campaign. Let me suggest three of those purposes.
  First, a purpose of a political campaign is mutual education. Both 
the voter and the candidate should conclude the campaign with a better 
understanding of each other. I cite as an example of that mutual 
education a former colleague and very close personal friend, Senator 
and then-Governor Lawton Chiles of my State of Florida.
  In 1970, he commenced a campaign for the U.S. Senate as the most 
distinct long shot in a large field of candidates. He had no money. He 
had almost no statewide name recognition. He had no organization. But 
what he did have was a powerful desire and an idea. His idea was that 
he was going to take 3 or 4 months in the middle of the campaign, not 
to dial for dollars or to make TV spots, but to get to know the people 
of Florida in a very intimate way. He did it by walking almost 1,000 
miles from the northwest corner of the State to the Florida Keys.
  In the course of that walk, Lawton Chiles became a different human 
being. He had learned from the people of Florida, and then they 
responded to what he had done by electing him, and he in turn responded 
by 18 years of outstanding service in the Senate.
  That is eliminated as people rush to the shadows to both dial and 
then produce TV ads.
  A second purpose of a political campaign is to establish a contract 
between the candidate and the voters as to what is expected once 
elected.
  I suggest this contract is especially important in our form of 
government. We do not have a parliamentary government where, when the 
people believe that the party elected has drifted away from its 
commitment, they can overturn that government and install a new 
government. We are all elected for a fixed term, so it is important 
that as that term commences and in the process of the development of 
the relationship between citizen and candidate, there is a clear 
understanding of what that candidate is going to do if he or she is 
elected.
  That contract development is largely abrogated by the process of 
focusing the campaign exclusively on raising money in order to support 
30-second television ads.
  Finally, a purpose of a political campaign is to test the aptitudes, 
the character of the candidate should he or she be elected. I believe 
one of the most telling statements of what kind of a person one would 
be in office is how they conduct themselves as a candidate. Do they 
make quality decisions in public, under pressure? Do they exercise 
self-discipline? The kind of people they surround themselves with in 
the campaign will be a telling commentary on the kind of people they 
are likely to surround themselves with in office.
  Again, what do we learn about the character and aptitude of a 
candidate if all we see is their own self-financed and self-produced TV 
ads? The public is telling us of its disgust with the move of the 
campaigns from the sunshine to the shadow. The American voters are 
shouting, particularly young voters. How are they shouting? They are 
shouting by their nonparticipation. Ever since the Constitution was 
amended to allow 18-year-olds to vote, the message of those 18-year-old 
voters has gone down at every Presidential election. If that is not 
telling us what the newest generation of American citizens has to say 
about the current process, we are deaf.
  The Hagel amendment would increase the torrent of money into 
politics. It would increase the time and effort spent on raising and 
spending money on television ads. It would accelerate the slide of 
public involvement and interaction in a political campaign. We need to 
reject this amendment and adopt the legislation offered by Senators 
McCain and Feingold.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I should offer an amendment that says: on 
page 3, between line 27 and line 28, insert the following: 30 days 
after enactment of this Act, the starboard deck chairs of the R.M.S. 
Titanic shall be moved to the port side, and vice versa.
  Because if we step back and examine the campaign finance issue, I 
believe that in the end all this legislation affecting details of the 
campaign finance system is doing just that rearranging deck chairs on 
the Titanic. If I can just stretch this metaphor a bit farther, the 
iceberg looming out there in front of us is not soft money, or 
disclosure requirement, or compulsory union dues, but rather the simple 
fact that our federal government is so bloated and intrusive that 
Americans are desperate to find ways to affect it's actions.
  I believe the absolute best ways to ensure there are no undue special 
interest influence is to suppress and reduce the size of government. If 
the government rids itself of special interest funding and corporate 
subsidies, then there would be less of a perception of any attempts to 
buy influence through donations. A simplified tax code, state 
regulation flexibility, free markets, local education control--these 
are less government approaches to problems that would also lower the 
desperate need for influence.
  I am not alone in that belief. The Colorado Springs Gazette ran an 
editorial on Thursday, March 22 saying that ``The best way, and the 
constitutional way, to limit campaign contributions is to reduce 
government itself, and thus the need interests have to manipulate 
government to their advantage.''
  That editorial is proof that perhaps those outside the beltway see 
the forest instead of all the individual trees we keep getting caught 
up by here on the Senate floor. They know that all we are doing is 
addressing symptomatic, not causal, problems.
  There are two reasons why McCain-Feingold is ineffective. One of 
those reasons is the United States Supreme Court, and I will address 
that later. The other reason speaks to the futility of these alleged 
reforms--these various deck chair amendments. That reason is human 
nature. Even if we could constitutionally ban soft money, human nature 
dictates that people whose interest, both financial and otherwise, are 
constantly and severely being abused or threatened by our 1.9 trillion 
in federal spending will continue to seek to influence the government, 
some out of just basic self defense.
  In the Eighties the complaint was against the PACs. In the Nineties 
and now, the complaint is against soft money. Even if there was a 
constitutional soft money ban, there will be something else later. What 
needs to be done is to address the problem, not try and hide the effect 
of the problem. But,

[[Page 4602]]

since we are here, moving our chairs around, I must say that I favor 
certain chair arrangements. And so do my constituents.
  Then Denver Rocky Mountain News, for instance, ran an editorial 
during the last Congress in response to the passage of the Shays/Meehan 
bill, expressing the paper's belief that soft money campaign 
contributions are a form of political expression and, as such, are 
protected by the First Amendment.
  In the editorial they use an example of an average citizen who might 
decide to distribute leaflets against a city pot hole problem. If this 
hypothetical citizen is stopped from doing so by a city council, it 
would be a clear-cut violation of freedom of speech. The editorial then 
goes on, correctly, to explain that the difference between this simple 
form of election activity control and the kinds contained in McCain-
Feingold is merely a difference of degrees, not type. Donors who want 
to give to the Republican National Committee or the Democrat National 
Committee are expressing their political views. As the Supreme Court 
has ruled, political spending equals political expression. Attempting 
to completely ban this political expression, however distasteful some 
might find soft money, is an attempt to stifle activities protected by 
the constitution. And so it is our duty as legislators to find a better 
way.
  Let me explain also that I feel that a soft money ban is biased. It 
might just be coincidental that the McCain-Feingold has 34 Democrat co-
sponsors and 6 Republican ones, but it might also have something to do 
with the fact that a ban on party soft money will ultimately benefit 
Democrat candidates over Republican ones. If political parties are 
curbed, the Democrats already have a cohesive constituency ready and 
able to step up and assume party functions. Organized labor is just 
that--coordinated people ready to work. They are also ready to spend. I 
don't begrudge the Democrat National Committee this labor and funding 
base, but it is unbalanced and blatantly partisan to attempt to shield 
this type of spending--which has been done in amendment after amendment 
on this floor--while attacking its counterbalancing force, the areas 
where the Republican National Committee instead has the advantage.
  I have cosponsored Senator Hagel and Landrieu's legislation because 
it shared some aspects of what I have previously proposed for campaign 
finance reform. The bill calls for increased disclosure, aspects of 
which we have embraced here already. Sunshine is a strong disinfectant. 
The bill calls for an increase to campaign donor limits. Hard money is 
called for a reason, and so we should encourage as much campaign 
spending as feasible to move into that category, where the rules are 
tighter and more defined.
  The Hagel-Landrieu legislation is one of the best deck chair 
arrangements before us. I urge its passage.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Hagel 
amendment to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. This 
legislation is similar to legislation that I introduced in each of the 
last two Congresses, ``The Constitutional and Effective Reform of 
Campaigns Act,'' or ``CERCA.'' My bill has proven to be a good faith 
effort to strike middle ground in this important debate and offered an 
alternative to the bills that have been debated before the full Senate 
in the past. The principal points in my bill were enhanced disclosure, 
increased contribution limits, a cap on soft money and paycheck 
protection. Senator Hagel's amendment does much the same thing.
  As Chairman of the Rules Committee during the 105th Congress, I had 
the honor of presiding over at least twelve hearings on campaign 
finance reform. My legislation was a result of these two years of 
hearings, discussions with numerous experts and colleagues, and the 
result of over two decades of participating in campaigns and campaign 
finance debates.
  It is well documented the growth of soft money in recent years is an 
issue of public concern. The $60,000 soft money cap found in the Hagel 
amendment addresses the public's legitimate concern over the propriety 
of large soft money donations while allowing the political parties 
sufficient funds to maintain their headquarters and conduct their 
grassroots effort.
  In addition to the issue of soft money, there is the issue of raising 
the hard money caps. Politicians spend too much time fundraising at the 
expense of their legislative duties for incumbents, and, for both 
incumbents and challengers, at the expense of debating the issues with 
voters. The current individual contribution limit of $1,000 has not 
been raised, or even indexed for inflation for over 20 years. This 
situation requires candidates to spend more and more time seeking more 
and more donors. The Hagel amendment triples the individual 
contribution limits to $3,000 and indexes that limit for inflation. My 
campaign finance legislation contained the exact same provision.
  These are issues that I believe can be solved in a bipartisan 
fashion. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact 
meaningful campaign finance reform, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support the Hagel amendment as a mechanism to reach bipartisan 
consensus on campaign finance reform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, please notify me when I have used 5 minutes 
of the remaining time.
  Mr. President, as I have listened this morning and throughout the 
days of last week about the dynamics of campaign finance reform, I 
believe it is well summarized in a piece that appeared in the New York 
Times on Sunday. I will read part of that piece because it does strike 
to the essence of real reform of campaign finance.
  Joel Gora, general counsel to the New York Civil Liberties Union, and 
Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote 
this thoughtful op-ed in last Sunday's New York Times. This is some of 
what they had to say:

       Despite all the noise [about campaign finance reform] soft 
     money is not the monster it's made out to be. By definition, 
     it consists solely of contributions to political parties for 
     such things as party building, getting out the vote and issue 
     advertising; it cannot be used for direct support of 
     candidates. . . . But eliminating soft money contributions to 
     parties sacrifices other values that we believe are 
     fundamental to our democratic system. . . .
       Political parties are groups with broader interests, more 
     intertwined with the electoral process. . . . Banning soft 
     money denies parties the rights that we would not think of 
     denying to other organizations. . . .
       The National Abortion Rights Action League can attack the 
     Republican Party with money it raises from any source and in 
     any amount; the National Rifle Association can attack the 
     Democratic party with the same unlimited resources; however, 
     if soft money is eliminated, neither political party will 
     have the resources to counter these attacks. . . .
       There is also the free-speech guarantee of the First 
     Amendment. Can there be any doubt that the core of the 
     Constitution's protection of free speech and a free press is 
     to inform the electorate? . . .
       The McCain-Feingold bill goes beyond even limiting 
     contributions. It actually prohibits speech. . . .
       There are no real winners in this situation, but there are 
     real losers--the voting public.

  And so said the New York general counsel to the New York Civil 
Liberties Union.
  I think Mr. Gora said it well.
  In these final minutes of debate, I go back to the basics that 
brought us here. We are here to reform our campaign finance system. My 
friends from Arizona and Wisconsin have offered one alternative. I 
believe it is the wrong approach. Their intentions are good, but the 
unintended consequences of their legislation would weaken our political 
system at the point where it should be the strongest. The McCain-
Feingold bill would not open the process to more people; it would 
restrict the process to those who can afford to play outside the 
process.
  What do we gain by weakening the vital dynamic institutions of the 
political process, the political parties, the one group of institutions 
that is accountable to the American public and the only institution 
that will help a challenger take on an incumbent?
  We have heard an awful lot in this body in the last few days about 
incumbent protection, a lot of incumbent protection debate and 
amendments passed to protect our jobs.

[[Page 4603]]

  My bipartisan colleague and I have offered an alternative. It is real 
reform. It will change our campaign finance system. It will make it 
better, more accountable, more responsible.
  Our amendment provides more disclosure. It limits soft money. It 
increases the ability of individuals to participate by increasing the 
outdated 1974 limits on soft money. My goodness, where were all my 
colleagues in 1974 when this terrible corrosive corrupting factor of 
$1,000 was out there? I went back and read that debate. I was in 
Washington in 1974. There were Members of this body today who voted for 
that. Not a peep was made in 1974 about any corrupting influence. This 
is the same dollar amount. So how is that bad or how is that some way 
more corrupt?
  We face serious questions today. Are we going to reform our campaign 
finance system? I think we can. I encourage my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment that amends the McCain-Feingold bill.
  Mr. DODD. Parliamentary inquiry: The opponents have 8 minutes 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Your side has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island. I 
believe Senator Thompson of Tennessee would like to be heard and we 
will close with 3 minutes from the Senator from Arizona, just to inform 
my colleagues of the remaining allocation.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hagel amendment. 
I respect Senator Hagel immensely and compliment him for his efforts, 
but I think it is the wrong direction for campaign finance reform. The 
core of our debate about campaign finance reform is to restore the 
confidence of the American people in our political system--to make them 
believe, as we hope they once did, that their vote is the most 
significant aspect of a Federal election. Today I fear they believe 
their vote is less important than the contributions of special 
interests or economic elites.
  The Hagel amendment would amplify significantly the bankrolling of 
economic elites in elections by raising the limits on contributions 
that these individuals can make.
  I think it is very important to point out today the limits on 
contributions are only reached by approximately one-ninth of 1 percent 
of our country's citizens. This infinitesimal fraction of individuals 
are donating significant amounts of money to political campaigns. This 
does not represent, as a result, this effort to raise the limits, an 
attempt to reach out to the broad spectrum of American voters. It 
would, in fact, increase and enhance the role of a very small minority 
of America.
  That is not the direction we should take for campaign finance reform. 
We should not increase the amount of dollars going to the system. We 
should create a system in which people again believe their vote, rather 
than any contribution by a special interest or a wealthy American, is 
the most important part of our system.
  The other aspect of the Hagel amendment which is troubling is the 
institutional savings of soft money. His proposal allows wealthy 
individuals to donate $60,000 per calendar year to a political party, 
congressional campaign committee of a national party and others. This 
institutionalization once again exacerbates the role of money in 
campaigns and once again focuses away from the individual voter to the 
very wealthy contributor.
  I think it is the wrong direction to take. As I said, the perception 
of our constituents is that this system is not working for them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I focus for a moment on the State party loophole and 
address the new provisions of the Hagel amendment concerning party soft 
money. I also want to respond to the argument that the new provisions 
of the Hagel bill are necessary because the McCain-Feingold bill will 
starve the parties or will, in their minds, federalize State elections. 
These charges are just untrue.
  I talked yesterday about the Hagel amendment legitimizing and 
sanctioning the soft money system. I was referring primarily to the 
$60,000 cap on corporate, labor, and individual soft money 
contributions. The same can be said about the State soft money 
loophole, and even more so after the changes Senator Hagel made in his 
amendment before he offered it yesterday. The amendment codifies the 
FEC's allocation rules used for soft money expenditures by the State 
party. The FEC currently requires expenditures on certain activities 
including get-out-the-vote and voter registration efforts to be paid 
for with a combination of hard and soft money. What the Hagel amendment 
does is write these allocation formulas into law. It takes the soft 
money system started in the States and makes it permanent.
  We support the kinds of activities for which soft money now pays. It 
is not that we think get-out-the-vote or voter registration activities 
are somehow corrupt. Quite the contrary, we believe these activities 
are extremely important to the health of our democracy. But the 
approach of the McCain-Feingold bill is to get more hard money to the 
States, not to allow soft money to live on.
  Senator McCain and I strongly support vital political parties at both 
the State and national level. What we don't support is using unlimited 
soft money from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to elect 
Federal candidates.
  The McCain-Feingold bill doubles the amount of hard money an 
individual can give in hard money to state and local parties--to 
$10,000 per year, or $20,000 per cycle. That is a little-noted 
provision in our bill. To hear the Senator from Nebraska tell it, you 
would think that we were looking to severely restrict party activity in 
the States. Far from it.
  All our bill says is that when a State party is spending money on 
Federal elections, it has to be hard money. That includes voter 
registration activities within 120 days before a Federal election. We 
all know that voter registration in States helps Federal candidates. 
Likewise, get out the vote activity and generic campaign activity--like 
general party advertising--when Federal candidates are on the ballot. 
Those kind of activities, regardless of how laudable they are and how 
much we want to encourage them, assist Federal candidates in their 
election campaigns. So we believe they must be paid for with Federal 
money. Obviously, so should public communications that refer to a 
clearly identified federal candidate and support or oppose a candidate 
for that office.
  Does that mean that we are trying to weaken the parties? Not at all. 
We simply ensure that soft money raised by the states cannot be spent 
on federal elections. As I have said, to leave that State soft money 
loophole wide open cannot be considered reform. And at this point I 
would remind my colleagues that both parties consistently raise more 
hard money than soft money. It is not true that if you can't spent soft 
money on an activity, that activity won't take place. The parties 
raised more than $700 million in hard money in the 2000 cycle. The idea 
that we are somehow shutting down State party activities because they 
must now use hard money for certain activities--those connected to 
Federal elections--is simply untrue.
  My colleagues might recall that the parties did just fine without a 
significant amount of soft money for many years. In the 1984 election 
cycle, soft money accounted for roughly 5 percent of the total receipts 
for the political parties, and voter turnout in the 84 elections was 53 
percent. In the 2000 cycle, soft money accounted for 40 percent of the 
parties' receipts, and voter turnout was 51 percent. Soft money does 
not get out the vote any better than hard money. Soft money doesn't 
provide some kind of magic bullet that States need to conduct get out 
the vote activities, or other activities surrounding Federal elections. 
The States just need adequate funds to conduct those activities, and 
McCain-Feingold makes sure that they have the money--we double the 
amount of hard money an individual can give to a state

[[Page 4604]]

party and increase the aggregate annual limit a commensurate amount.
  We want to help state parties stay a vibrant part of our politics. 
And there are plenty of activities where States can spend whatever soft 
money they might raise through their State party. We don't attempt to 
exert any control over what a State party spends on election activities 
that are purely directed at State elections. But we do say--a million 
dollar contribution to the party from Philip Morris, or the AFL-CIO, or 
Roger Tamraz, or Denise Rich has the appearance of corruption, whether 
the money is used for phony issue ads attacking candidates, or voter 
registration.
  Mr. DODD. Senator Thompson of Tennessee was going to try to get to 
the floor but is unavoidably detained. He would oppose the Hagel 
amendment on constitutional grounds.
  Mr. President, what time remains now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. The remaining time I yield to my colleague from Arizona, 
the author of the McCain-Feingold bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work and sincere 
conviction that my friend--my dear friend and comrade--the Senator from 
Nebraska has invested in his amendment. I would, as always, prefer to 
be on the same side of the fight with him, as we have been so many 
times in the past, and as we will be again. He is a man of honor and a 
patriot. I admire him and consider his friendship to be a treasure of 
inestimable value to me. And whatever faults I might have as a human 
being and as a legislator, I hope it could never be fairly said of me 
that I was ungrateful to men and women of character who have honored me 
with their friendship.
  I should also acknowledge that there are provisions of Senator 
Hagel's amendment that I could support, or that, at least, could 
provide the basis for bipartisan negotiations. The Senator's broadcast 
provision, for instance, merits support. And I believe there are ways 
that Democrats and Republicans could come together to address Senator 
Hagel's central concern about making sure that our legislation does not 
weaken the two political parties even more than, what I believe, is the 
case today.
  But recognizing both the Senator's hard work and sincere concern, I 
must oppose this amendment. I must oppose it because it preserves, 
indeed, it sanctions the soft money loophole that has made a mockery of 
current campaign finance law, and which has led directly to the many, 
outrageous campaign finance scandals of recent years that have so badly 
damaged the public's respect for their government, and for those of us 
who are responsible for protecting the public trust.
  As I said in my opening statement, I believe it is self-evident that 
contributions from a single source that run to the hundreds of 
thousands of dollars are not healthy to a democracy. And I believe that 
conviction is broadly shared by the people whose interests we have 
sworn an oath to defend. My friend's amendment would allow this 
terribly damaging flaw in our current system to remain. It would, in 
fact, sanction it.
  Thus I cannot support it. Even if every other provision of our bill 
were to be struck down by the opponents of campaign finance reform, 
along with all the good work done by both sides last week in reaching 
compromises on related issues, even if it were all to fall, a ban on 
soft money--the huge unregulated six and seven figure checks that come 
from corporations and unions, from Democrats and Republicans, from 
Denise Rich and Roger Tamraz--a ban on soft money, while not perfect 
reform, or comprehensive reform would still be good service by this 
body toward alleviating the appearance of corruption that afflicts our 
work here.
  A cap of $120,000 per individual per campaign, along with absolutely 
no limits on soft money used by state parties for the benefit of 
candidates for federal office, will do little to address this problem. 
In fact, and I say this with the greatest respect and affection for my 
friend, it will do nothing but give this much abused system the 
Senate's stamp of approval.
  Mr. President, at the end of debate, I will move to table the Hagel 
amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in opposing it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Am I correct that at the end of my 5 minutes we go to 
the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, over the last few days many of my 
colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, including many of my 
cosponsors, have expressed a desire to vote on each of the three main 
issues in our amendment to McCain-Feingold. I note that my dear friend 
John McCain mentioned that there might be some areas in my bill, which 
now is in the form of an amendment to McCain-Feingold, where we could 
find some agreement. The senior Senator from Arizona mentioned 
specifically that the disclosure part of my bill might be something on 
which we could find some common ground.
  Therefore, in order to allow my colleagues to vote on all three of 
the main issues of my amendment, I demand a division of my amendment 
into three parts by subtitle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
so divided.
  Mr. DODD. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What was the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DODD. What was the request of the Senator from Nebraska?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator demanded a division of his 
amendment into three parts, and it has been so divided.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor and 
controls the time.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what the Senator from Nebraska has 
provided us is an opportunity to have three votes on the three 
component parts of his amendment. That is allowed under the rules of 
the Senate. It gives us an opportunity to deal with the core issues the 
Senator from Nebraska has laid out here: The increase in hard money, 
increased disclosure, and the soft money cap. It is my understanding 
that when I yield back my time, we will go to the vote on those three 
amendments. I therefore yield back my time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I make a further parliamentary inquiry? 
I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to address the Chamber for 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, let me just say all 
this provides is an opportunity for three separate votes, as the 
Senator from Nebraska has pointed out: On the hard money contribution 
limit, increased disclosure, and the soft money provisions.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate that. All I want to inquire is: There was a 
unanimous consent agreement entered into for the consideration of this 
bill, with no second-degree amendments, no intervening motions. Is it 
the understanding of the Senator from Connecticut, then, that that 
unanimous consent agreement entered into for the consideration of this 
bill did not include a motion to divide? That is the first question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Division is not a motion; it is a right of any 
Senator.
  Mr. DODD. Second, are motions to table in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first division will be open to a motion to 
table, followed by the second division, followed by the third division.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

[[Page 4605]]


  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for another parliamentary 
inquiry, and that would be simply----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe the time has basically run out. I think the 
Chair has explained there would be three votes, each subject to a 
tabling motion should the Senator from Nevada----
  Mr. REID. Mine has to do with scheduling, if the Senator will yield 
for that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for that sole purpose.
  Mr. REID. We have our party conferences at 12:30. If we have three 
votes, that will not work. I am wondering what the Senator's idea is.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest to the distinguished Democratic whip we have 
a 15-minute rollcall vote on the first vote and then 10 minutes on each 
of the next two. We should not have any problem getting to our policy 
luncheons.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I 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.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The senior assistant bill clerk continued the call of the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I said earlier, I ask unanimous 
consent that the time on the first vote be 15 minutes, and the two 
subsequent votes be 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to table and ask unanimous consent that that be 
for all three divisions. I move to table all three.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


          Vote On Division I, Subtitle A, Contribution Limits

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the third 
vote occur notwithstanding the 12:30 p.m. recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Vote on Division II, Subtitle B, Increased Disclosure

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 0, nays 100, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

                               NAYS--100

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.


                            Change of Votes

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 50, I voted ``aye.'' It 
was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote since it would in no way change 
the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 50, I voted ``aye.'' It 
was my intention to vote ``no.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote since it would in no way change 
the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above orders.)
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the Senator from Kentucky correct that in order to 
adopt the Hagel amendment, division II, just voted on, by voice vote 
would require unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I so ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. It is adopted.
  (Amendment No. 146, division II, was agreed to.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


Vote on Division III, Subtitle C, Soft Money of National Parties; State 
                       Party Allocable Activities

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 4606]]

  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just to notify the Chamber, the next 
amendment to be offered will be by Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the recess be extended until the hour of 
2:30 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________