[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Page 4882]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, we will have many important debates 
over the coming year on this Senate floor. Debates about tax cuts, 
spending priorities, education and defense, health care and 
agriculture. But none of these debates will be more important to the 
future of our democratic process than the debate over campaign finance 
reform.
  From the time I sat at our kitchen table balancing the books on my 
husband's earliest campaign to his race for the U.S. Senate, I have 
witnessed the changing face of campaigns.
  Last year's U.S. Senate race in Missouri shattered all previous 
records. The two opposing campaigns spent almost $18 million. This 
figure does not include spending by the state parties or outside 
interest groups.
  For $18 million, Missouri could have done any one of the following:
  built two new elementary schools;
  hired 500 new teachers;
  sent 3800 students to the University of Missouri;
  provided day care to an additional 5000 low-income children;
  put 9,000 new computers into our schools.
  There is no accounting of the hours and effort that went into raising 
these large sums of money. It is time and energy I am sure all Senators 
would rather spend discussing the issues and dealing with problems 
affecting their constituents.
  The traditional face-to-face visits with voters at the State fair, 
the local diner or a town hall play a much smaller role in modern 
political campaigns. Instead, candidates introduce themselves with 
costly and skillfully packaged commercials.
  According to a recent study, viewers in the Kansas City area were 
exposed to over 22,000 campaign commercials during the 2000 election 
cycle. At 30 seconds apiece, that is the equivalent of 187 straight 
hours of campaign ads. The same study showed that the number of ads 
nationwide has nearly tripled since 1998. Without reform, there is no 
end in sight.
  Not only do candidates air ads to get their own message out, they 
must also respond to negative attacks. More and more, our political 
discourse is turning away from an honest discussion of the issues 
affecting the average American. Personal attacks and outrageous 
distortions are all too common.
  What are the consequences?
  Today, Americans are more cynical and more disconnected from the 
government than ever. They read of huge contributions from special 
interest groups and wonder how one small voice can possibly be heard 
over the shouts of large donors to political campaigns.
  Election day for them is not a celebration of self-government, but a 
finale to months of nasty, negative messages that have invaded their 
homes and mailboxes.
  To rejuvenate our democracy, we must change the common perception and 
reality that our political system is dominated by big money. To wean 
American politics from these excesses will be costly and painful, but 
we must begin.
  While many reforms are necessary, purging the system of unlimited 
donations to campaigns through so called ``soft money'' is a necessary 
first step.
  Some would argue that passing McCain-Feingold will hurt the 
Democratic Party, but I say if we do not pass McCain-Feingold, we will 
be hurting the democratic process.
  This is a time when all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, must 
do what is right for our country, what is right for our democracy.
  The Biblical account of Joshua and the battle of Jericho shows us the 
strength of a united voice. We are told that ``the people shouted with 
a great shout, so that the walls fell down.''
  If we speak with one voice, the wall of ``soft money'' that separates 
ordinary citizens from their government will come down. Only then can 
we be confident that campaigns are decided by the power of our ideas, 
not by the power of our pocketbooks.
  I enthusiastically support campaign finance reform and hope that we 
can pass legislation that reduces the influence of money in politics.

                          ____________________