[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5193-5224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this has been a long and interesting 
debate, and before I begin my final remarks I would like to thank my 
superb staff, the senior member of which is Tam Somerville. Now staff 
director of the Rules Committee, she is a long-time veteran of these 
wars going back to the filibusters of 1988--a good friend and a great 
colleague. I thank her for her outstanding work over the years on this 
subject. And Hunter Bates, my chief of staff, has done superb work on 
this and a great many other matters over the years, and an old friend 
going back well over a decade. And new members of the team: Andrew 
Siff, the general counsel of the Rules Committee, who Senator McCain 
and I would have to agree sort of staffed both sides at times during 
this debate and did an outstanding job; Brian Lewis, also of the Rules 
Committee, and John Abegg of my staff, who have been marvelous in this 
whole debate.
  Now, Mr. President, the theory of this bill, the underlying theory, 
is that there is too much money in politics, in spite of the fact that 
last year Americans spent more on potato chips than they did on 
politics.
  Then the other theory of the bill is, well, if we can't squeeze all 
the money out of politics, at least we can get at that odious soft 
money. Well, I think it is important for our colleagues to know that 
the average soft money contribution to the Republican Senatorial 
Committee last year was $520. That is about one-tenth of 1 percent of 
the total amount of money we raised. The largest contribution to either 
the Republican National Committee or the Republican Senatorial 
Committee was $250,000. Admittedly, that is a lot of money, but any one 
of those donations would only have amounted to one-half of 1 percent of 
what was raised by the committees.
  Now if we were concerned about the appearance of a large 
contribution, we had an opportunity to address that when we had a vote 
on the Hagel amendment which would have capped non-Federal money, just 
as for many years we have capped Federal money. But, no, the Senate 
opted for prohibition, not moderation. Now we know what has happened 
when we have gone down that path before with prohibition. Of course, 
nothing would be prohibited.
  We had an opportunity to recognize that there is nothing inherently 
evil about non-Federal money and that the only issue really the Senate 
was trying to address was the size of the contributions; we could have 
dealt with that in the Hagel amendment, but that was defeated.
  Now other countries, many of them allies of ours, unburdened by the 
First Amendment, have squeezed the money all the way out of politics. A 
good example of that is the Japanese. The Japanese have gotten all the 
money out of politics.
  Let me tell you what it is like to run for office in Japan. The 
Government determines how many days you can campaign, the number of 
speeches you can give, the places you can speak, the number of 
handbills or bumper stickers you can hand out, and the number of 
megaphones you get--one, one megaphone per candidate. This was all in 
response to the need, it was widely perceived, to get money out of 
politics so people's view of the Parliament would go up.
  Well, after passing all of these draconian measures, now 70 percent 
of the

[[Page 5194]]

Japanese people have no confidence in the legislature and turnout 
continues to decline. So it is obvious that had no impact whatsoever.
  What we have done here, in an effort to get money out of politics, is 
to take the parties out of politics, as I pointed out last week, and 
let me briefly touch again on what we have done.
  In a 100-percent hard money world, this would be the impact on the 
party committees. Looking at the last cycle, last year, if you just 
applied the current system, the Republican National Committee had $75 
million in net hard money to spend on its candidates; under McCain-
Feingold, it would have had $37 million. The Democratic National 
Committee under the current system had $48 million net hard money for 
candidate efforts; under McCain-Feingold, it would have had $20 
million. The Republican Senatorial Committee had net hard money to 
spend on candidates of $14 million; under McCain-Feingold, it would 
have had $1 million. The Democratic Senatorial Committee had $6 million 
hard money; under McCain-Feingold, it would have had $800,000. And over 
on the House side--a real disaster. Under the current law, the 
Republican Congressional Committee had $22 million net hard money; the 
Democratic committee over in the House, minus $7 million. Under McCain-
Feingold both of them would have been substantially below water: $13 
million in the case of the congressional committee on the Republican 
side and $20 million on the Democratic side.
  In a 100-percent hard money world, as defined by McCain-Feingold, 
what we will do is take none of the money out of politics; we will just 
take the parties out of politics. And when we take the parties out of 
politics, what is the impact of that? Parties are the one entity in 
America that will support a challenger. Parties are filters. They will 
support a Republican whether he is a liberal Republican or a 
conservative Republican. Interest groups won't always do that. Parties 
will go to bat for their members no matter what.
  If we look at the upcoming 2002 cycle, the coordinated expenditure 
limit for Senate campaigns will be $15 million. Applying the new 
McCain-Feingold standard, the Republican Senatorial Committee and 
Democratic Senatorial Committee will be able to fund the coordinated 
expenditures in North Carolina. That is about it.
  In addition to that, in this new world with substantially fewer 
Federal hard dollars, the national committees will have to do a lot 
more. To provide some examples: All the redistricting efforts by both 
national parties will have to be paid for with 100-percent hard 
dollars; new responsibilities paid for with 100-percent hard dollars. 
All national party get out the vote, voter registration and voter 
identification efforts will have to be paid for with 100-percent hard 
dollars. Any support from national party committees to State and local 
candidates will have to be 100-percent hard dollars. I would venture to 
say that the national conventions, which the press has declared boring 
for some time now, are probably a thing of the past.
  Host committees for national conventions are abolished. Last year it 
took each party $80 million to put on their national conventions. They 
got $15 million from the Treasury. All the rest of it was this odious 
soft money which is going to be abolished. In order to continue to put 
on the national conventions in hard dollars, the two committees will 
have to come up with about $60 million each in hard dollars to put on 
the national conventions.
  My guess is they will decide they might as well let the national 
conventions become a relic of the past because they will not be able to 
afford to put on the conventions and also help the candidates. Given 
that choice, they clearly will want to help the candidates. The 
conventions may or may not happen again or they may be very short, 
maybe a half-day convention. I recommend they come to Louisville, KY. I 
think we could handle the size of the convention now. We haven't been 
able to apply for it in the past.
  In addition to that, McCain-Feingold is so sweeping it is likely to 
preclude Senators from raising money for churches and charities because 
there is written into the bill an effort to restrict the ability to 
raise money for 501(c)s. A query: Will Senator McCain or myself be able 
to raise money for the International Republican Institute or Senator 
Kennedy raise money for the Special Olympics? I doubt it.
  In addition to that, there is a very serious question of what to do 
with the soft money already raised. Both parties are having their 
dinners this year as if everything is pretty much the same. Typically 
at these party dinners, about 80 percent of the dollars raised are 
soft. Under McCain-Feingold, not one penny of soft money in any account 
controlled by either a Member of Congress or a national party committee 
can be directed to, donated to, transferred to, or spent. Let me say 
this again: All the non-Federal money already collected is going to be 
dead money. You can't do anything with it. You can't direct it. You 
can't donate it. You can't transfer it. You can't spend it. As I read 
that, it couldn't be transferred to a State party, donated to a 
charity, or even directed to the U.S. Treasury. So it is going to sit 
there, frozen, useless assets.
  Who wins?
  As I said the other day, who wins are people such as Jerome Kohlberg. 
This is the billionaire who has decided this is going to be his legacy. 
This is the full page ad he ran in the Washington Post the other day on 
behalf of this legislation. I suspect a lot of the lobbyists out in the 
hall right off the Senate floor are either on his payroll directly or 
indirectly. People such as Jerome Kohlberg and the big charitable 
foundations are underwriting the reform movement, hand in hand with the 
editorial pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times, which 
have editorialized on this subject an average of once every 6 days over 
the last 27 months.
  At least in the Senate, they are going to get their way shortly, but 
this new world won't take a penny out of politics, not a penny. It will 
all be spent. It just won't be spent by the parties. It will be spent 
by the Jerome Kohlbergs of the world and all of the interest groups out 
there. As everyone knows, the restrictions on those interest groups 
will be struck down in court, if we get that far.
  Welcome to the brave new world where the voices of parties are 
quieted, the voices of billionaires are enhanced, the voices of 
newspapers are enhanced, and the one entity out there in America, the 
core of the two-party system, that influence is dramatically reduced.
  I strongly urge our colleagues to vote against this legislation. It 
clearly moves in the wrong direction.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side be 
extended an additional 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the Senate took long awaited action to 
approve legislation to address what the American people believe is the 
single most egregious abuse of our campaign finance system--that is the 
unlimited flow of soft money permeating our elections system. If the 
McCain-Feingold legislation did nothing else but close the soft money 
loophole, it would still be reform.
  But my colleagues have accomplished much more in this legislation. I 
congratulate Senators McCain and Feingold for their vision in 
recognizing the powerfully negative influence of the money chase on our 
political system and their dogged persistence and patience in striving 
to craft a consensus on reform legislation that seeks to address the 
worst aspects of the current system.
  But the Senate would not be here today if not for the equally 
determined leadership of Tom Daschle and the Democratic caucus. No 
member has been more consistent in support of reform than our leader, 
and no member has worked harder behind the scenes to hold the 
Democratic caucus together in support of this measure.
  At the same time, I must also acknowledge the powerful influence of 
my colleague, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for his unstinting

[[Page 5195]]

devotion to the principles of free speech and his unyielding belief 
that most, if not all, proposed campaign finance reforms are not only 
unwise, but unconstitutional.
  While a majority of this body clearly do not share Senator 
McConnell's views, I appreciate his willingness to allow the debate to 
continue unhindered, unlike debates in the past, by repeated cloture 
votes.
  This debate has exemplified the Senate at its best. The free flow of 
debate, the unrestricted offering of well reasoned amendments, and the 
opportunity for all members to be heard are the hallmarks of this, the 
world's greatest deliberative body.
  Finally, I must express my great respect to my colleagues in the 
Democratic caucus, under the very able leadership of Senator Daschle, 
who, along with a small group of courageous Senators across the aisle, 
have put aside their own short-term political interests and voted time 
and again in favor of comprehensive, commonsense, and badly-needed 
campaign finance reform.
  I predict that this debate will find its place in history as one of 
the greatest Senate debates in the last decade, both in terms of its 
content and its impact on our system of democracy.
  I have been privileged and honored to serve as floor manager of this 
measure, along with the Senator from Kentucky. As my colleague from 
Kentucky has alluded, the stakes in this debate were considerable for 
many interested parties.
  And although members disagreed over the need for this measure, and 
amendments to it, Senators were not disagreeable in their debate. I 
thank my colleagues for their patience and cooperation throughout this 
debate.
  I also compliment my good friend, the Majority Leader, for his 
willingness to allow the Senate to have a free-flowing debate. This 
issue is of paramount importance to the continued health of this 
democracy, and his willingness to provide for free and open debate on 
the McCain-Feingold measure has produced, in this Senator's mind, an 
even better bill than was originally brought to the Senate floor.
  I am hopeful there will be an opportunity to make further 
improvements in this measure in the House. Although I am supporting the 
McCain-Feingold legislation, there are two provisions, in particular, 
that cause me concern.
  First is the so-called millionaire's provision which purports to 
level the playing field for candidates who face wealthy challengers. 
While that may be a laudable goal, the amendment ignores the fact that 
many incumbents who face wealthy challengers are sitting on healthy 
campaign treasuries, sometimes amounting to several million dollars. In 
those instances, this amendment serves as an incumbent protection 
provision.
  As I stated on Friday before passage of the Durbin-Domenici-DeWine 
amendment to fix this inequity, I am not satisfied that the Durbin 
amendment went far enough to recognize the considerable war chests that 
some incumbents have. I urge my colleagues in the House to carefully 
consider this provision with an eye to improving it.
  Seconds, although I reluctantly supported the Thompson-Feingold 
amendment to increase the individual hard money contribution limits, I 
did so only in the context of achieving broader reform. Quite simply, 
the increase in the hard money limits was the price to be paid to gain 
sufficient support from our Republican colleagues for banning soft 
money and reining in so-called sham issue ads.
  Of particular concern to me is the indexing of these increases which 
only ensures the continuing upward spiral of money into our political 
system. While I understand the desire of some to avoid a future debate 
on reform, the fact that the hard money limits had not been increased 
since 1974 is what created both the pressure and the opportunity for 
this reform.
  Again, I urge my colleagues in the House to consider these limits and 
avoid the temptation to increase them ever higher; otherwise, there may 
come a time when the price for reform becomes too great for this 
Senator.
  I am hopeful that the House will act expeditiously on this measure. 
While I do not suggest that House members forego their responsibility 
and right to thoroughly debate and amend this legislation, I encourage 
them to do so in a manner that will allow this bill to reach the 
President's desk before the end of this year.
  I also thank the numerous staff who have assisted in facilitating 
consideration of this measure, not the least of which are our 
Democratic floor staff, including Marty Paone, Lula Davis, and Gary 
Myrick, along with the outstanding Democratic cloakroom staff.
  I also extend my special appreciation to Andrea LaRue of Senator 
Daschle's staff. She, along with Mark Childress and Mark Patterson, 
were invaluable in offering much needed expertise and guidance on this 
legislation.
  Of equal assistance were the staffs of Senators Feingold and McCain, 
including Bob Schiff, Ann Choiniere and Mark Buse, as well as Laurie 
Rubenstein of Senator Lieberman's staff and Linda Gustitus of Senator 
Levin's staff.
  I also wish to acknowledge the contributions of Senator McConnell's 
staff, including Hunter Davis of his personal staff, and Tam Somerville 
and Andrew Siff of the Rules Committee staff.
  Finally, I thank Shawn Maher of my personal office staff, and 
Veronica Gillespie, my Elections counsel on the Rules Committee staff, 
as well as Kennie Gill, the Democratic staff director and chief counsel 
of the Rules Committee.
  One final point, Mr. President. The great justice, Learned Hand, once 
spoke of liberty as the great equalizer among men. In his words, ``the 
spirit of liberty is the . . . lesson . . . (mankind) has never 
learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom 
where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the 
greatest.''
  That, my colleagues, should be the ultimate test of whether any 
matter considered by this body is worthy of support. The McCain-
Feingold legislation passes that test.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, improving the campaign finance system is 
an important priority. Without a doubt constructive criticism works to 
help cleanse the system. More importantly, good debate helps reduce 
public cynicism. That is why I would like to commend my colleagues for 
the good discussions we have had in the past 2 weeks.
  My goals for campaign finance reform have long included improved 
citizen participation, enhanced public discourse, full public 
disclosure and safeguarding the right of Americans to organize and 
petition their government. To accomplish these objectives, I want 
reform to give individuals a bigger role in the political process, 
increase up-front participation of political parties, protect corporate 
shareholders and union members from being forced to bankroll candidates 
they oppose, discourage misconduct by political campaigns with swift 
and sure punishment, and require full public disclosure of contribution 
sources.
  Therefore, in evaluating any campaign finance legislation I ask 
myself, does this bill accomplish these goals?
  I believe that we made progress with the McCain-Feingold bill by 
providing for greater disclosure such as requiring all television and 
radio stations to include in their ``public file'' all media buys for 
all political advertising, by requiring additional disclosure for 
Federal candidates and national political parties, and requiring the 
Federal Election Commission to provide the information on the Internet 
within a reasonable amount of time. I also believe that it was prudent 
of us to increase the individual hard money contribution limit set back 
in 1974. Furthermore, we increased the penalties for election law 
violators.
  On the other hand, I was disappointed that the Senate failed to agree 
to several amendments that I feel would have been good reform. Such 
amendments were those to provide disclosure and consent to corporate 
shareholders and union members regarding the use of their funds for 
political activities and the effort to limit soft

[[Page 5196]]

money, instead of a complete ban which will likely be thrown out by the 
Courts.
  However, there is a more egregious problem with this legislation. 
This bill fails to protect an individual's right to organize and 
petition their government and engage in full public disclosure.
  Virtually every American has a ``special interest,'' whether its 
lower taxes, endangered species, education, or international trade 
agreements. To get individual voices heard above the din of American 
politics, individuals organize to exercise their first amendment rights 
of free speech. However, this McCain-Feingold bill severely restricts 
the groups which average citizens join to express themselves: issue 
advocacy groups and political parties. Therefore, wealthy individuals 
and the media have a larger role in the political process and the 
individual role is diminished.
  I would like to point out three specific ways the McCain-Feingold 
bill violates our first amendments rights: 1. Issue Advocacy--This bill 
imposes limits on communications about issues regardless of whether the 
communication ``expressly advocates'' the election or defeat of a 
particular candidate and restricts the time that issue advocacy 
communications can be distributed. 2. Coordination--This legislation 
grossly expands the concept of coordinated activity between candidates 
and citizen groups. This regulates and prohibits all but the most 
insignificant contacts and actions from citizen groups as a 
``contribution'' or ``expenditure'' to a specific campaign. 3. 
Political Parties--This reform measure limits the role of political 
parties to simply electing politicians. The restrictions on soft money 
restrict political parties in their ability to support grassroots 
activity, candidate recruitment and get-out-the-vote efforts.
  In the 21st Century, it's easy to forget that America's Founding 
Fathers sacrificed all to give Americans political freedom. These 
patriots fought and risked their lives and everything they had to 
secure and protect free political speech, dissent or assent, of all 
kinds. Free political speech protects us from tyranny.
  The first amendment forbids Congress to make any law ``abridging the 
freedom of speech,'' especially political speech. I swore to uphold the 
Constitution. Therefore, I cannot vote for a bill that I believe 
violates our first amendments rights.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday, at long last, the United States 
Senate voted to take a first step toward reforming our campaign finance 
system. This long awaited vote comes after years of partisan delay 
tactics which have long prevented us from taking an up-or-down vote on 
this bill. It also comes after an election in which $3 billion was 
spent in an effort to elect or defeat candidates. Today we have the 
chance to pass reform which at the very least demonstrates that we've 
learned a lesson from years of scandal and year upon year of runaway 
spending.
  But let me be clear about something: despite the rhetoric we have 
heard on the Senate floor, the bill we vote on today is not sweeping 
reform that will give one party or the other the edge when it comes to 
funding campaigns. Instead, this bill simply restores, to a certain 
degree, the campaign finance reform laws that we enacted more than 25 
years ago. Back then, in the post-Watergate era, we recognized that it 
was time to prevent secret stashes of cash from infiltrating our 
political system. We succeeded in that effort, and I believe the system 
worked reasonably well for some time, until the recent phenomena of 
soft money and sham issue advocacy overtook the real limits we had 
established for our campaign system.
  I want to take a minute, to talk about how we got to this point in 
which our system so desperately needs this modest reform bill. Federal 
law has prohibited corporations from contributing to federal candidates 
since 1907. This nearly hundred-year-old ban was enacted in recognition 
of the fact that corporations accumulate great wealth that could be 
used to distort electoral outcomes. Labor unions likewise have been 
barred from contributing to candidates since 1943. In addition, the 
post-Watergate campaign finance law capped individual contributions to 
candidates, parties and PACs. These limits were put in place after the 
country learned a hard lesson about the corrupting influence of money 
in politics.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Election Commission and the courts opened 
the loopholes that ultimately eviscerated our reform efforts. Soft 
money first came into play in 1978 when the FEC, the toothless watchdog 
of our campaign finance laws, opened the door to the cascade of soft 
money by giving the Kansas Republican State Committee permission to use 
corporate and union funds to pay for a voter drive benefitting federal 
as well as state candidates. The costs of the drive were to be split 
between hard money raised under federal law and soft money raised under 
Kansas law. The FEC's decision in the Kansas case gave parties the 
option to spend soft money any time a federal election coincides with a 
state or local race.
  Sham issue advocacy too, has a history that defies the intent of 
campaign finance laws. In what remains the seminal case on campaign 
finance, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that campaign finance 
limitations applied only to ``communications that in express terms 
advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for 
federal office.'' A footnote to the opinion says that the limits apply 
when communications include terms ``such as `vote for,' `elect,' 
`support,' `cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `vote 
against,' `defeat,' `reject.' '' The phrases in the footnote have 
become known as the ``magic words'' without which a communication, no 
matter what its purpose or impact, is often classified as issue 
advocacy, thus falling outside the reach of the campaign finance laws.
  Until the 1992 election cycle, most for-profit, not-for-profit, and 
labor organizations did not attempt to get into electoral politics via 
issue advocacy. However, that year a group called the Christian Action 
Network ran an ad that stretched the distinction between express 
advocacy and issue advocacy to its limits. The ad, which was broadcast 
at least 250 times just before the presidential election, was described 
by a court as giving candidate Bill Clinton a ``sinister and 
threatening appearance'' before finally wiping his image from the 
screen. The 30-second spot, entitled ``Clinton's Vision for a Better 
America,'' denounced what the Christian Action Network labeled 
Clinton's ``homosexual agenda.'' The ad never used Buckley's ``magic 
words'' and the Court of Appeals decided that the ad was a discussion 
of issues related to ``family values'' rather than an exhortation to 
vote against Clinton in the upcoming presidential election.
  The ad by the Christian Action Network and others like it opened the 
flood gates to more so-called issue advocacy in later elections, 
resulting in the half-a-billion dollars in sham issue ads that 
influenced the 2000 elections.
  Soft money and sham issue advocacy became predominant features of our 
campaign finance system even though neither was intended to play a role 
in our campaigns when the post-Watergate reform laws were written. The 
result? Last year approximately $1 billion in soft money contributions 
and sham issue ad expenditures influenced our federal elections. Many 
who oppose reform will argue that both soft money and sham issue ads 
are constitutionally protected and should be allowed to continue 
unfettered. I would like to take just a moment to address those 
arguments.
  We have been told that the ability to donate hundreds of thousands of 
dollars in soft money is constitutionally protected. The truth is, 
banning soft money contributions does not violate the Constitution. The 
Supreme Court in Buckley held that limits on individual campaign 
contributions do not violate the First Amendment. If a limit of $1000 
on contributions by individuals was upheld as constitutional, then a 
ban of contributions of $10,000, $100,000 or $1 million is also going 
to be upheld. It simply cannot be said that the First Amendment 
provides an absolute prohibition of any and all restrictions on

[[Page 5197]]

speech. When state interests are more important than unfettered free 
speech, speech can be narrowly limited. Speech is limited in cases of 
false advertising and obscenity. In addition, we are not, as the saying 
goes, free to yell ``fire'' in a crowded movie theater. In those cases, 
there is a compelling reason to limit speech. Buckley, too, said that 
the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption warranted limits 
on individual campaign contributions. Soft money contributions to 
political parties can be limited for the same reason.
  In addition, in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC, the Supreme Court 
recently justified its decision to uphold a $1050 contribution limit 
for elections in Missouri, stating that it was concerned with ``the 
broader threat from politicians too compliant with the wishes of large 
contributors.'' It went on to say: ``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.'' I think the Supreme Court's language bodes 
well for the likelihood that a soft money ban will be upheld.
  Likewise, I believe that the electioneering provisions of the bill 
will be upheld. It's a trickier case, but I would submit that the 
bright line test in McCain-Feingold satisfies the Supreme Court's 
holding in Buckley. The so-called ``magic words'' test of express 
advocacy has come to provide what is a wholly unworkable test that I 
believe was never the intention of the Court. The magic words test 
elevates form over substance, and in practice has proven meaningless. 
The proof of that is in the half-a-billion dollars in sham issue ads 
that were aired last year.
  I would add that the test in this bill does not stop any 
advertisements. Advertisements that simply discuss issues, without 
naming candidates are always permissible. Advertisements that air 
within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election can 
discuss issues, as long as the ads do not depict a particular 
candidate. And any advertisement can be aired at any time, as long as 
it is paid for with hard money.
  A final argument opponents of reform like to make is that we spend 
less on campaigns than we do on potato chips or laundry detergent. But 
I would ask the proponents of this argument whether what we are seeking 
in our democracy is electioneering that has no more depth or substance 
than a snack food commercial. Because, despite the ever-increasing sums 
spent on campaigns, we have not seen an improvement in campaign 
discourse, issue discussion or voter education. More money does not 
mean more ideas, more substance or more depth. Instead, it means more 
of what voters complain about most. More thirty-second spots, more 
negativity and an increasingly longer campaign period. Less money might 
actually improve the quality of discourse, requiring candidates to more 
cautiously spend their resources. It might encourage more debates, as 
was the case in my own race against Bill Weld in 1996, and it would 
certainly focus the candidates' voter education efforts during the 
period shortly before the election, when most voters are tuned in, 
instead of starting the campaign 18 months before election day.
  The American people don't buy the arguments made by opponents of 
reform. The American people want us to forge a better system. A 
national survey conducted by the Mellman Group in April of last year 
found that by a margin of 68 percent to 19 percent, voters favored a 
proposal that eliminates private contributions, sets spending limits 
and gives qualifying candidates a grant from a publicly financed 
election fund. That same survey also found that 59 percent of voters 
agree that we need to make major changes to the way we finance 
elections. But perhaps the most telling statistic from this survey is 
that overwhelming majorities think that special interest contributions 
affect the voting behavior of Members of Congress. Eighty-seven percent 
of voters believe that money impacts Members of Congress, with 56 
percent expressing the belief that it affects the members ``a lot.'' 
Even when asked about their own representatives, the survey again found 
that voters overwhelmingly believed that money influenced their 
behavior. Eighty-two percent believe campaign contributions affect 
their own members, and 47 percent thought their representatives were 
affected ``a lot.''
  McCain-Feingold is an important piece of legislation that begins to 
tackle the problems of soft money and issue advocacy I have outlined. I 
support this legislation, but I would note one serious shortcoming of 
the bill. It won't curb the rampant spending that drives the quest for 
money. Unfortunately, we all recognize that creating spending limits is 
not a simple proposition. In the 1996 Buckley case, the Supreme Court 
struck spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction of political 
speech. An important caveat to its decision is that spending limits 
could be imposed in exchange for a public benefit. I wish we had at our 
disposal a number of bargaining chips, public benefits that we could 
trade in exchange for spending limits. However, unless the Supreme 
Court reverses itself, something I am certainly not expecting in the 
near future, we must accept that if we want to limit the amounts spent 
on campaigns, we must provide candidates with some sort of public 
grant.
  The votes we have taken on various amendments addressing public 
funding make it clear that a lot of my colleagues aren't ready to 
embrace public funding as a way to finance our campaigns. But it is, in 
my opinion, the best constitutional means to the important end of 
limiting campaign spending and the contributions that go with it. 
Ultimately, I believe in the potential of a system that provides full 
public funding for political candidates. I would also support a partial 
public funding system, such as the one I offered in an amendment to 
this legislation. That amendment would have freed candidates from the 
need to raise unlimited amounts of money by providing with ``liberty 
dollars'' in the form of a two-for-one match for small contributions, 
in exchange for the candidates agreeing to abide by spending limits. I 
believe that any system that reduces candidates' reliance on private 
money and encourages them to abide by spending limits will ultimately 
be the best way to truly and completely purge our system of the 
negative influence of corporate money.
  Many of our states are already engaging in a grand experiment to see 
if full or partial public funding of campaigns serves the goals of 
reform. At the state level, politicians are learning that the cost of 
campaigns can be capped without reducing the effectiveness of a 
campaign. Challengers are becoming more competitive as their campaigns 
are infused with public money. Incumbents are learning that they can 
spend less time fundraising and more time governing if they avail 
themselves to public campaign funds. And our citizens are learning that 
their faith in the political process can be restored as money no longer 
appears to influence the political process.
  I am pleased that my home state of Massachusetts is one of the states 
that is experimenting with a Clean Money, Clean Elections law. The law, 
which voters adopted by referendum in 1998, will go into effect this 
year and will provide candidates for state office with full public 
funding if they agree to abide by spending limits. A recent survey of 
voters across the state found that three-fourths support the law. I am 
optimistic that the majority will grow after the law is put to its 
first test during the upcoming elections.
  It seems that Clean Money, Clean Elections laws are off to a good 
start in the states. But we need to know more about how well these 
programs work. That is why I am pleased that the managers of this bill 
accepted an amendment I offered that will require the GAO to examine 
the impact of Clean Money, Clean Elections laws in states where they 
have been enacted. Specifically, my amendment will require the GAO to 
determine more about the candidates who have chosen to run for public 
office using Clean Money, Clean Elections funds. It will provide us 
with concrete figures on which offices attract Clean Money, Clean 
Elections

[[Page 5198]]

candidates, whether incumbents choose to use clean money, and the 
success rate of Clean Money candidates.
  In addition, the GAO will be able to determine whether Clean Money, 
Clean Elections programs reduced the cost of campaigns, increased 
candidate participation or created more competitive primary or general 
elections.
  We should encourage states to experiment with reform. I believe an 
objective study as required by this amendment will better enable 
leaders at the state level to evaluate the Clean Money, Clean Elections 
option. In the end, we may all learn that there is an important role 
for public financing in state and ultimately federal elections.
  As I said before, this bill, which bans soft money, regulates sham 
issue ads, and provides a study for public funding systems provides a 
good first start to reform, and I will therefore support it. I have one 
serious reservation about the bill, however, and that is its increase 
in the hard money limits. Although I fully understand the argument that 
the limits have not kept up with inflation, I am concerned that the 
increases in individual limits and, most especially, aggregate limits, 
do not take us in the right direction of decreasing the amount of money 
in elections. Moreover, this increase simply enables the tiniest 
percentage of the population that currently contributes large 
contributions to contribute even more. This increase does nothing at 
all to increase the role the average voter plays in our election 
process.
  Nevertheless, the vote yesterday is a victory for reform--but it 
needs to be the first vote, not the last. I want to offer my 
congratulations to my friends Russell Feingold and John McCain on this 
victory for reform, passage of a bill that breaks free from the status 
quo and will help us restore the dwindling faith the average American 
has in our political system. For too long we've known that we can't go 
on leaving our citizens with the impression that the only kind of 
influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a 
checkbook. This bill reduces the power of the checkbook and I am proud 
to support it.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 27, the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. I have been a consistent 
supporter and cosponsor of campaign finance reform because I believe we 
must do everything we can to ensure that there is not even a perception 
of undue influence in Federal elections.
  The debate of the last 2 weeks has provided us with a unique 
opportunity to examine a wide range of issues related to the financing 
of political campaigns. The result is a bill with strong bipartisan 
support. This landmark legislation, if signed into law, will succeed in 
banning soft or unregulated money in Federal elections. The unlimited 
flow of money into party coffers creates the greatest opportunity for 
special interests to seek favor with politicians. The reality that 
businesses or organizations can be tapped for such vast sums has 
dramatically changed the atmosphere surrounding the work of our 
legislative and executive branches of Government.
  With this legislation, we are also finally getting at one of the most 
troublesome areas of unregulated and unreported spending in Federal 
elections, so-called sham issue ads. This legislation does not ban 
issue advocacy or limit the right of groups to air their views. Rather, 
the disclosure provisions in the bill require that these groups step up 
and identify themselves when they run issue ads which are clearly 
targeted for or against candidates.
  The Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 has left us 
with the difficult task of devising a system of financing campaigns 
without suppressing free speech. Our Founding Fathers were resolute in 
their defense of speech and we must continue to protect the first 
amendment right. We do so, however, with the understanding that we must 
reconcile free speech with a competing public interest. This interest, 
as articulated in Buckley v. Valeo, is preventing corruption of Federal 
elected officials or even the appearance of corruption. Let me be 
clear, I do not believe that our system is corrupt or that elected 
officials are corrupted by campaign contributions. However, I agree 
that we must combat the perception of corruption.
  It isn't difficult to understand why a majority of American citizens 
are convinced that the presence of special interest money in politics 
buys influence. The vast majority of those citizens do not participate 
in contributing to political candidates--in a recent survey, 6 percent 
of the electorate said they gave any money to a political candidate and 
less than one-tenth of one percent even contribute at the current 
$1,000 contribution limit--so it is no wonder that most Americans 
believe that they can't compete with the few who do give and who often 
gain access as a result. Many Americans believe that their voices are 
not heard.
  Whether the presence of unlimited political contributions is 
corrupting or whether it just creates the appearance of corruption, the 
damage is done. Americans are disaffected with politics and political 
campaigns and have voted against the current system with their feet: 
For decades we've seen a gradual decline in voter turnout. In 1952, 
about 63 percent of eligible voters came out to vote. That number 
dropped to 49 percent in the 1996 election. We saw a minor increase in 
this past election with voter turnout at 51 percent of eligible voters, 
however, not a significant increase given the closeness of the 
election. Non-Presidential year voter turnout is even more abysmal.
  Our representative democracy is harmed by eroding participation. As 
elected officials, we have a responsibility to try to address the 
sources of voter disaffection. And, that is ultimately what campaign 
finance reform is all about, restoring the confidence of the American 
people in our elected government.
  I am keenly aware of how fortunate I am to be able to finance my own 
campaigns. I do not accept contributions from political action 
committees and I am not burdened with the task of raising vast amounts 
of money to run for office. However, during debate on this bill I was 
willing to support amendments which would help level the playing field 
for all candidates. That is why I supported the DeWine amendment which 
raised the contribution limits for candidates whose opponents spend 
their own money to fund their campaigns. That is also why I was willing 
to support the Thompson-Feinstein amendment to increase contribution 
limits in a reasonable way, beyond the limits set back in the 
seventies. And that is why I supported the Torricelli amendment to give 
political candidates the opportunity to buy advertising time at the 
lowest unit cost, as originally intended in the Federal Election 
Campaign Act.
  It is my hope that this legislation is signed into law. I fear if 
this bill becomes bogged down in a conference or if the President 
vetoes it, we will have missed a rare opportunity to achieve meaningful 
campaign finance reform. The unprecedented time we have spent debating 
this issue--and a wonderful debate it has been, fast-paced and 
unscripted--will not be repeated any time soon.
  Finally, I want to commend my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ 
Feingold. He has been dogged in his pursuit of campaign finance reform. 
For 5 years now, he has championed this issue, even when it was not 
always popular with his colleagues. He has forged a potent partnership 
with Senator McCain and they have waged a campaign across the country 
and in the Senate to rally the American people for the reforms we are 
adopting today. While he has been unbending in his desire to move this 
forward, he has also compromised and adjusted so that we could address 
the worst abuses of the system. He has earned the respect of all 
Wisconsinites for his leadership on campaign finance reform.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to vote to overhaul 
our nation's campaign finance system. The McCain-Feingold legislation 
represents a step forward that is long overdue. In recent years, it has 
become clear that our campaign finance system is broken. There's too 
much money in elections. It's too hard for average citizens

[[Page 5199]]

to be heard. Their voices are being drowned out by big-money special 
interests and wealthy contributors. It's getting harder for citizens of 
average means to run for office. The system is too secretive. There are 
undisclosed groups giving money and trying to influence elections with 
no sunshine and no public disclosure. And especially after this last 
election, many people are wondering if their vote will count. As a 
result, Americans are cynical about elections and aren't participating. 
We need to turn that around.
  Ever since I came to the Senate, I've fought for campaign finance 
reform. I've consistently voted to get the Senate to debate campaign 
finance reform. In 1997, I served on the Leadership Task Force on 
Campaign Reform. In 1998, I offered an amendment for full disclosure. 
And in my own reelection campaign in 1998, I went above and beyond the 
legal requirements, and I disclosed everyone who supported me, whether 
they contributed $5 or $500.
  Given the problems in the system, I developed a set of principles for 
reform that have guided my decisions throughout this debate. My 
principles for reform are: First, there should be less money in 
politics. Second, I want to make sure that average voters aren't 
drowned-out by special interests or the wealthy. Third, we must demand 
far more disclosure from those who work to influence elections. When 
voters see an ad on TV or get a flyer in the mail, they should know who 
paid for it. There must be disclosure for telephone calls and voter 
guides. Citizens have a right to know who's trying to influence them. 
We've seen a disturbing increase in the number of issue ads, which are 
often negative attack ads. Too often, voters have no idea who's 
bankrolling these ads. Voters deserve to know and that is why I have 
called for far greater disclosure. Fourth, we need to keep elections 
open to all Americans. We need to ensure that average citizens not just 
millionaires can run for office. When I ran for the Senate in 1992, the 
most I'd ever earned was $23,000 a year. I wasn't a millionaire. I 
wasn't a celebrity, but I was able to run for office and win a seat in 
the Senate because the system was open to anyone. That's getting more 
difficult today. Finally, we need to make it easier, not harder, for 
people to vote. We need to make sure that when citizens vote their 
votes are counted.
  The bill now before the Senate makes some progress toward the 
principles I've outlined. I am disappointed this legislation does not 
go further. Some amendments have strengthened the bill. Other 
amendments, including raising the limits on hard money, have weakened 
the bill. The hard money limit in particular will inject more money 
into politics at a time when I, and most Americans, want to reduce the 
amount of money in politics. This bill also has the potential to give a 
disproportionately larger role in elections to third party 
organizations. I'd rather see citizens and candidates have a stronger 
voice than third party organizations.
  I know my colleagues recognize that this is a carefully balanced 
bill. If, at some point in the future, the courts invalidate some 
portion of this bill, Congress should return to the legislation to 
restore the balance of fairness in our nation's elections laws. 
Campaign finance reform should not be a gift to either party, but 
should instead return our democracy to its rightful owners, the 
American people.
  Before I close I would like to remind my colleagues that our work on 
election reform is far from completed. Unfortunately, this legislation 
does nothing to ensure that every citizen's vote counts in an election, 
something that is sorely needed in the wake of the Presidential 
election. If Congress is to truly restore the people's faith in our 
election system, we must ensure that every vote counts. On that matter, 
this legislation stands silent.
  On the whole, however, this bill is a significant step forward. It 
should help restore citizens' faith in our electoral process. It also 
illustrates the Senate's ability to address issues of concern to the 
American people.
  I cast my vote in favor of this much-needed reform.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to take a few moments to explain why I 
will oppose S. 27 on final passage. At the outset, however, I want to 
congratulate my colleague John McCain for bringing this matter to a 
successful conclusion in the Senate. He has fought long and hard to get 
to this point.
  If this bill becomes law, we know that the Supreme Court will have 
the final say as to its constitutionality. Few doubt that the bill at 
least raises issues about the fundamental liberties guaranteed in the 
First Amendment. Having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I 
cannot vote for a bill I believe the courts are almost certain to 
strike down. Both the restrictions on issue advocacy contained in Title 
II of this bill, and the bill's total ban on soft money contributions 
to parties are, in my opinion, likely to be declared unconstitutional.
  Like the proponents of the bill before us, I believe that it is too 
difficult to mount a viable challenge to an incumbent Member of 
Congress; that Members of Congress spend too much of their time raising 
funds for their campaigns; that voter turnout is lower than it ought to 
be; and that advertisements by outside groups often drown out the 
voices of candidates. Worst of all, there is the lingering concern that 
fundraising considerations can affect Members' decisions.
  But, whereas the proponents of the bill before us contend that their 
reforms will promote participation, competition, and disinterested 
deliberation within our politics, I am concerned that passing this 
bill, if anything, will have the opposite effect. I am especially 
concerned about the bill's adverse effect on our two great political 
parties, which are the primary targets of S. 27.
  It is political parties that help challengers to overcome the 
significant advantages incumbents enjoy, and help candidates, incumbent 
and non-incumbent alike to fight back against attacks from outside 
groups.
  It is political parties that do much of the voter registration and 
get-out-the-vote organizing that bring new voters to the polls.
  And because a party will provide support to any credible candidate 
who will run on its line, it provides a counterweight to single-issue 
committees which can spend large sums of money defining the candidate.
  As has been widely reported, the bill before us targets political 
parties by prohibiting them from receiving so-called ``soft money'' 
donations. It imposes particularly severe restrictions on party 
organizations in the 50 states, preventing them from using funds, other 
than federally-regulated ``hard dollars'', even under state law for 
party-building activities and constitutionally protected issue advocacy 
during any time-frame that coincides with a federal election. To 
realize that most state and local contests are conducted concurrently 
with federal campaigns is to realize how stifling such restrictions are 
going to be.
  To the extent that there is credible evidence of corruption of 
officeholders by unlimited soft money contributions, it might be 
constitutional to limit the amount of such contributions, as opposed to 
banning them altogether. For that reason, I supported Senator Hagel's 
proposal to cap soft money contributions to parties at $60,000. 
Imposing such a cap would achieve the objective of preventing a donor 
from potentially corrupting those to whom he donates while heeding the 
Supreme Court's warning that any such limitation be tailored as 
narrowly as possible to meet that objective.
  Senator Hagel's alternative, which I supported and the Senate 
rejected, would arguably also have weakened political parties, but it 
would not have marginalized them, the way S. 27 is likely to do. The 
Hagel bill, by combining its restrictions on parties with a hard-money 
limit increase, offered a reasonable bargain: moderate the influence of 
parties, while increasing the ability of candidates to get their own 
message out.
  The bill before us imposes much more stringent limits on parties, 
while providing much more modest relief to candidates in the form of a 
hard-money limit increase.

[[Page 5200]]

  By causing a contraction of the supply of money available to parties 
and candidates, this arrangement will lead to either an attenuation of 
political debate or the movement of funds into the coffers of outside 
single-issue groups. They and the media will take the place of the 
parties and the candidates in carrying the messages of the campaign.
  Again, this is assuming that the Supreme Court upholds a soft money 
ban. There are several legal precedents that make this assumption 
difficult to sustain.
  In 1976, in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court 
held that restrictions on political donations and expenditures impinge 
on the rights of speech and association protected by the First 
Amendment, and, therefore, are subject to the most stringent level of 
constitutional scrutiny.
  In a 1996 case, Colorado Republican Party v. FEC, the Court made it 
clear that these guarantees extend to political parties, as well as to 
independent citizens and groups, noting that, as Justice Thomas wrote 
in a concurring opinion, ``political associations allow citizens to 
pool their resources and make their advocacy more effective, and such 
efforts are fully protected by the First Amendment.''
  It is true that a common manifestation of that protected advocacy is 
the type of communication that has, not altogether inaccurately, been 
described as the ``sham issue ad.'' But the Buckley court anticipated 
that ``the distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and 
advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in 
practical application,'' yet insisted that ``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,'' said the Court, ``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.''
  In light of these holdings, it is difficult to imagine that the 
courts could find a prohibition aimed at preventing the parties from 
engaging in this type of advocacy to be anything but an infringement on 
the free speech rights of those organizations. If, as I believe they 
will, courts strike down these provisions of the bill, and unions, 
corporations, and other entities are allowed to use unregulated funds 
for issue advocacy, S. 27's soft money ban on contributions to parties 
could give rise to a very plausible equal protection claim.
  Of course, activity by independent entities does not fall outside the 
scope of the bill before us. The proponents of the bill suggest that we 
who worry about its impact on parties and non-incumbents should be 
consoled by the restrictions it places on the ability of such citizen 
groups to advance their views and coordinate their activities with 
political parties.
  These provisions provide me with no consolation. As I noted, these 
restrictions will not likely survive judicial scrutiny. That outcome is 
one that we should welcome, because these restrictions are misguided.
  I have great respect for my colleagues who confronted the issue of 
constitutionality and tried to craft a way to permit ``genuine'' issue 
ads while cracking down on ``phony'' ones. They attempt to identify a 
permissible subcategory of issue advertisements that constitute 
``electioneering'' without expressly advocating the election or defeat 
of a candidate.
  But I believe that using the threat of mandatory disclosure of donor 
information or outright bans on advocacy as a lever to regulate the 
quantity, timing, and content of issue advocacy communications is 
fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment's injunction to Congress 
to ``make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or of the 
right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of 
grievances.''
  Congress cannot be in the business of outlawing criticism of itself. 
Of course, I do not appreciate the unfair attacks that are all too 
frequently presented in single-issue advertisements. But I think that 
we would do well to resist the urge to silence those who would 
criticize us, even those who criticize us when we are most sensitive to 
criticism--at election time.
  Unfortunately, passage of this bill leaves us with three unappetizing 
possibilities: that our work may be struck down in toto; that it might 
be refashioned by the courts into something altogether different than 
what was intended; or that it might be left as it is, which would leave 
us with a democracy less vital than the admittedly imperfect one it is 
our privilege to be a part of.
  It is my hope that this bill will be modified in the House of 
Representatives to avoid those three results.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate is poised to pass S. 27, 
the McCain-Feingold bipartisan campaign reform bill. The momentum for 
the bill is building. The President has announced that he is 
disinclined to veto this bill. We could be on the brink of enacting the 
first significant campaign reforms in a generation.
  I would like to make a few observations.
  First, I want to salute the bill's sponsors, Senators McCain and 
Feingold. We are considering this bill only because of the sheer force 
of their collective will. They have suffered innumerable set-backs 
pushing for this legislation over the past several years. But they 
never got discouraged; they never let up. Their dedication to this 
cause has been extraordinary.
  I also want to commend the majority and minority leaders and the 
bill's managers, Senators McConnell and Dodd, for crafting a way to 
consider the bill that has been a breath of fresh air here in the 
Senate. For the past 2 weeks, we have operated in a way the Senate was 
meant to operate. We have been the deliberative body the Founding 
Fathers meant for us to be. I hope the spirit in which we have 
conducted debate on this bill continues long after we vote on its final 
passage.
  Numerous public opinion polls have indicated that the American people 
overwhelmingly support campaign reform, but don't rank the issue as a 
priority. I think that's because they have grown discouraged about the 
likelihood of Congress passing such reform. Maybe--just maybe--we will 
show the American people that we are capable of beating the odds, of 
coming together and doing something difficult.
  With regard to the bill, we have beaten back several amendments 
designed to cripple it or drive away its supporters.
  We have defeated the so-called ``paycheck protection'' amendments 
that were aimed right at the heart of organized labor.
  We have voted to ban soft money, convincingly. That is key.
  We have defeated an attempt to strip the bill of the Snowe-Jeffords 
provisions regarding sham ``issue advocacy'' by independent, often 
anonymous, groups that face no donor contribution limits or disclosure 
requirements.
  We have defeated an attempt to make the bill nonseverable.
  Most important, we have come to a reasonable compromise with regard 
to raising some of the existing hard money contribution limits for 
individuals by modest amounts, and indexing those limits for inflation.
  I am proud that I helped to negotiate that compromise, along with the 
senior Senator from Tennessee and several other Members from both sides 
of the aisle.
  The Senate voted 84-16 to approve the compromise we worked out.
  Our compromise: doubles the limit on hard money contributions to 
individual candidates from $1,000 per election to $2,000 per election; 
increases the annual limit on hard money contributions to the national 
party committees by $5,000, to $25,000; increases the annual aggregate 
limit on all hard money contributions by $12,500, to $37,500; doubles 
the amount that the national party committees can contribute to 
candidates, from $17,500 to $35,000; and; indexes these new limits for 
inflation.
  The Thompson-Feinstein amendment will reinvigorate individual giving. 
It will reduce the incessant need for fundraising. It will give 
candidates and parties the resources they need to respond

[[Page 5201]]

to independent campaigns. It will reduce the relative influence of 
PACs.
  I know that some campaign reform advocates are uncomfortable raising 
any hard money contribution limits by any amount.
  I would argue that modest increases are imperative for the simple 
reason that the current limits were established under the Federal 
Election Campaign Act, FECA, amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-443, and 
haven't been changed since. That was 27 years ago.
  I have spoken previously about how the costs of campaigning have 
risen much faster than ordinary inflation over the past 27 years these 
limits have been frozen.
  The advantage of modestly lifting some of the limits is that doing so 
will reduce the time candidates have to spend fund-raising, time better 
spent with, prospective, constituents.
  During this past election, my campaign had over 100 fundraisers. That 
took time. Time to call. Time to attend. Time to say thanks. And that 
was time I couldn't spend doing what my constituents want me to do.
  The task of raising hard money in small contributions unadjusted for 
inflation is just too daunting, for incumbents and challengers alike.
  Particularly in the larger States like California, where extensive 
television and radio advertising is imperative, it is not uncommon for 
Senators to begin fundraising for the next election right after the 
present one ends and they often find themselves ``dialing for dollars'' 
instead of attending to other duties.
  Let's be honest with each other and the American people: campaigning 
for office will continue to get more and more expensive because 
television spots are getting more and more expensive.
  Meanwhile, independent campaigns conducted by groups that are 
accountable to no one threaten to drown out any attempt by candidates 
or the parties to communicate with voters.
  Spending on issue advocacy by these groups, according to the 
Congressional Research Service, rose from $135 million in 1996 to as 
much as $340 million in 1998. Then it rose again, to $509 million in 
2000. Most of this money is used for attack ads that the American 
people have come to loathe.
  It is likely that spending on so-called issue advocacy, most of which 
is thinly disguised electioneering, probably will surpass hard money 
spending, and very soon. It has already surpassed soft money spending.
  Clearly, the playing field is being skewed. More and more people are 
turning to the undisclosed, unregulated independent campaign.
  The attacks come and no one knows who is actually paying for them. I 
believe this is unethical. I believe it is unjust. I believe it is 
unreasonable and it must end.
  We have to raise the limit on hard money contributions to individual 
candidates and the parties. The pressure on them has grown 
exponentially, especially now that we are about to ban soft money.
  The Thompson-Feinstein amendment the Senate adopted last Wednesday 
makes S. 27 possible. It becomes easier for us now to staunch the 
millions of unregulated soft dollars that currently flow into the 
coffers of our political parties, and replace a modest portion of that 
money with contributions that are fully regulated and disclosed under 
the existing provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
  People aren't concerned about individual contributions of $1,000, and 
I don't think they will be concerned about donations of $2,000.
  No, what concerns people the most about the current system are the 
checks for $250,000, or $500,000, or even $1 million flowing into 
political parties.
  These gigantic contributions are what warp our politics and cause 
people to lose faith in our Government and they must be halted. They 
give the appearance of corruption.
  The Thompson-Feinstein amendment, by increasing the limit on 
individual and national party committee contributions to federal 
candidates, will reduce the need for raising campaign funds from 
political action committees, PACs.
  Our amendment, therefore, will reduce the relative influence of PACs, 
making it easier to replace PAC monies with funds raised from 
individual donors.
  The concern about PACs seems unimportant now, compared with the 
problems that soft money, independent expenditures, and issue advocacy 
present. But we shouldn't dismiss the fact that PACs retain 
considerable influence in our system.
  I represent California, which has more people--34 million--than 21 
other States combined. I just finished my twelfth political campaign. 
For the fourth time in 10 years, I ran statewide. Running for office in 
California is expensive: I have had to raise more than $55 million in 
those four campaigns.
  I can tell you from my experiences over the years that I am committed 
to campaign reform, and I am heartened that we are close to passing S. 
27.
  Is it a perfect bill? No. Will it be subject to challenges in court? 
Undoubtedly. But I think S. 27 is a strong bill and I am optimistic 
that it will withstand the Courts' scrutiny. And as I said earlier, it 
is our best chance at reform in a generation.
  We have an electricity crisis in California and much of the West. Our 
economy shows serious signs of weakening. We definitely have to address 
these issues, and others.
  But the last 2 weeks that we have spent considering S. 27 have been 
time well-spent. Campaign reform goes to the heart of our democracy.
  The way we currently finance and conduct our campaigns is a cancer 
metastasizing throughout the body politic.
  It discourages people from running for office and it disgusts voters. 
So they simply tune out, in larger and larger numbers.
  Discouragement, disgust, frustration, apathy--these feelings don't 
bolster our democracy, they weaken it.
  We have an opportunity here, a rare opportunity, to do the right 
thing here with S. 27. I hope we don't squander such a precious 
opportunity.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of campaign 
finance reform. I appreciate the Leadership's willingness to so fully 
take up this issue. It is a debate that has been a long time in coming. 
And the need has never been more urgent. Money has a stranglehold on 
democracy under our current system. It is clear that we must take 
action now to restore the public's faith in our political system.
  Every year we talk and talk about reforming the system. We bemoan the 
role of special interests. We're forced to spend an inordinate amount 
of time raising money. We have to worry about financing the next race 
the day after we get elected.
  That's not why we're here and it's not what we were elected to do.
  Ideally, I would like to wipe the slate clean. Start over with a 
clean campaign finance system and a level playing field. For now, let's 
start by addressing soft money and the abuse of issue advocacy 
advertising. Exactly what McCain-Feingold, as amended, does.
  Soft money only serves to further taint the image Americans have 
about politics. As soft money contributions increase, so does the 
perception that special interests own us. As a result, cynicism towards 
Congress and its activities continues to grow.
  The use of unregulated soft money contributions must be curbed in 
Federal campaigns. Soft money, as a percent of total funding, has more 
than doubled since 1992. This is not a partisan issue. Soft money has 
more than doubled for both parties.
  My entire State of Montana could fit through the soft money 
loopholes. The last time Congress considered such a thorough overhaul 
of campaign finance law was 1974. We thought then that regulations 
placed on hard money would straighten up the system. Instead, the use 
of soft money to the parties and groups has exploded. We've all heard 
this number over these days of debate, but I think it warrants being 
mentioned again: Last year's election parties collected a record $490 
million dollars in soft money. That's obscene.

[[Page 5202]]

With $490 million, school construction projects could be completed so 
our kids aren't learning in overcrowded classrooms. With $490 million, 
we could move towards implementing a prescription drug benefit. Let's 
straighten out our priorities and have folks contribute instead to the 
projects that really need it.
  The problem we're really facing is how grey the campaign finance laws 
have become. McCain-Feingold, as amended, would make them black and 
white. Just take issue advocacy advertising as an example. In the last 
couple campaigns, the lines have been blurred between express advocacy, 
which requires federal disclosures, and issue advocacy.
  We can all recall advertisements in our own state that just barely 
skirted the lines. In Montana, the unregulated soft money ads started 
early. Close to a year before the election, groups started attacking 
candidates with mud-slinging ads. Groups with benign sounding names 
that hid their partisan bent. Ads that attacked candidates, and even 
told people where to call, but somehow fell under the ``issue 
advocacy'' definition, And were exempt from campaign finance laws.
  Aren't we missing the point? The spirit of the ad is what's 
important. By attacking only one candidate, that leads to the obvious 
conclusion that the ad is supporting the opposition. And that should 
subject the money used to pay for the ad to regulation and disclosure.
  A new, clear definition of issue advocacy is necessary--one that 
closes the loopholes. I supported the original bill language that would 
ban ``grey'' issue advocacy ads that fall within 60 days of the general 
election or 30 days of a primary and was specific to corporate and 
Union treasury funds. However, I believe the Wellstone amendment, 
extending coverage to all third-party expenditures, makes McCain-
Feingold a better and more balanced bill.
  Now, there is one area where I differ with McCain-Feingold, and that 
is in my support for a non-severability clause. The bill, as it now 
stands, is fair and balanced legislation. Non-severability is the only 
tool available to guarantee that the balance and fairness of McCain-
Feingold stands. By allowing the Court to strike down individual parts 
of the bill, we run the serious risk of a final bill that is very 
different than what was voted on. I am hopeful that the final bill will 
not encounter opposition by the Supreme Court and that severability 
will become a non-issue.
  I applaud Senators McCain and Feingold for continuing to raise this 
issue. I believe that we can pass a comprehensive bill and achieve 
true, bipartisan campaign finance reform.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
belief that the campaign-finance reform legislation we have before us 
addresses one of the most important issues facing America today. The 
influence of special interests and the enormous amount of money 
required to effectively run a modern political campaign have created a 
rift between the Congress and the American people.
  The fact is our political system today is dominated by huge 
contributions to the national parties of ``soft money.'' Sometimes, 
these donations circumvent the parties and flow through other avenues 
that lack public disclosure under the guise of issue advertisements. 
These large donations and suspect advertisements have cast a cloud of 
doubt over the entire political process. And this doubt has caused many 
Americans to lose faith in the system.
  Is the McCain-Feingold bill the answer? It's not the total answer, 
but it's a step in the right direction. What we need to do is take our 
best hold and step forward and reform the law, right now.
  Banning ``soft money'' from the system will go a long way toward 
removing the appearance of corruption that plagues the system today; 
and, the legislation's new disclosure requirements will add much-needed 
sunshine to the process.
  Candidates, and the American people have a right to know the 
identities of the groups and people behind the so- called issue ads 
that increasingly dominate the airways during campaign time.
  Although I favor public financing, we're not at the point that we can 
pass public financing. So what are we going to do? My preference is, we 
change the system with the legislation we have before us. The people 
want reform; the country needs it; we should do it.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
opposition to the McCain-Feingold bill. To be clear, I am not opposed 
to the impetus behind this legislation, which is to reform our current 
campaign finance system. I concur with my colleagues--who support this 
bill--that the present system is inadequate and inherently flawed. But, 
unfortunately, this is where our parallel viewpoints diverge.
  While I agree that the present campaign finance system is imperfect, 
I believe that the McCain-Feingold alternative to that system is even 
more so. This legislation, once enacted, likely will hurt the status 
quo more than it will help. And, ultimately, I predict it will foster 
campaign finance regression, rather than institute campaign finance 
reform.
  From the beginning, I have worked with my colleagues to negotiate a 
more fair and balanced package that, I believe, would have achieved 
thorough reform. Key parts such as the Hagel amendment on soft money 
contributions and the amendment on non-severability are not included in 
this final bill. Had they been included, these amendments would have 
made the legislation much more effective and comprehensive, and 
consequently, much more likely to receive my support.
  To be fair and consistent, certain aspects of this final bill are 
laudable and do have my support. I am pleased that the Snowe-Jeffords 
provision and the Hagel amendment regarding disclosure are included. 
Increased accountability and transparency for special interest groups 
are important to the overall reform effort. Moreover, the Wellstone 
amendment, which extends the Snowe-Jeffords provision to independent 
advocacy groups, will help remove the facades behind which these groups 
hide. For too long, special interest groups have funded so-called issue 
ads whose main objective is to distort the facts. It is encouraging 
that this bill, as amended, confronts that issue.
  The ability of state parties to carryout traditional activities such 
as voter registration, is another issue addressed by the Levin 
amendment, which I was pleased to join as an original co-sponsor. State 
and local candidates rely on get-out-the-vote efforts and voter 
registration activities which are usually funded by the state party. 
Since this campaign finance reform bill, prior to the Levin amendment, 
would have severely limited state parties, it became apparent that we 
needed to ensure that such crucial activities are not abolished as 
well. Without question, I am encouraged by the inclusion of this 
amendment. It, and the ones regarding increased disclosure, are 
definitive steps in the direction of genuine campaign finance reform.
  That being said, any ground gained by these steps is lost through the 
ban on soft money and the defeat of the non-severability clause. 
McCain-Feingold bans soft money contributions only to the national 
parties. As I have said before, this measure is ineffective, an 
ultimately unproductive. The soft money ban in this bill will likely be 
more of a temporary road block than a true dead end. I believe that 
eventually soft money will find a detour, and it will flow into federal 
elections from another direction.
  A more realistic approach to the unfettered flow of soft money that 
pollutes our current campaign finance system, would have been to 
include the Hagel amendment, which would have capped soft money 
contributions at $60,000. The Hagel measure was pragmatic and essential 
to real reform. With the absence of this language in the final bill, we 
are left with a plan than falls short on efficacy and long on futility.
  Without the inclusion of a cap, instead of a ban on soft money to 
national parties, my support for this bill declined, but the nail on 
the coffin, so to speak, was the defeat of the severability clause. The 
non-severability

[[Page 5203]]

amendment was characterized by its opponents as the ``poison pill'' of 
campaign finance reform. Quite frankly, I thing the total package 
before us today would have been easier to swallow if it had been 
included.
  The non-severability amendment would have prevented the courts from 
striking down some provisions and leaving others. Once the courts act, 
it is possible that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law as 
passed by Congress will look nothing like the McCain-Feingold finance 
reform law tweaked by the courts. For this reason, the severability 
provision only weakens the bill and extends the inequalities fostered 
by the present system.
  My conviction that the current campaign finance system is flawed 
remains unchanged. Comprehensive reform is undoubtedly needed; however, 
I do not believe this legislation will achieve that goal. It's often 
been said that something is better than nothing. Well, in this 
instance, the reverse rings true. Nothing is better than something. 
Therefore, I will vote accordingly and reserve my support for a more 
comprehensive and equitable campaign finance reform package.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the thrust of McCain-Feingold was to 
eliminate soft money. Now, the final bill doesn't eliminate soft money 
but, rather, redirects it. Soft money has been taken away from the 
political parties and redirected to the special interests. The thrust 
of McCain-Feingold was to minimize the influence of the special 
interests. It has now become maximized. And finally, the thrust of 
McCain-Feingold was to eliminate the obscenity of the outrageous 
amounts of money that it takes in politics to be elected. The final 
bill now doubles this obscenity. But Senator McCain has become such a 
symbol. McCain-Feingold has become such a message that Senators, in 
disregard of the substance but totally on message, will vote for it. I 
said at the beginning that there was no doubt that under Buckley v. 
Valeo, the Supreme Court would find McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. 
While the Court hurt us in Buckley, perhaps this time the Court will 
save us by finding McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. At least I am 
sober enough to vote no.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, after two weeks of floor consideration, we 
are now approaching the final vote on the campaign finance reform 
legislation. I have taken the floor on several occasions over the past 
two weeks to express my serious concerns with the various provisions of 
the bill. Given my concerns, and the failure of this body to vote to 
correct some of the problems, I will be voting against final passage of 
this well-intended, but seriously flawed legislation.
  The one silver lining in the legislation that will likely pass this 
evening is a provision I authored that passed, which will give 
expedited judicial review by the Supreme Court of challenges to the 
constitutionality of the legislation. All of us, supporters and 
opponents alike, stand to gain by a prompt and definite determination 
of the constitutionality of many of the bill's controversial 
provisions. Because the harm these provisions will cause is serious and 
irreparable, it is imperative that we afford the Supreme Court the 
opportunity to pass on the constitutionality of this legislation as 
soon as possible.
  Let me say again that I commend and respect the authors of this 
legislation for their attempts to address a troubling and unfortunate 
public perception about our political system. However, we also must 
respect the freedom of speech granted to every American by our 
Constitution. While the bill may alter or change our system of campaign 
finance, I think it will do little in actually reform it or making it 
better. In fact, McCain-Feingold, if passed and enacted into law, will, 
in my opinion, exacerbate the very problems that it seeks to solve.
  The primary provision of McCain-Feingold essentially bans soft money 
by making it unlawful for national political party committees and 
federal candidates to solicit or receive any funds not subject to the 
hard money limitations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. It also 
nationalizes the state party structure by subjecting state parties to 
the regulations of the Federal Election Commission when candidates for 
federal office appear on the general ballot. The net result of this 
soft money restriction on parties will be to emasculate the present 
two-party system and to increase the powerand influence of the special 
interests. Ironically, special interest power and influence is exactly 
what the bill's sponsors purport is wrong with American politics today.
  Even more importantly, the party soft money ban is an infringement on 
the rights of free speech and free association protected by the 
Constitution's First Amendment. It appears to violate several decisions 
of the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly the holding of the seminal case 
of Buckley v. Valeo. The ban will severely weaken the ability of 
parties to engage in electoral advocacy.
  Yet, political parties have the same First Amendment rights as any 
other group. The restrictions on political party speech, without any 
specific showing of a potential for corruption or other necessity for 
doing so, and not on the speech of other associations and individuals 
not only infringes the First Amendment, but it also violates the 
principle of equal protection of the laws that the Due Process Clause 
of the Fifth Amendment guarantees.
  The other main provision of the bill is the so-called Snowe-Jeffords 
provision. Under current law the only electoral speech that may 
constitutionally be regulated is so-called ``express'' advocacy, that 
is, speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a 
candidate. All other political speech is termed ``issue'' advocacy, 
which the government can almost never abridge.
  Snowe-Jeffords blurs the distinction between the two categories of 
speech by creating a catch-all third termed ``electioneering 
communications.'' Merely ``referring to a clearly identified 
candidate'' magically turns heretofore protected issue advocacy into 
regulated electioneering communication. This part of the McCain-
Feingold would coerce disclosure of donors' identities, and this 
disclosure would destroy the right to free association recognized in 
various Supreme Court cases.
  Snowe-Jeffords also completely bans corporate and union political 
``electioneering communication'' speech. Again, this term sweeps in 
issue advocacy, which Congress may not ban, unless they meet the strict 
scrutiny standards prescribed by the Supreme Court, which in my opinion 
Congress has failed to do. Government has no business and no interest 
in banning the opinions of business or labor. They are already 
prohibited, and I bet most Americans do not know this, from directly 
contributing to candidates. This is important because the possibility 
of bribery, and even the appearance of a quid pro quo, is already 
ameliorated by law. Therefore, no justification exists for censoring 
the opinions of corporations and labor unions that this provision 
mandates. It too violates the Constitution's free speech requirements.
  I believe there is also an equal protection problem in that the media 
is exempted from Snowe-Jeffords. Now, let me say that I love the media, 
as I do any institution that brings knowledge to the American people. 
But the media should not have more rights to free speech than any other 
group, and McCain-Feingold gives the media a monopoly. Some Americans 
feel that the media is already all-powerful. Personally, I think this 
is an exaggeration. But if this bill passes, they very well might be.
  I have often said that I am an advocate of Oliver Wendell Holmes' 
view of free speech as a competition in the market place of ideas. The 
remedy of the wealthy and powerful buying speech is not censorship. 
This is not the American way. The remedy is more speech. We Americans 
have always banded together and pooled our money to compete. Joining is 
the American way. Banning is not. Let's have competition, no 
censorship.
  I do admit that a problem exists within our system of government. 
That problem, the real problem, is that people feel detached and 
disassociated from their government. They feel that

[[Page 5204]]

others, whomever they are, the rich, the special interests, labor, 
business, just not them--have more access to their leaders and more 
influence with them. The American people want more. They want more 
access, more accountability, more of a say in the decisions that effect 
their daily lives.
  I suggest that the solution is not making it more difficult for 
people to get involved in politics. It's not shutting down the parties, 
which represent the most accessible means for most people to engage in 
political activity.
  Real finance reform will only come when the size of the federal is 
reduced. Until that happens, there will be a powerful incentive for 
special interests to seek a piece of the federal pie. Real campaign 
finance reform is passing a tax cut so that the people will be able to 
spend their own money instead of big government spending their money on 
behalf of special interests. That is what I have fought for in my 25 
years of public service in the Senate.
  My esteemed colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin have spent 
countless hours doing what they believe is the right thing. their 
efforts are laudable. I sincerely applaud them for the work that they 
have put into this debate. However, I must vigorously disagree with 
their solution. More speech--not less--is the answer. I believe that 
the correct way to solve the problem is to lift the limits on 
contributions; increase disclosure, and stiffen the penalties.
  Unfortunately, my attempts to increase disclosures by corporations 
and labor unions were defeated, probably because of the pressures by 
the same special interest labor unions, that the authors of this 
legislation wanted to address. But today, instead of advocating these 
policies, I must oppose the McCain-Feingold bill. I must attempt to 
turn the so-called ``reform movement'' away from the very dangerous 
path down which it is now proceeding. Hopefully, at some point, we can 
discuss some real, and I must say Constitutional alternatives.
  Let me focus on Title I of McCain-Feingold and describe why I believe 
the bill is likely to have constitutional challenges. Title I of the 
McCain-Feingold is labeled ``Reduction of Special Interest Influence.'' 
Indeed, this is the primary intent of the entire bill--to diminish the 
``influence'' of so-called ``special interest groups.'' While I cannot 
fault the bill's supporters for their genuine efforts, I do not believe 
that the bill effectively solves the problem that it seeks to. Indeed, 
passage of McCain-Feingold will increase the influence of special 
interests, and it will do so by effectively ruining the political 
parties. I will not support McCain-Feingold, in part, because it, in my 
opinion, unconstitutionally suppresses the voices of the political 
parties.
  In its effort to regulate ``soft money,'' McCain-Feingold has two 
dramatic adverse effects on political party activity. First, it 
dramatically limits the issue advocacy, legislative, and organizational 
activities of political parties. Second, it imposes federal election 
law limits on the state and local activities of national political 
parties.
  It is important to recall the U.S. Supreme Court's comment in 
Colorado Republican Party that ``[w]e are not aware of any special 
dangers of corruption associated with political parties. . . .'' 
Political parties are merely the People associating with others who 
share their values to advance issues, legislation, and candidates that 
further those values. When they do these things, they are just doing 
their historic job as good citizens. The notion that they are somehow 
corrupt for doing so is both strange and constitutionally infirm.
  Let me first describe the beneficial role of political parties in 
American democracy. I don't need to tell any of my fellow Senators what 
political parties do or how they do it. Nor do I need to tell them that 
the focus of political parties is to win elections. They also already 
know how the parties go about winning elections. For the most part the 
parties do it by spending money. They spend their money--their own 
money--to promote their views and convince others of them. They fund 
activities like voter registration drives, get out the vote activities, 
and advertising.
  Political parties have many beneficial effects on American democracy. 
The Senate recognized their importance when it passed the FECA in the 
mid-1970s and expressed its desire to strengthen political parties. The 
Committee Report accompanying FECA observed then that ``a vigorous 
party system is vital to American politics.'' It was true then, and it 
remains true today. The Committee Report noted that parties perform 
``crucial functions in the election apart from fund-raising.''
  In our country, while one man has one vote, inevitably citizens will 
gather to pool their votes into blocks. It has always been this way, 
and it will continue to be so regardless of whatever legislation we 
pass. The problem with these interest groups or voting blocks is that 
they focus on their own very narrow issues and not on what is best for 
the country at large.
  James Madison identified these groups as ``factions.'' He noted in 
The Federalist 10 that there are no means of controlling the ``evils of 
faction that are consistent with liberty. The only way to eliminate 
faction is to eliminate liberty, which is worse than the disease'' of 
faction.
  Madison's celebrated solution to the problem presented by factions--
embodied in the Constitution--was to create a system that pitted 
interest groups against each other and so as to bring the best ideas to 
the top. The sheer size of the new republic--and its subsequent 
growth--expanded the number of participants in public debate. As a 
result, regional and other interest groups balance each other out to an 
extent. Political parties continue this process of moderation.
  Parties moderate special interests because they must appeal to the 
entire nation. You will recall that the goal of parties is to win 
elections. They can only do this by laying out broad policy platforms 
that will appeal to wide groups of people. They offer a broad and 
encompassing vision of gover- 
nance. Party leadership has to craft a message that will allow its 
candidates to win election in all 50 states. Contrast the role of 
parties to special-interest groups, which only want to pursue their 
specific goals. Their leadership is not seeking to win elections in 
states throughout the union, but typically only the passage of a narrow 
set of legislation.
  Allow me to add that I am not disparaging these special interest 
groups. They play an extremely crucial role in our democracy as well. 
They are not the problem, as they are essential to our democracy. They 
heighten the public's and Congress' awareness of key issues. They have 
a role to play, but so do the political parties. I do not want to favor 
one over the other, and that is what McCain-Feingold will do. No soft 
money for political parties, but unlimited amounts to special interest 
groups.
  However, political parties are not just about electing candidates, 
particularly federal ones. Political parties constitute a vital way by 
which citizens come together around issues and values expressed in the 
planks of their party platforms--at all levels of government. Parties 
advocate these issues in the public forum in addition to lobbying for 
legislation and engaging in efforts to elect candidates. Parties are 
just as focused on the promotion of issues as are ideological 
corporations, such as the National Right to Life Committee or The 
Christian Coalition of America, and labor unions, such as the American 
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, although 
with a broader spectrum of issues. McCain-Feingold ignores this reality 
and treats political parties as simply federal candidate election 
machines.
  Now, the big point the supporters of McCain-Feingold make in support 
of the soft money party ban is that large contributions to political 
parties create undue influence or an appearance of impropriety. This is 
not even a gross exaggeration. It is simply wrong.
  Philip Morris, the largest donor to the Republican National Committee 
during the 1998 cycle, gave approximately $2 million in soft money, but 
this represented less than 1 percent of

[[Page 5205]]

the total that the Republican National Committee raised. Similarly, the 
Communication Workers of America, the Democrat's largest soft money 
donor, gave $1.5 million to the Democratic National Committee, but this 
too represented less than 1 percent of its total.
  It doesn't make sense to conclude that an entity that contributes 
less than 1 percent of a party's funding could have any significant 
effect on the party's policies. The parties must keep in mind the goals 
of the other interests to which they also have to appeal. A more likely 
explanation for the largesse is that the donors to both parties support 
the policies they already espouse.
  I would also like to note that whatever influence a large donation 
made to a political party gives the donor, and, yes, I am pragmatic 
enough to realize that it does grant the donor a certain amount of 
access, the effect of donations is diluted among all of the party's 
elected officials, the 200 plus Senators and Representatives in either 
party. Also, because soft money donors cannot direct to which candidate 
or race their money should flow, they sometimes support losers. I make 
these points to demonstrate that soft money donations are greatly 
diluted and do not pose the same ``appearance of corruption'' that 
direct contributions to candidates do. Importantly, the Supreme Court 
has clearly stated that First Amendment rights can only be regulated 
where there is corruption or an appearance of corruption.
  As is apparent, McCain-Feingold will dramatically weaken political 
parties. In the last election cycle, the Democratic Party raised $243 
million in soft money--fully 47 percent of its total. The Republican 
Party raised $244, 35 percent of its total. Under McCain-Feingold, the 
parties would lose this important source of funding, and this shortfall 
could not be filled by simply wishing into existence more hard money. 
It doesn't take a Fields Award winner in math to determine that this 
kind of reduction will dramatically hinder the parties' ability to 
effectively deliver their messages. Such a ban would accordingly weaken 
the ability of parties to participate in the public debate, while 
simultaneously enhancing the relative power of special interest to 
dominate that debate. I believe that McCain-Feingold will effectively 
end the system of two-party government that we now know. And this 
system has brought remarkable stability to the United States.
  Political parties already complain that interest group spending 
threatens to marginalize parties as interest groups increasingly 
control the agenda, crowd out political party commentary, and confuse 
the electorate. A ban on political party soft money would exacerbate 
this situation. Voters would have a less clear idea of the party 
agenda, and parties would find it more difficult to translate election 
returns into public mandate. Effective government would suffer.
  Parties fill a vital role in our political system. In the Information 
Age, narrow, specialized interest groups have an easier time of forming 
and organizing themselves. In times like these, we need to maintain the 
party system rather than weaken it, as McCain-Feingold will do.
  Let me highlight why McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional as it 
relates to political parties. Let me begin by asking a question, ``if 
individuals and narrow interest groups enjoy the basic First Amendment 
freedom to discuss issues and the position of candidates on those 
issues, how can political parties, which have wide bases of interests 
that are necessarily tempered and diffused, be deprived of the right to 
engage in such issue advocacy?'' My answer is simply that they should 
not be deprived of their rights.
  I note at the outset of this analysis that political speech and 
association are at the heart of the First Amendment protections. As the 
United States Supreme Court declared in Buckley, ``the constitutional 
guarantee, of the First Amendment, has its fullest and most urgent 
application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office. 
The Court has also stated that free expression in connection with 
elections is ``at the core of our electoral process and of the First 
Amendment freedoms. ``[Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 32 (1968).] 
Thus, as the Supreme Court noted, ``there is practically universal 
agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect 
the free discussion of governmental affairs,. . .of course includ[ing] 
discussions of candidates.'' [Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 
(1966).]
  Efforts by Congress, the FEC, and state election commissions to 
regulate issue advocacy have been repeatedly and consistently rebuffed 
by the Federal courts as violations of the First Amendment right to 
free speech. No fewer the two dozen court decisions have made clear 
that interest-group advertising or pamphleteering that does not 
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate cannot, 
consistent with the First Amendment, be subject to contribution or 
expenditure limits, or even reporting limits. Yet this is exactly what 
McCain-Feingold seeks to do.
  In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on 
political giving and spending interfere with political debate. Such 
restrictions survive under the First Amendment only if justified by a 
compelling government interest in preventing corruption or the 
appearance of corruption. Those restrictions must also be narrowly 
drawn to achieve that interest. Soft money cannot, under current law, 
be used by political parties to expressly advocate the election or 
defeat of a candidate. Rather, it is used in large part for issue 
advocacy, which the Supreme Court and numerous lower courts have helped 
may not be regulated. Thus, McCain-Feingold inhibits the ability of 
political parties to engage in issue advocacy by restricting the 
resources available to them. Thus, it infringes on the political 
parties' right to free speech.
  However, proponents of abolishing ``soft money'' argue that this is 
simply a ``contribution limit.'' The fallacy of that argument, of 
course, is that the Supreme Court has justified contribution limits 
only on the ground that large contributions directly to candidates 
create the reality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption. Soft money 
contributions are not contributions to candidates:
  Indeed, the proposed ban on soft money contributions cannot be 
justified on the theory that political parties corrupt federal 
candidates, which the Supreme Court has already rejected. In Colorado 
Republican v. FEC, Fed. Election Comm, the FEC took the position that 
independent, uncoordinated expenditures by political parties ought to 
be treated as contributions to the benefitted candidate. Such treatment 
would have resulted in allowing individuals, candidates, and political 
action committees to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent 
expenditures to advocate the election of a candidate, while limiting 
the amount a political party could spend for the same purpose.
  The Supreme Court disagreed with the FEC, noting that ``[w]e are not 
aware of any special dangers of corruption associated with political 
parties'' and, after observing that individuals could contribute more 
money to political parties, $20,000, than to candidates, $1,000, and 
PACs $5,000, and that the ``FECA permits unregulated `soft money' 
contributions to a party for certain activities,'' the Court concluded 
that the ``opportunity for corruption posed by these greater 
opportunities for contributions is, at best, attenuated.'' The Court 
continued in this vein with respect to the FEC's proposed ban on 
political party independent expenditures, which has direct application 
to McCain-Feingold ban on soft money contributions.

       [R]ather than indicating a special fear of the corruptive 
     influence of political parties, the legislative history [of 
     the Act] demonstrates Congress' general desire to enhance 
     what was seen as an important and legitimate role for 
     political parties in American elections. . . .
       We therefore believe that this Court's prior case law 
     controls the outcome here. We donot see how a Constitution 
     that grants to individuals, candidates, and ordinary 
     political committees the right to make unlimited independent 
     expenditures could deny the same right to political parties.


[[Page 5206]]


The concurring justices also found little, if any, opportunity for 
party corruption of candidates because of their very nature and 
structure.
  The Supreme Court found in the MCFL case that the prohibitions on 
corporate contributions and expenditures could not be constitutionally 
applied to non-profit ideological corporations which do not serve as a 
conduit for business purposes. Fed. Election Comm. v. Mass. Citizens 
for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) Similarly, political parties 
similarly pose no risk of corruption because people give money to 
parties precisely because they support what the political party stands 
for.
  A contribution to a political party is for the purpose of enhancing 
advocacy of the issues the party represents. Any individual unhappy 
with the use of the money may simply quit contributing and leave the 
political party. In sum, the threat of corruption cannot justify a 
limit on issue advocacy and, even if it could, political parties pose 
no threat of corruption to their candidates.
  In sum, in Colorado Republican Fed. Election Comm., the Supreme Court 
found that, just as independent expenditures of interest groups pose no 
danger of corrupting candidates, neither do those of political parties.
  A second constitutional infirmity with McCain-Feingold results from 
the proposed unequal treatment of political party speech in relation to 
speech of other entities. Whereas non-party group may use funds that it 
collects from its members to engage in issue advocacy, McCain-Feingold 
would extensively regulate and burden political party issue advocacy.
  The final constitutional defect of McCain-Feingold's soft money ban 
on political parties is its insult to the federalist system. Under a 
provision of the bill, state and local parties are directly affected by 
the party soft money ban as a result of the bill's exceedingly broad 
definition of ``federal election activity'', which governs political 
party expenditures if even a single federal candidate appears on the 
general election ballot, no matter how many state and local candidates 
also appear on the ballot.
  In simpler terms, under McCain-Feingold, in those even numbered years 
in which typically federal congressional elections occur, state and 
local parties may only use federally regulated hard money for: Any 
voter registration within 120 days of the election; All voter 
identification, get-out-the-vote or ``generic campaign activity'' 
before the election. The bill defines ``generic campaign activity'' as 
``an activity that promotes a political party and does not promote a 
candidate.'' Thus, it would even include yard signs that say ``vote 
Democrat'' or ``support the GOP.'' Any TV, radio, newspaper, magazine, 
billboard, mass mailing, telephone bank, leafleting or other ``public 
communication'' that mentions a candidate for federal office--whether 
or not it also mentions a candidate for state or local office. The 
entire salary of any state, district or local party employee who spends 
25% or more of the employer's compensated time in a single month on any 
of the above activities or any ``activities in connection with a 
Federal election'':
  This constitutes an unprecedented federalization of the most basic 
party-building functions engaged in by state and local party 
committees.
  Forty-five states hold elections for state and local candidates only 
during the even numbered years that federal elections occur. The only 
states that do not are Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, and 
Mississippi. Consequently, for these 45 States, State and local party 
mechanisms become entirely federalized and subject to federal 
regulatory authority. Imposition of federal contribution limits on 
national parties would improperly arrogate authority over state 
campaign financing decisions to the federal government.
  Again, recognizing that a prohibition of soft money donations to 
national party committees alone would be wholly ineffective, McCain-
Feingold seeks to impose soft money restrictions on state parties as 
well, even though state party activity is thoroughly regulated by state 
campaign finance laws.
  The money spent on elections has consistently increased over the 
years, and no one believes that McCain-Feingold is going to reverse 
this trend. Rather than stop soft money, the bill will simply divert it 
into other channels, ones that are more opaque, less accountable, and 
represent narrower interests than do the national parties.
  What do you suppose the result of this bill will be? In a recent New 
York Times article, entitled, ``Big Donors Unfazed by Prospect of Soft 
Money Limits,'' dated March 24, it was reported that if Congress banned 
party soft money, most big donors would evade the ban by writing big 
checks to advocacy groups allied with candidates and the national 
parties as a way to get their pet projects and issues before the 
public.
  The problem with such a result is that these non-party groups are 
completely unregulated, as they should be. We cannot constitutionally 
compel them to disclose their activities, and so citizens will have no 
way of knowing who is actually behind the efforts. This is a perverse 
and unintended effect of McCain-Feingold. Money will be more hidden, 
and people will feel less responsible for their democracy, as they have 
no control over these groups as they do over the parties. Despite the 
fact that it is unintended, it is nevertheless practically inevitable.
  It is important to remember, that soft money donations to political 
parties do not go unregulated, as Bobby Birtchfield noted in the Senate 
Rules Committee hearings on Campaign Finance last year. First, both 
receipts and disbursements of soft money by political parties are 
currently reported to the FEC, and are available on the Internet. 
Second, much of the activity financed by soft money is regulated by 
state election law. Finally, political parties cannot use the soft 
money they raise--nor can candidates--to advocate the election or 
defeat of a candidate for federal office.
  Let me conclude with wholeheartedly agreeing with these observations 
of Alan Reynolds of the Manhattan Institute. I quote.

       On the face of it, the McCain-Feingold obsession with 
     ``soft money'' looks fishy. Soft money accounts for less than 
     16 percent of federal campaign expenditures according to 
     Common Cause. And campaign expenditures do not even include 
     some of the most important ways of influencing policy, such 
     as lobbying and issue ads. Lobbying cost $2.7 billion in 
     1997-98, according to the Center for Respective Politics 
     (CRP), while Common Cause counted soft money collections of 
     merely $193 million during those years. Lobbyists would be 
     wise to lobby for a ban on soft money, because they would 
     then have even more clout and more money.
       Everyone in Washington knows who the most politically 
     influential interest groups are, and most of them do not even 
     appear on lists of top soft money donors. Fortune asks 
     lawmakers and congressional staffers to name the most 
     politically powerful organizations. In 1999, the top 10 were 
     the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), the NRA 
     (National Rifle Association), the National Federation of 
     Independent Business, the American Israel Public Affairs 
     Committee, the AFL-CIO, the Association of Trial Lawyers, the 
     Chamber of Commerce, the National Right to Life Committee, 
     the National Education Association and the National 
     Restaurant Association. What gives most of these groups 
     political clout is not contributions to political parties, 
     but old-fashioned lobbying, public policy advertising, and in 
     some cases (such as AARP, the NRA and the AFL-CIO) the 
     ability to influence a large number of members' votes.--Alan 
     Reynolds, ``The Economics of Campaign Finance Reform,'' The 
     Washington Times, March 22, 2001.

  I believe, no, I know, that we are not a corrupt body. The United 
States Senate is made up of fine and exemplary men and women, with whom 
I am proud to associate. I also know that Americans are able to discern 
the truth of political matters, and that more speech, not less, will 
allow them to make the most informed decision. Finally, I know that the 
American people should be able to give money in support of whatever 
cause they choose. Whether it's a group of 10,000 or a single person, 
their right to speak should be unfettered. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Mark Twain once noted that politicians' 
biggest objection to ``tainted'' money is, ``tain't mine.''
  My colleagues, today we stand on the verge of proving that saying 
wrong.

[[Page 5207]]

  In the last two weeks, we've achieved some things in this Senate that 
few people thought, going into this debate, were possible.
  We have had a real debate. We have reached bipartisan agreements. We 
have stood together, Republicans and Democrats, and rejected amendments 
that would have made this bill unworkable.
  And we have accepted amendments that improve the bill.
  Thanks to the hard work of Senator Wellstone, we broadened the Snowe-
Jeffords provision to bar sham issue ads so that all outside groups are 
treated equally.
  Thanks to the hard work of Senators Torricelli, Corzine, Durbin and 
Dorgan, we lowered the cost of campaigns by ensuring that the stations 
that enjoy the benefit of federally licensed airwaves give candidates 
the lowest unit cost for their political advertisements.
  Thanks to the hard work of Senator Schumer, we put new teeth into the 
limits on the vast sums of money national parties may spend on 
coordinated expenditures for candidates.
  Moreover, we turned back destructive amendments aimed at silencing 
the voices of working people.
  I will be honest, this bill is not perfect.
  It now includes increases in the amount of hard money that may be 
contributed to candidates and parties. I believe we must reduce the 
amount of money in politcs--no matter the form. Still, I supported this 
amendment reluctantly, and only because it allowed this bill to move 
forward, and to reach this important vote.
  The bill also includes an unworkable scheme for financing opponents 
of wealthy candidates that, in my view, favors incumbents and unwisely 
multiples the amount wealthy individuals can contribute to candidates.
  These flaws are not insubstantial, but the benefits of this bill far 
outweigh them. And when it comes to an issue as central to our 
democracy as the trust people place in their elected officials, we 
cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  And make no mistake this is a good bill.
  We owe that to the stewardship and commitment of Senators McCain and 
Feingold.
  Throughout these last two weeks, Senators McCain and Feingold have 
shown the same steadfast leadership that brought us to this point.
  They have refused to compromise the essential components of their 
bill in face of incredible pressure from all sides.
  And they have acted in the national interest rather than their 
respective partisan interests.
  I thank them for their service to our republic and to this Senate.
  I also want to thank Senator Dodd for his management of this bill for 
our side.
  Senator Dodd has managed to ensure that every viewpoint within our 
caucus is heard and accommodated. We would not be on the verge of 
passing this bill without Senator Dodd's commitment to our caucus, to 
our nation, and to reform.
  I also want to thank Senator McConnell, who has been honest in his 
disagreement with this bill, and fair in his handling of it.
  This is indeed the way the Senate should work. A Senate that brings 
up bill, gives members an opportunity to legislate, and entertains deep 
and meaningful debate--is a tribute to us all.
  It is also a Senate that gets things done.
  The McCain-Feingold bill does not address every flaw in our campaign 
system. But, as Senator Feingold has said so often: ``It does show the 
public that we understand that the current system doesn't do our 
democracy justice.'' And it curbs some of the most egregious injustices 
in that system.
  There are those who have argued, and will continue to argue, that in 
an attempt to make things better, we will only make things worse.
  Since its founding, the goal of America has been to strive for that 
``more perfect union'' our founders envisioned. To say that we 
shouldn't attempt to make things better begs the question, ``Is what we 
have now good enough?''
  I believe that if you look at the rising tide of money in politics, 
the influence that money buys, and the corrosive effect it has on 
people's faith in government, the answer is clearly no.
  Ours is a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the 
people.'' It is not a government of, by, and for some of the people.
  This bill will help put the reins of government back into the hands 
of all of the people.
  I hope that we pass it, I hope that our colleagues in the House will 
follow suit, and I hope the President will sign it.
  It has taken us a long time to get to this point.
  The last time Congress tried to strengthen our political system by 
loosening the grip of special interest money was 1974, more than a 
generation ago.
  Congress may not have another chance to pass real campaign reform for 
another generation, long after most of us will have left here.
  The decision we make today, whether to pass this bill or not, will 
likely have a profound impact on each of us for the rest of our time 
here.
  More importantly, this decision will have a profound impact --for 
better or worse--on the kind of system, and the kind of America, we 
leave to our children.
  As a wise man once said on another occasion: ``We cannot escape 
history.'' This is a critical moment in our nation's history.
  What we do will be remembered for years to come.
  Success is within our reach.
  Let us remain united. Let us pass this final test. Let us take the 
power away from the special interests and give it back to the American 
people, where it belongs.
  We can do it. The time is now.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
S. 27, the so-called Campaign Finance Reform bill. My opposition is 
based on three conclusions I have reached regarding this measure. 
First, the legislation is unconstitutional; second, the legislation 
will hinder rather than encourage citizens from participating in the 
political process; and third the legislation will push more political 
money into the shadows of undisclosed special interest spending.
  This bill, on its face is unconstitutional on at least three counts. 
The measure restricts free speech, the right of association, and the 
right of persons to petition their government for redress of 
grievances.
  The underlying premise of their campaign finance reform legislation 
is the proponents claim that there is too much in political campaigns, 
and the increasing reliance on and influence of third-party interests 
groups. While there is a legitimate concern regarding the fairness of 
elections and the need to eliminate the actual or perceived buying and 
selling of elections, this bill take the wrong approach.
  To address concerns of the reality or appearance of improper 
influence stemming from candidates dependence on larger campaign 
contributions, a number of campaign and election reforms were enacted 
during the 1970s. These reforms imposed limits on contributions, 
required disclosure of campaign receipts and expenditures, and set up 
the Federal Election Commission, FEC, as a central administrative and 
enforcement agency. This framework has been upheld by the Courts and 
works well. Campaign contributions and expenditures are fully reported, 
giving all voters the opportunity to know the basis of support of a 
particular candidate.
  I supported the amendment to raise the limit of campaign 
contributions. The increase in the limit was appropriate, given the 
limit was established in 1974, and inflation has lessened the value of 
the 1974 dollar to about 35 cents. More importantly, regulated and 
disclosed contributions of a reasonable amount assist candidates in 
publicizing their message. Democracy can only be improved by more 
political discussion and participation. Yet, supporters of this bill 
apparently seek to reduce political funding and associated political 
discourse.

[[Page 5208]]

  The bill's limitations on political expenditures are similar to prior 
expenditure limits struck down by the Supreme Court's landmark Buckley 
v. Valeo ruling [424 U.S. 1 (1976)]. In that case, the Supreme Court 
invalidated limitations on independent expenditures, on candidate 
expenditures from personal funds, and on overall campaign expenditures. 
These provisions, the Court ruled, placed direct and substantial 
restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations 
to engage in protected First Amendment rights.
  The legislation that will likely be adopted by the Senate includes 
limitations on independent groups who wish to publicize and advocate 
their positions on matters of public policy. Attempts to regulate 
political speech, even the requirement for limited disclosure, will 
have a chilling effect on issue oriented speech.
  The bill restricts the right of citizens to associate and coordinate 
their activities of the group as a political party. The limitations on 
party funding and activities extend to voter registration drives, get-
out-the-vote drives, and public communications, including advertising, 
mass mailings and phone banks.
  The purpose of political parties is to identify and elect candidates 
who support policy choices shared by members of the party. Members of 
political parties have a constitutional right to gather together and to 
petition their government for the redress of grievances. The pending 
legislation restricts the ability to associate, to raise needed funds 
for legitimate party activities, and to adequately publish the message 
of the party. Again, this impedes political participation and only 
helps incumbents maintain their advantage in the electoral process.
  The bill will have the consequence of pushing political spending from 
the regulated and disclosed ``hard money'' side into the unregulated, 
undisclosed world of third-party independent expenditures. I do not 
believe this measure will reduce the amount of money spent on 
campaigns. But I do fear it will result in candidates losing control of 
their own campaigns. As direct candidate and party support are limited, 
I believe there will be a move by independent groups to exercise their 
constitutional right to speak on political matters. Candidates and 
parties will be left defenseless against the onslaught of such 
advertising. This will likely result in less open political discourse, 
and an increase in the ``noise'' level of attack ads and 
unsubstantiated political claims.
  My campaign days are over. I have no personal interest in the manner 
in which campaigns will be financed or run in the future. But I do have 
an interest in defending the liberty and constitutional rights of my 
constituents. This legislation restricts those rights and will 
discourage their participation in the political process.
  For these reasons I will not support final passage of S. 27. I 
express my appreciation to the Senate, for the manner in which the 
debate has been conducted. In particular, I thank the Chairman of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. McConnell, for his leadership in protecting the 
Constitution and defending the rights and liberties of all Americans.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield for the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we have had a full two week debate on 
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. It has been a good debate, 
and the bill has been improved and perfected in many respects. Thirty-
eight amendments were offered, and 17 were adopted. Our vote this 
evening will be the 27th roll call vote of the debate. All Senators 
have had an opportunity to make a mark on the bill, and I think the 
Senate and the country have benefitted from this full and fair debate.
  The sponsors and supporters of the bill have done everything we can 
to address legitimate concerns about its provisions. In some cases, 
amendments were offered and adopted, in others, sections of the bill 
were dropped. Still, this is a complex area of the law, and we know 
that questions remain about how certain provisions are intended to 
work. We want to try to answer as many of those questions as we can.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, two weeks is a long debate in the Senate. 
I want to thank all my colleagues for their participation and their 
cooperation. We hope that many of the questions that might arise about 
the intent of our bill have been answered in this extraordinary 
exchange in which so many Senators have taken part. But other questions 
will undoubtedly come up. To the extent we can anticipate those 
questions, we want to make sure that our intent is clear.
  I therefore ask unanimous consent on behalf of myself, Senators 
Thompson, Lieberman, Jeffords, Levin, Snowe, Schumer, Cochran, Collins, 
Cantwell, Edwards, and Durbin, that a document entitled Statement of 
Supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 Concerning 
Intent of Certain Provisions be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Statement of Supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 
                Concerning Intent of Certain Provisions

       As supporters of S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 
     of 2001, we want to make clear our intent with respect to 
     certain questions that have been raised concerning the effect 
     and operation of the bill. We intend this statement to be 
     guidance for our colleagues in the House, the Federal 
     Election Commission, and the courts should there be any 
     misunderstanding about these provisions in the bill.
       New section 323(c)--We intend that this restriction on the 
     use of non-federal money for fundraising costs should not 
     apply to an authorized campaign committee of a candidate for 
     state or local office.
       New section 323(d)--We intend that this restriction on the 
     raising of non-federal money by the parties, their officials, 
     or entities controlled by parties or their officials for tax 
     exempt organizations should only apply to 501(c) 
     organizations that have made or intend to make disbursements 
     in connection with a federal election, including Federal 
     election activities as defined by the bill. Thus, charitable 
     contributions to groups like the Red Cross are not restricted 
     as long as those groups do not use money donated by the party 
     for Federal election activities. Furthermore, the 527 
     organizations referred to in new section 323(d)(2) are not 
     intended to include state or local party committees or 
     authorized campaign committees of state or local candidates. 
     Finally, nothing in this provision is intended to affect the 
     prohibition of national parties and federal candidates and 
     officeholders raising or spending non-federal money.
       The definition of ``Federal election activity'' in section 
     101(b) was modified by the Specter amendment. That amendment 
     is intended to provide that if subclause (iii), which 
     describes a certain type of public communication, is held to 
     be unconstitutional, then an additional limitation on that 
     type of public communication is to be added, narrowing the 
     reach of the definition.
       The reporting requirements in the new section 304(d) added 
     by section 103(a) of the bill are not intended to apply to 
     authorized campaign committees of state and local candidates 
     whose only expenditures on Federal election activities do not 
     refer to a Federal candidate.
       Only the direct costs of producing and airing 
     electioneering communications is intended to be included in 
     determining whether a person reaches the $10,000 aggregate 
     amount of disbursements that triggers the reporting 
     requirements of Snowe-Jeffords.
       The reference to a clearly identified candidate is intended 
     to mean a candidate who is up for election in that two-year 
     cycle. Therefore, if one Senator is up for election in a 
     cycle, an ad that appears within 60 days of an election and 
     mentions only the second Senator for that state is not an 
     electioneering communication, even though the second Senator 
     is also technically a candidate for election some years 
     hence.
       With respect to the requirement that an advertisement be 
     targeted to the electorate of the candidate who is mentioned 
     in the ad for it to be an electioneering communication, if 
     the ad reaches only an incidental number of members of the 
     electorate for that race, the ad would not be an 
     electioneering communication. (This might theoretically 
     happen, for example, because the station on which a true 
     issue ad is broadcast happens to reach a small number of 
     households in another state, or because a few people from the 
     candidate's state happens to be traveling in the state where 
     a true issue ad is run.)
       A communication that mentions candidates' names only in the 
     context of announcing or promoting a non-partisan candidate 
     debate or forum is not intended to be considered an 
     electioneering communication.
       The Snowe-Jeffords provision is intended to have no effect 
     on the determination by

[[Page 5209]]

     the Internal Revenue Service of what kinds of activities tax-
     exempt organizations are permitted to engage in under the 
     Internal Revenue Code.
         John McCain; Russ Feingold; Thad Cochran; Carl Levin; 
           Fred Thompson; Joe Lieberman; Susan Collins; Chuck 
           Schumer; Olympia Snowe; John Edwards; Jim Jeffords; 
           Maria Cantwell; Dick Durbin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the road this 
legislation has traveled, and thank the many Members of this body, past 
and present, who have helped to bring us to this moment.
  It has been a long road to this moment, and we wouldn't even have 
begun this journey without the tenacity, dedication and the courage of 
my good friend from Arizona. He is a great legislator, a great leader, 
and, above all, a great friend. He and I have been in this fight for 
many years, and my respect for him has grown with every challenge we 
have faced together.
  We have gotten to this moment because of his leadership first and 
foremost, but also because of the leadership of so many distinguished 
colleagues who have given this bill their support along the way. I want 
to take a few moments to recognize some of the Members who have 
contributed to this legislation.
  I want to thank our earliest supporters, who gave their support to 
the McCain-Feingold bill when it was first introduced in the 104th 
Congress, Senators such as John Glenn, Paul Simon, Nancy Kassebaum-
Baker, and Alan Simpson, who gave us crucial bipartisan support when 
this effort was just getting off the ground. This kind of bipartisan 
bill wasn't totally unprecedented but it was pretty unusual, and the 
support of those distinguished Senators lent important credibility to 
our effort in its early days.
  I thank Senator Lieberman, who has been a steadfast supporter of 
reform, and who helped to build crucial momentum for this legislation 
with his leadership on the 527 disclosure bill in the last Congress. 
The success of that legislation was a great breakthrough after so many 
years when any reform effort was stonewalled by our opponents. The day 
that that bill passed the Senate, I remember thinking that enactment of 
the McCain-Feingold bill was not going to be far behind.
  And of course the great breakthrough at the beginning of this 
Congress was the day when Senator Thad Cochran joined us in introducing 
this bill. I have great respect for Senator Cochran, and his support on 
this issue has been invaluable. I cannot thank him enough for his 
commitment to this legislation. Once he joined our effort, he was with 
us with every ounce of determination and grace that he brings to all of 
his work here in the Senate.
  One of our newest Members, Senator Maria Cantwell also gave us 
important momentum when she made campaign finance reform a central 
issue in her campaign, and gave this bill her strong support. After her 
victory, the oft-repeated claim that no Senator has ever lost an 
election over this issue could simply no longer be made.
  Senator John Edwards and Senator Chuck Schumer have both been a 
terrific asset on this issue, especially right here on the Senate 
floor. Both of them have devoted a great deal of their time, and their 
skill as debaters, to this bill, and I am very grateful for their 
efforts.
  The efforts of Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Jim Jeffords to 
craft the phony issue ad provision have been essential to this 
legislation. They worked tirelessly to put together a balanced 
provision that gets at the root of the issue ad problem, and I thank 
them for their tremendous contribution. The Snowe-Jeffords provision is 
an integral part of our bill, and their mastery of this topic was 
invaluable to us.
  I want to particularly thank Senator Carl Levin for his leadership 
and support, during the last 2 weeks, indeed during every debate we 
have had on this bill since 1996. His insight on the substance of the 
issue, and on the workings of this body have been absolutely crucial to 
the advancement of this legislation. Senator Levin is as tenacious and 
committed as any Member of this body. We truly would not be here today 
if he were not on this team.
  I am deeply grateful to Senator Fred Thompson for this longstanding 
and steadfast support of this bill, and for his great skill and 
fairness in negotiating an agreement on hard money limits that the vast 
majority of this body could support. Without that agreement, we would 
not be poised to pass this bill. I also want to pay special tribute to 
Senator Thompson for the work he did investigating the 1996 campaign 
finance scandals.
  I also thank our distinguished colleague Senator Susan Collins for 
her invaluable contributions to this effort. She came on board our bill 
as a freshman Senator in 1997, in spite of tremendous pressure from her 
caucus. Over the years, we have met together with many of our 
colleagues. She has been a tireless advocate for reform, a terrific 
ally in this fight, and I'm proud to call her a friend and a colleague.
  I thank Senator Chris Dodd for his tremendous work as floor manager 
on the Democratic side. He led us through these past 2 weeks with grace 
and humor and a fierce passion for reform that I deeply respect and for 
which I am deeply grateful.
  And finally, I thank the Democratic Leader, Senator Tom Daschle, for 
everything he has done to bring about the success of this legislation. 
In the fall of 1997, the entire Democratic Caucus united behind this 
legislation, and that unity has been crucial to our success.
  But when this debate began 2 weeks ago, a skeptical press corps 
wondered whether Democrats really wanted to pass reform. We are about 
to cast this vote on final passage because Tom Daschle was true to the 
principles of this party and led our caucus to follow through on the 
commitment we made to reform 3\1/2\ years ago. I am proud of the 
bipartisan effort we have made, but I am also proud to be a Democrat, 
and I deeply appreciate the solid support of my caucus on many crucial 
votes over the past two weeks.
  That is a long list of thank you's, but they are all well deserved.
  In closing, Mr. President, five and a half years after Senator McCain 
and I first introduced this bill, we are about to have the first up-or-
down vote on final passage of this legislation. I have been so proud to 
be part of a bipartisan coalition of Senators who have brought this 
bill to this moment and, of course, I am especially proud to be 
associated with John McCain. I say to the Senator, this has been a 
heartening experience.
  With every test over the last 2 weeks, our coalition has grown 
stronger and more determined to end sham issue ads, improve disclosure, 
and, most of all, ban soft money which makes this Senate so vulnerable 
to the appearance of corruption. I urge each and every Member of this 
body to support this bill. It isn't comprehensive reform. It is a 
modest beginning, and I hope in the future we can do much more to 
improve the way we finance campaigns.
  But this bill, however modest, is also monumental. This is the best 
chance we have had in more than two decades to rebuild the election 
laws that have been nearly washed away by the influx of soft money. The 
system that came from the Federal Election Campaign Act, and was 
altered by the Buckley decision, has never been perfect, and I am sure 
it never will be. But the system once served the Nation well, and it 
can be reformed to serve the Nation well again if we pass the 
legislation before us.
  When we stand in this Chamber, we all know that what we say here, and 
how we choose to cast our votes, becomes a part of the record. All of 
us have that privilege, to be a part of that history, to add our own 
words to that indelible record of democracy. We have that privilege 
because the American people sent us here to be stewards of this system 
of government. The record is the testament to how well we fulfill that 
duty, and today I think the record will reflect that we served the 
people.
  In this moment, we can show the American people that we are the 
Senate they want us to be. We can pass this legislation and put our 
lasting mark on the record of democracy, for ourselves and, most of 
all, for the people we serve.

[[Page 5210]]

  Mr. President, this is a rare moment. I hope this body will seize 
this opportunity to enact real reform. My colleagues, I thank you for 
your support and for your work, and I especially thank the people of 
Wisconsin for supporting me throughout this effort. I thank my very 
able staff for their work.
  My colleagues, I ask all of you now to vote in favor of this bill, S. 
27, on final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield for the Senator from Michigan, Mr. 
Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is now time for the Senate to step up to 
the plate, as we open this baseball season, to do what needs to be 
done--to bring an end to the soft money loophole that has destroyed the 
law that is supposed to place limits on campaign contributions.
  Passage of McCain-Feingold will bring an end to solicitations and 
contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for 
access to people in power--``lunch with the committee chairman of our 
choice for $50,000,'' ``time with the President for $100,000,'' 
``participation in a foreign trade mission with Government officials 
for $50,000.''
  The moment of truth is now--with this vote--because this is the first 
time we are voting with the real possibility that what we do here can 
become law.
  Mr. President, I also want to talk about two concerns about the 
impact of this legislation that I have heard from some of my 
colleagues--that the parties will be weakened and that the soft money 
will now flow to the outside groups. It is true, of course, that no one 
can predict with certainty just what will happen once the soft money 
loophole is closed and provisions with respect to issue ads are in 
place. There is some of the unknown to what we are doing here today. 
But I'd like to remind those concerned about the parties and the 
increased strength of outside groups that there are provisions in the 
bill to ameliorate those concerns.
  First, with respect to the parties, while the bill eliminates soft 
money, it also increases the hard money limits to the parties and makes 
those limits subject to indexing. The bill also contains an amendment I 
sponsored along with Senator Ensign, that will allow State parties to 
raise and spend non-Federal money subject to the State contribution 
limits for voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities in a 
Federal election year. The bill as introduced prohibited any money not 
subject to the federal limits from being used even by State parties for 
voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities in a Federal election 
year. Many of us thought that provision went too far, since these 
activities are often the heart of what State parties do. The provision 
we added by amendment has a number of limits. Federal candidates and 
National Party Officials can't be involved in soliciting the State 
party money, the State party can't refer to a Federal candidate in 
conducting these activities, and a State, district or local committee 
can't raise more than $10,000 from any one person for these activities 
in a calendar year and the activities must be paid for with a formula 
of federal and non-federal money established by the Federal Election 
Commission. This provision will enable State parties to engage in 
important voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities.
  With respect to the flow of money to outside groups, the bill 
contains several brakes on that happening. First, Federal candidates 
are barred from soliciting non-federal money not only for the parties 
but also for these outside groups. Many people who make large 
contributions do so because we personally ask them to do so. Without 
that personal involvement, most large contributors will not contribute, 
and the large sums of soft money that are now being given to the 
parties, will simply not be raised or spent anymore. The bill also 
prohibits unions and corporations from running issue ads in the last 30 
days of a primary election and the last 60 days of a general election. 
That will significantly reduce the amount of sham issue ads run in the 
days before an election. Finally, the national parties which in the 
past have contributed significant sums of money to these outside groups 
will not be in a position to do that with the absence of soft money.
  So, Mr. President, while I understand these concerns, and realize to 
some extent we are all stepping into unknown territory with the 
enactment of this legislation, there are a number of moderating 
influences in the bill that should avoid the draconian effects 
suggested by some of our colleagues.
  I would also, Mr. President, like to address a statement made by my 
colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, the other night. He said in his 
statement opposing this legislation on the Senate floor, that this 
legislation would prohibit him from selling his house and using all of 
the money from that house to support a candidate of his choice. The 
Senator was passionate about how wrong such an outcome could be. But, 
Mr. President, the legislation would not create such a prohibition. 
Senator Gramm and any other individual in the United States could sell 
everything he or she owns and use it to promote such a candidacy. This 
bill would not prevent that. The Supreme Court has said that is a right 
guaranteed to everyone under the Constitution. What this legislation 
does and what the Supreme Court says is permitted under the 
Constitution, is prohibit Senator Gramm from using the proceeds of the 
sale of his house to contribute to a candidate or a political party in 
amounts that exceed the limits established by the Federal Election 
Campaign Act. An individual can spend an unlimited amount of money in 
support of a candidate, so long as those expenditures are not 
coordinated with a candidate. But an individual cannot contribute an 
unlimited amount of money to a candidate, because, as Congress has 
determined and the Supreme Court has affirmed, unlimited or large 
contributions can create the appearance of corruption which can damage 
the institution of democracy.
  Mr. President, I also want to say a few words about the so-called 
Millionaire's amendment we adopted that was sponsored by Senators 
Domenici, DeWine and Durbin. It is a complicated proposal and one with 
which we had insufficient time to work. It needed more consideration in 
order to achieve the fair result that I believe we intended. I am 
afraid that the amendment as drafted, although improved by the Durbin 
Amendment, is still too advantageous to incumbents and too cumbersome 
to administer. I hope this can be addressed at a later stage or even in 
subsequent legislation, and I hope the Federal Election Commission 
proceeds carefully and with extensive public comment when implementing 
the statutory language. The intent of the Durbin amendment was to 
reduce the incumbency advantage that the original amendment created 
when it allowed a well-funded incumbent to use the increased 
contribution limits even though the incumbent's expenditures and cash 
on hand far exceeded the millionaire challenger's. The Durbin amendment 
tried to reduce the effect of the original amendment by requiring the 
millionaire to reach one-half of the amount of expenditures plus cash 
on hand that the incumbent has before the higher limits are triggered. 
While this is an improvement, I think we need to work with the numbers 
to see if another approach would be preferable.
  Mr. President, 25 years ago this Congress passed a pretty decent 
campaign finance law.
  Individuals aren't supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate 
per election, or $5,000 to a political action committee, or more than 
$20,000 a year to a national party committee or $25,000 total in any 
one year for all contributions combined.
  Corporations and unions are prohibited from contributing anything to 
a candidate except through carefully prescribed political action 
committees. The limit of a corporate or union PAC contribution is 
$5,000 per candidate.
  Presidential campaigns are supposed to be financed just with public 
funds.
  That's the law on the books today.
  The Supreme Court upheld those contribution limits in the case of 
Buckley v. Valeo and reasserted that position in the recent case of 
Nixon v. Missouri Government Shrink PAC. In those

[[Page 5211]]

cases the Supreme Court held that limits on contributions in campaigns 
do not violate free speech guarantees in the First Amendment.
  In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld contribution limits as 
a reasonable and constitutional approach to deterring actual and 
apparent corruption of federal elections in the Buckley case. Let me 
read what the Court said:

       It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act's primary 
     purpose--to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption 
     resulting from large individual financial contributions--in 
     order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for 
     the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of private 
     financing of elections, a candidate lacking immense personal 
     or family wealth must depend on financial contributions from 
     others to provide the resources necessary to conduct a 
     successful campaign. . . . To the extent that large 
     contributions are given to secure political quid pro quo's 
     from current and potential office holders, the integrity of 
     our system of representative democracy is undermined. . . . 
     Of almost equal concern is . . . the impact of the appearance 
     of corruption stemming from public awareness of the 
     opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large 
     individual financial contributions. . . . Congress could 
     legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of 
     improper influence ``is also critical . . . if confidence in 
     the system of representative government is not to be eroded 
     to a disastrous extent.''

  The Court went on to say:

       And while disclosure requirements serve the many salutary 
     purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress was 
     surely entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a 
     partial measure and that contribution ceilings were a 
     necessary legislative concomitant to deal with the reality or 
     appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting 
     unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities 
     of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions 
     are fully disclosed.

  The Buckley Court at several points in the opinion endorses the 
concept that unlimited contributions are enough, by themselves, to 
create the appearance of corruption and to justify the imposition of 
limits.
  In Nixon v. Missouri Government Shrink PAC, decided in January of 
last year, the Supreme Court was presented with a challenge to campaign 
contribution limits established by the State of Missouri. In that case, 
Justice Souter, speaking for a majority of the Court clearly upheld the 
Buckley decision.
  But the soft money loophole that has evolved over the past 15 years 
or so has effectively destroyed the contribution limits. The loophole 
is huge--since you can't give more than a limited amount to a 
candidate, give all you want to his or her party--and of course the 
party uses the money to elect that same candidate.
  Soft money has blown the lid off the contribution limits of our 
campaign finance system.
  Look at the most recent data with respect to soft money 
contributions. In the 1996 election--a Presidential election year--
Republicans raised $140 million in soft money contributions; Democrats 
raised $120 million. In 1998, even without a Presidential election--
Republicans raised $131 million in soft money contributions and 
Democrats raised $91 million. The 1997-98 combined soft money total was 
115% more than the 1993-1994 total. And in the 1999-2000 campaign 
cycle, the Congressional Research Service reports that Republicans and 
Democrats both raised about $240 million. That's money from 
corporations and unions--who are not supposed to be giving any money at 
all. Approximately $280 million of the almost half billion in soft 
money to the parties came from corporations and unions and $175 million 
from individuals. And that's money from individual contributors in sums 
often in six figures--hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to 
the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 1999-2000 campaign 365 
individuals gave the parties $120,000 or more for a total amount of 
over $98 million--when the limit on individual contributions is 
supposed to be $1,000 per election. The soft money loophole has eaten 
the law.
  As many commentators, colleagues and constituents have said, 
practically speaking, there are no limits. And the truth is, Mr. 
President, the public is offended and disgusted by this spectacle of 
huge contributions and well they should be. We should be, too. Because 
in order to get these large contributions, access to us is often openly 
and blatantly sold. We sell lunch or dinner with the Committee Chairman 
of your choice for $100,000 bucks. We sell pictures with the President, 
access to insiders meetings and strategy sessions, participation in a 
Congressional advisory group or a trade mission. The open solicitation 
of campaign contributions in exchange for access to people with the 
power to affect the life or livelihood of the person being solicited 
creates an appearance of impropriety and a misuse of power. People who 
are in power are asking for large sums of money for access to them.
  This is done openly. Marlin Fitzwater, Press Secretary to former 
President Bush said it clearly in 1992 when he said, ``It's buying 
access to the system, yes. That's what the political parties and the 
political operation is all about.'' Former Senator Paul Simon made a 
similar observation a number of years ago on the Senate floor. That's 
why over 25 persons--corporations and individuals gave over $100,000 
each to both parties. They didn't contribute because of shared values, 
obviously. They contributed to cover their bets--to make sure they had 
access to the winner. They had enough money to do that. That's how far 
this system has fallen. The parties advertise access. It's blatant. 
Both parties do it. Openly.
  Invitation after invitation sells access for large contributions. 
From 1996: For a $50,000 contribution or for raising $100,000 a 
contributor gets:
  Two events with the President.
  Two events with the Vice President.
  Invitations to join ``Party leadership as they travel abroad to 
examine current and developing political and economic issues in other 
countries.
  Monthly policy briefings with ``key administration officials and 
members of Congress.
  An invitation to the 1997 RNC Annual Gala says a contributor who 
raises $250,000 will be entitled to have lunch with the Republican 
Senate and House Committee Chairman of the contributor's choice.
  That's what we're openly offering for sale for large contributors and 
that's what contributors are often buying. Both parties do it, and 
there are dozens of examples.
  One invitation in 1997 to a Senatorial Campaign Committee event 
promised that large contributors would be offered ``plenty of 
opportunities to share [their] personal ideas and vision with'' some of 
the top leaders and senators. Failure to attend, the invitation said, 
means that ``you could lose a unique chance to be included in current 
legislative policy debates--debates that will affect your family and 
your business for many years to come.''
  One letter from a Senatorial Campaign Committee invited the recipient 
to be a life member of the party's Inner Circle. It said that $10,000 
will ``bring you face-to-face with dozens of our Senators, including 
many of the Senate's most powerful Committee Chairmen.''
  Another solicitation offered, for a contribution of $10,000, the 
choice of ``attending one of 60 small dinner parties, limited in 
attendance to 20 to 25 people, at the home of a Senator, Cabinet 
Officer, or senior White House Staff member.''
  One offer for membership in a Senatorial Trust said, ``Trust members 
can expect a close working relationship with all [of the party's] 
Senators, top Administration officials and other national leaders. 
Personal relationships are fostered at informal meetings throughout the 
year in Washington, D.C. and abroad.''
  Another solicitation offers lunch at the White House with the 
President and his wife. It also goes so far as to say that ``Attendance 
at all events is limited. Benefits based on receipts.'' That means you 
don't get the benefit until the cash is in hand. Pledges of 
contributions are not enough. That's how blatant these offers to 
purchase access have become.
  The sale of access to small, private meetings is the product of the 
soft money loophole. The amounts we see on these solicitations aren't 
$1,000 and $2,000 contributions. They're large--

[[Page 5212]]

$50,000 or $100,000 contributions in soft money. The soft money 
loophole has increased and intensified the sale of access. The soft 
money loophole is swallowing our political system whole.
  Do these large money contributions create an appearance of personal 
access and improper influence by big contributors? Yes. Look at the 
kinds of articles that are being written about the ups and downs of 
pending legislation. Many of them draw links--in my mind unfairly--
between large soft money contributions and legislative activity. Here's 
one from the Wall Street Journal on the bankruptcy legislation. It even 
has a chart of all the organizations in the Coalition for Responsible 
Bankruptcy Laws and the amount each contributed to the Democrats and 
Republicans. Here's a similar one from the New York Times. The opening 
paragraph reads: ``A lobbying campaign led by credit card companies and 
banks that gave millions of dollars in political donations to members 
of Congress and contributed generously to President Bush's 200 campaign 
is close to its long sought goal of overhauling the nation's bankruptcy 
system.''
  Here's another recent article from the New York Times linking large 
soft money contributions to ambassadorships. Here's another Wall Street 
Journal article from last year talking about the so-called ``wish 
list'' of large contributors to the Bush campaign. And, of course, we 
are all well aware of the stories linking President Clinton's pardons 
to campaign contributions.
  These articles are the evidence of the appearance of impropriety 
created with large soft money contributions.
  In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court also answered ``yes'' to the 
question whether large contributions create the appearance of 
impropriety. It found an appearance of corruption created from the size 
of the contribution alone, without even looking at the sale of access.
  It noted, ``Congress was justified in concluding that the interest in 
safeguarding against the appearance of impropriety requires that the 
opportunity for abuse inherent in the process of raising large monetary 
contributions be eliminated.''
  Add to the equation the actual sale of access for large 
contributions, and you have an even greater ``opportunity for abuse'' 
and the appearance of corruption.
  These soft money contributions are not used just for get out the vote 
or voter registration activities, which is how the loophole got started 
in the first place. The truth is they are most often used for 
television ads that appear in thousands of spots in support of and 
against individual candidates. The truth is, while the parties claim 
these ads are issue ads, they clearly have one purpose--to help elect 
or defeat a particular candidate.
  The Brennan Center analyzed all of the ads from the 1998 election ads 
paid for with hard money (candidate ads), and ads paid for with soft 
money (sham issue ads) and they found practically no difference. 
Although the Supreme Court in Buckley attempted to define a candidate 
ad as one actually promoting the election or defeat of a candidate 
through the use of words such as ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' the 
Brennan Center found that over 90% of the candidate ads, didn't do 
that--they didn't say ``elect'' or ``defeat'' or ``vote for'' or ``vote 
against'' a particular candidate. They were, it appears, virtually 
indistinguishable from the sham issue ads directed at a particular 
candidate and paid for with soft money.
  In the 1996 Presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee 
ran ads on welfare and crime and the budget which were basically 
designed to support President Clinton's reelection. At our hearings on 
the campaign finance system, Harold Ickes was asked about these DNC ads 
and the extent to which the people looking at the ads would walk away 
with the message to vote for President Clinton. ``I would certainly 
hope so,'' he said. ``If not, we ought to fire the ad agencies.''
  Listen to this ad from the Republican National Committee on behalf of 
then Presidential candidate Bob Dole.

       Mr. Dole: We have a moral obligation to give our children 
     an America with the opportunity and values of the nation we 
     grew up in.
       Voice Over: Bob Dole grew up in Russell, Kansas. From his 
     parents he learned the value of hard work, honesty and 
     responsibility. So when his country called, he answered. He 
     was seriously wounded in combat. Paralyzed, he underwent nine 
     operations.
       Mr. Dole: I went around looking for a miracle that would 
     make me whole again.
       Voice Over: The doctors said he'd never walk again. But 
     after 39 months, he proved them wrong.
       A Man Named Ed: He persevered, he never gave up. He fought 
     his way back from total paralysis.
       Voice Over: Like many Americans, his life experience and 
     values serve as a strong moral compass. The principle of work 
     to replace welfare. The principle of accountability to 
     strengthen our criminal justice system. The principle of 
     discipline to end wasteful Washington spending.
       Mr. Dole: It all comes down to values. What you believe in. 
     What you sacrifice for. And what you stand for.

  That ad was paid for with soft money contributed to the Republican 
National Committee. And that's argued as permissible under current law, 
because that ad doesn't explicitly ask the viewer to vote for Bob Dole. 
It spends its whole time talking positively about him just before the 
election. If it added 4 words at the end that say what the ad is all 
about, ``Vote for Bob Dole,'' it would be treated as a candidate ad, 
not an issue ad, and would be subject to the hard money limits. Well, 
any reasonable person who hears that ad knows it is an ad supporting 
the candidacy of Bob Dole. It is not an ad about welfare or wasteful 
government spending. And in my book, it should have to be paid for with 
regulated or hard money contributions. That isn't the case today.
  So, Mr. President, the truth is that this kind of candidate 
advertising, which should clearly be subject to contribution limits, 
escapes those limits through the soft money loophole. And it's that 
soft money loophole that the bill before us would close. It would ban 
the solicitation or receipt of soft money by the national parties; it 
would ban the solicitation or receipt of soft money by the candidates 
or their representatives.
  Mr. President, the large majority of the American people want 
campaign finance reform. The large majority of the American people want 
us to clean up our act. We're the only ones who can do it.
  As the Supreme Court said in Buckley, an appearance of corruption is 
``inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions.'' 
And permitting the appearance of corruption undermines the very 
foundation of our democracy--the trust of the people in the system. We 
have the right to protect our democratic institutions from being 
undermined by the open sale of access for large contributions which 
people believe reasonably translates into influence. It's time to step 
up to the plate.
  Mr. President, I want to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to 
the two Senators who made this moment possible Senator John McCain and 
Senator Russ Feingold. They have been warriors in this fight for 
campaign finance reform. They have pushed this when it wasn't popular 
to do so, and they have made what many thought impossible a reality. It 
took guts and savvy, and I commend and congratulate them. I also 
commend our Democratic Leader, Tom Daschle. Without his strength and 
vision, this legislation would not have happened. Senator Daschle 
steered a course for our side that kept us on the road to reform. I 
don't know if anyone else could have done what he did--and, as always, 
he does it with grace and wit and charm. I commend Senator McConnell 
for his very strong and fair fight. He is as dedicated to his position 
as we are to ours. He is an intimidating opponent and has our respect 
for his dedication and perseverence. I know he is not happy with the 
outcome, but I believe his dire predictions will be unrealized. I also 
want to congratulate Senator Dodd on his tireless and brilliant service 
as the Democratic floor manager. His ability to capture the essence of 
an issue and related it to real life so we can all understand it is 
impressive. He served the Senate well in this open-ended and somewhat 
unpredictable debate.
  I also want to thank the staff who worked so hard and so diligently 
on

[[Page 5213]]

this effort. Bob Schiff and Mark Busse did a terrific job serving at 
the center of this great spinning wheel of legislation; they combined 
both excellent legal and political skills to keep the bill on track. 
Kennie Gill served everyone well as the staff floor manager. Laurie 
Rubenstein provided excellent legal advice, and Andrea LaRue did a 
great job keeping the Democratic Leadership represented and informed. I 
also want to thank Linda Gustitus and Ken Saccoccia of my staff for 
their endless time and truly extraordinary effort. It is certainly 
rewarding that this good work has paid off with the passage of this 
bill.


                         loan payback provision

  Two weeks ago the Senate passed an amendment to this bill that allows 
an increase in the individual contribution limits when a candidate is 
challenging a ``so-called'' millionaire candidate. Included in that 
amendment was a provision that prohibits candidates from repaying 
personal loans over $250,000 with contributions from other persons. 
This provision was enacted on a prospective basis; in other words, this 
provision would not apply to any candidate loans incurred before the 
enactment of this legislation.
  I want to ask my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, whether it 
is his understanding that the underlying intent in making this 
provision prospective is because this is the only fair and reasonable 
approach in this situation. Does the Senator from Arizona agree that it 
would be unreasonable and unfair to expect a candidate who conducted a 
campaign according to one set of rules to have to retroactively attempt 
to apply new rules? Isn't applying this provision on a prospective 
basis the only fair and reasonable approach?
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator's understanding is correct on the 
interpretation of the loan payback provision. It is intentionally 
prospective because it would be unfair to do otherwise.
  Mr. LEVIN. This vote counts. It is real, it is not a signal or a 
message.
  I thank the Chair and commend our good friends, Senators McCain and 
Feingold.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Mississippi, Mr. Cochran.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, while many Senators have had a very 
active and effective role in bringing us to this point on this 
legislation, I think we should not forget that there are two Senators 
who really deserve real credit--Senators McCain and Feingold. Because 
of their perseverance, determination, and effective leadership, they 
have brought us to the point where we are nearing passage of this 
legislative reform effort of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
  While nobody can be really certain exactly what the implications of 
all of the provisions will be, I am convinced we are going to see this 
effort as a major step toward improving the Federal election campaign 
system and restoring the confidence of the American people in the 
integrity of the political process. That is very important, and I am 
very glad to have been a part of it.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New 
York, Mr. Schumer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, at the beginning of this debate I pleaded 
with my colleagues to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and 
praise God they have. We have. Is this bill perfect? No, far from it. 
Is it good? A heck of a lot better than the present system, you bet it 
is.
  I thank our leader, Senator McCain, particularly for his courage, and 
Senator Feingold, particularly for his integrity and leadership, and 
Senator Daschle and Senator Dodd for keeping our party together.
  I also thank all my colleagues in the Senate. Today and these past 2 
weeks represent the Senate at its best. Every time a crippling 
amendment came up, we rose to the occasion and defeated it. This is the 
Senate the Founding Fathers envisioned.
  Mr. President, my guess is, if Jefferson or Madison or Washington 
were looking down on this Chamber today, they would smile.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield for the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. 
Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this is a good day for the Senate. It 
demonstrates once again that this body can respond to its public's 
needs. Even the casual observer must agree that our change from a 
system of the small contributor to the huge contributor is not good for 
this country. To those who say we are launching off into uncharted 
waters, that we are unsure how this might affect us as politicians or 
our political committees in Washington, I say that we as elected 
officials can never be harmed if our country is benefited. We as 
elected officials can never be harmed if we are doing something that 
increases the public trust. And if we are, Mr. President, so be it, 
because we must know that we are doing the right thing.
  Mr. President, twenty-seven years ago Congress decided to fix a 
campaign finance system that was clearly broken. The American public 
was scandal-weary and increasingly cynical about the integrity of the 
political process. In 1974, the President signed into law the Federal 
Election Campaign Act. Unions and corporations had long been prohibited 
from contributing to campaigns, and that year Congress decided to limit 
the amount of money an individual could give to candidates and parties 
to avoid corruption, and just as important, the appearance of 
corruption, in our system. Those limits on contributions were upheld by 
the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The Court stated, ``[T]he Act's 
primary purpose--to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption 
resulting from large individual financial contributions--[provides] a 
constitutionally sufficient justification for the $1,000 contribution 
limitation.'' The Court also upheld the constitutionality of limits on 
contributions to political parties. The Court found such limits serve 
to prevent evasion of the $1,000 limitation on contributions to 
candidates by an individual ``who might otherwise contribute massive 
amounts to a particular candidate through the use of unearmarked 
contributions to political committees likely to contribute to that 
candidate or huge contributions to the candidate's political party.''
  Just last year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the position it took in 
Buckley. In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC, the Court upheld an 
individual contribution limit of $1,050 under Missouri law and found, 
``[T]here is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions 
will work actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to 
question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters.''
  In the years following the passage of FECA, amendments to the Act and 
certain FEC regulations and rulings attempted to clarify the law, 
particularly as it related to state parties. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the statement by campaign finance expert and 
scholar Tony Corrado, a professor at Colby College, that explains 
thoroughly the origin and rise of soft money, be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, in short, in the late 1970s, Congress 
and the FEC attempted to address concerns by state parties regarding 
their use of non-Federally regulated funds in elections involving both 
state and federal candidates. The Commission determined that state 
parties could use non- Federal money, also known as soft money, to fund 
a portion of activities related to federal elections. The national 
parties soon argued that those rules applied to them as well since they 
also participated in state and local elections. By the mid-1980s, both 
parties were actively raising soft money in the millions of dollars, 
primarily for voter registration drives and turnout programs conducted 
by state party committees. By 1992, the national party committees 
raised about $80 million in soft money and were spending the funds on 
activities that were designed to influence both federal and non-federal 
elections such as generic television advertising that did not mention a 
specific candidate. I ask

[[Page 5214]]

unanimous consent that a November 5, 1984 letter from Fred Wertheimer 
to the FEC regarding soft money be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, in 1995, the Clinton-Gore campaign began 
using soft money to fund candidate specific issue ads. They argued that 
because these ads did not use ``magic words'' such as ``vote for'' or 
``vote against'' that they were not campaign ads and thus could be 
funded with soft money. The Republican Party soon followed suit, and 
the demand for soft money increased exponentially. Soft money receipts 
by the two major parties exceeded $260 million in 1996.
  There was little doubt at that point that the soft money raised by 
the parties was being used for campaign purposes. While addressing a 
group of DNC donors in 1996, President Clinton made clear that their 
contributions were helping his campaign,

       [W]e even gave up one or two of our fundraisers at the end 
     of the year to try to get more money to the Democratic Party 
     rather than my campaigns. My original strategy had been to 
     raise all the money for my campaign this year, so I could 
     spend all my money next year being president, running for 
     president, and raising money for the Senate and House 
     Committees and for the Democratic Party. And then we realized 
     we could run these ads through the Democratic Party, which 
     meant that we could raise money in twenty and fifty and 
     hundred thousand dollar lots, and we didn't have to do it all 
     in thousand dollars, and run down--you know what I can spend 
     which is limited by law. So that's what we've done. But I do 
     have to tell you I'm very grateful to you. The contributions 
     you have made in this have made a huge difference.

  In addition, the President participated in strategy meetings, helping 
to develop ads that were funded both by his campaign and the DNC. The 
Final Report of the Special Investigation of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee contains examples of some of the sham issue ads which were 
clearly intended to influence the presidential campaign.
  The ability to use soft money to fund sham issue ads created a money 
chase that resulted in contributions of tens and hundreds of thousands 
of dollars being exchanged for access to the highest levels of 
government. The Final Report of the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee's year-long Special Investigation documents numerous examples 
of actual and apparent corruption resulting from the solicitation and 
contribution of soft money. I also refer my colleagues to a September 
21, 2000 memorandum written by Lawrence Noble, then-General Counsel for 
the FEC Agenda Document No. 00-95, recommending new rules prohibiting 
the receipt and use of soft money by national party committees and 
explaining the reasons for such a proposal, including an explanation of 
the real and apparent corruption resulting from soft money.
  Revelation of the campaign finance scandals did nothing to stem the 
tide of soft money and its use for electioneering. In the 2000 election 
cycle, the parties raised nearly half-a-billion-dollars in soft money. 
One study by the Brennan Center for Justice revealed that only four per 
cent of hard money, candidate ads in 2000 used the ``magic words'' 
outlined in Buckley. So the sham issue ads purchased with party soft 
money became virtually indistinguishable from the campaign ads paid for 
by hard money. In fact, according to one study, soft money has become 
the primary source of funding for party ads that promote the election 
or defeat of federal candidates. In addition, soft money was used for 
get-out-the-vote, voter registration, and virtually every aspect of the 
parties' campaign efforts in connection with federal campaigns.
  In short, soft money is now such an integral part of federal 
elections that it has effectively subverted the hard money limits in 
the Federal Election Campaign Act. Mr. President, I refer my colleagues 
to a study entitled ``The End of Limits on Money in Politics: Soft 
Money Now Comprises the Largest Share of Party Spending on Television 
Ads in Federal Elections'' by Craig Holman for the Brennan Center for 
Justice which further emphasizes this point.
  As in 1974, Congress is about to fix a campaign system that is 
clearly broken. The McCain-Feingold bill will restore a campaign 
finance system that has been completely thwarted by loopholes created 
in the late 1970s. Once again, Congress will prohibit union and 
corporate money from being used to fund campaigns. Once again, Congress 
will require individual contributions to be capped at reasonable levels 
and require disclosure. We as a Congress will once again ensure that 
unlimited corporate, union and individual funds will not compromise the 
integrity of the political process. In short, we are about to restore 
the campaign finance system to what was intended prior to the 
appearance and exploitation of the soft money loophole.
  In order to fix this problem, this bill contains three essential 
components in establishing an effective soft money ban. First, national 
parties are banned from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring 
or spending soft money. Second, state parties are prohibited from 
spending soft money on federal election activities, such as ``issue 
ads'' that promote or attack a federal candidate and get-out-the-vote 
activities on behalf of a federal candidate. Third, Federal 
officeholders and candidates are prohibited from raising or spending 
soft money, or directing soft money to a party or other entity.
  These three provisions work together: each of them is an essential 
part of closing the soft money loophole and ensuing that national 
parties, federal officeholders and federal candidates use only funds 
permitted in federal elections to influence federal elections, and that 
state parties stop serving as vehicles for channeling soft money into 
federal races to help federal candidates.
  In the last election, for example, Republican and Democratic Senate 
candidates set up joint fundraising committees, joining with party 
committees, to raise unlimited soft money donations. The joint 
committees then transferred the soft money funds to their Senate party 
committees, which transferred the money to their state parties, which 
spent the soft money on ``issue ads,'' targeted get-out-the-vote and 
other activities promoting the federal candidates who had raised the 
money. As a result, soft money is currently raised by federal 
officeholders and candidates for political parties and then used by 
these parties on expenditures to help elect the candidates to federal 
office.
  In order to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption, the 
bill breaks the nexus between soft money donors and federal 
officeholders and candidates by banning these federal officeholders and 
candidates, and their national party committees, from raising these 
funds.
  Under this bill, there are no restrictions on state parties raising 
funds under state law and using them solely to effect state elections. 
The only restrictions apply to circumstances where money is being used 
to affect federal elections and where absent those restrictions soft 
money would continue to pour into federal races through the state 
parties.
  In addition, McCain-Feingold includes a provision colloquially known 
as Snowe-Jeffords which requires disclosure for some groups running ads 
which mention a candidate within a certain number of days of an 
election. In addition, it prohibits such ads from being funded from the 
general treasury funds of corporations and unions. As has been pointed 
out by Senators Snowe and Jeffords, these sham issue ads are clearly 
intended as election ads and just as clearly have that effect. I refer 
my colleagues to the following studies which demonstrate that sham 
issue ads have the effect of express advocacy and should be regulated 
by Congress: ``Dictum Without Data: The Myth of Issue Advocacy and 
Party Building'' by David Magleby of the Center for the Study of 
Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University; and ``A Narrow and 
Appropriate Response to Cloaked Electioneering: Measuring the Impact of 
the 60-Day Bright-Line Test on Issue Advocacy'' by Craig B. Holman for 
the Brennan Center for Justice.

[[Page 5215]]



                               Exhibit 1

           The Origins and Growth of Party Soft Money Finance

  (By Anthony Corrado, Associate Professor, Department of Government, 
            Colby College, Waterville, Maine, Mar. 30, 2001)

       The financing of political parties has been a source of 
     controversy for the better part of the last two decades. As 
     major party revenues have grown from $60 million in 1976 to 
     more than $1.2 billion in 2000, advocates of reform have 
     issued increasingly sharp and well-grounded critiques of 
     party fundraising practices. Most of this criticism has been 
     directed toward party soft money finance, a specific form of 
     funding that was not anticipated by the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act, but emerged in the 1980s in response to a 
     series of regulatory decisions. In recent years, soft money 
     contributions have become a staple of national party 
     fundraising, reaching a total of more than $487 million in 
     2000, or ten times more than the amount received in 1988. 
     This type of fundraising occurs outside of the scope of 
     federal laws, so it provides national party organizations 
     with a means of soliciting unlimited contributions from 
     individuals, or gifts from sources such as corporations and 
     labor unions that have long been banned from giving money in 
     federal elections. In recent elections, federal elected 
     officials and national party leaders have aggressively 
     solicited large contributions of $100,000 or more from such 
     sources, including more than 100 gifts of more than $1 
     million in 2000 alone. These large sums have fueled the 
     growth of soft money and its importance in national 
     elections. They have also encouraged party committees to find 
     new ways of spending soft money, including methods that 
     Congress has not sanctioned.
       The flow of money in the 1996 and 2000 elections 
     demonstrates how dramatically the world of party fundraising 
     has changed since the amendment of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act (FECA) in 1974. Regulatory changes have created 
     a new legal environment in which parties once again have 
     access to the types of unlimited contributions that were 
     supposed to be eliminated after Watergate. Innovations in 
     party campaign strategies have created new approaches to 
     spending that have encouraged national party organizations to 
     spend unlimited amounts on election-related activities. Most 
     important, parties have moved beyond the kinds of ``party-
     building'' activities specified in the FECA to place greater 
     reliance on television and radio advertising, especially 
     candidate-specific issue advocacy electioneering, that is 
     financed in large part with soft money that is channeled 
     through state party committees. Parties have thus adapted to 
     the act's regulatory approach in unanticipated ways. These 
     innovations and the success party committees have had in 
     avoiding financial restraint is best understood by reviewing 
     the evolution of the law and the ways national party 
     committees have reacted to the new regulatory regime.


                         The Rise of Soft Money

       FECA limits on party funding were first put into effect in 
     the 1976 elections, and questions about the legal status of 
     different types of party financing immediately arose. 
     Traditionally, party organizations had spent significant sums 
     on activities such as voter identification efforts, get-out-
     the-vote programs, generic party advertising (messages like 
     ``Vote Democratic'' or ``Support Republican Candidates''), 
     and the production of bumper stickers, buttons, and slate 
     cards, that might indirectly benefit federal candidates but 
     did not constitute direct assistance to a particular 
     candidate. Were these expenditures governed by the new 
     spending ceilings?
       Under the act's original guidelines, the costs of many of 
     these activities, especially grass-roots campaign materials 
     such as bumper stickers, lawn signs, and slate cards that 
     mentioned particular federal candidates, could be considered 
     in-kind campaign contributions subject to the law. This 
     became a particular concern in the 1976 presidential race, 
     because the public funding program established by the FECA 
     prevented the party nominees from accepting campaign 
     contributions in the general election period. As a result, 
     party leaders had to rely on presidential campaign funds for 
     election-related paraphernalia. Yet both presidential 
     campaigns chose to concentrate their limited resources on 
     media advertising rather than gross-roots political 
     activities. As a result, party leaders complained after the 
     election that the FECA had indirectly limited traditional 
     grass-roots and party-building activities, thus reducing the 
     role of party organizations in national elections.
     The 1979 FECA amendments: Expanding hard money spending
       Congress responded to these concerns by accepting a 
     recommendation made by the Federal Election Commission to 
     ease the restrictions placed on party contributions and 
     expenditures. The new rules, which were included in the 1979 
     FECA amendments, changed the legal definition of 
     ``contributions'' and ``expenditure'' to exclude the amounts 
     spent on certain ``grass-roots'' political activities, 
     provided that the funds for those activities were raised in 
     compliance with FECA. This change was designed to allow state 
     and local party organizations to pay for certain specified 
     activities that might indirectly benefit a federal candidate 
     without having to count this spending as a contribution or 
     expenditure under the act. Its purpose was to encourage state 
     and local parties to engage in supplemental campaign activity 
     in hopes of promoting civic participation in the elections 
     process.
       In changing the law in 1979, Congress sought to allow party 
     committees to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on 
     certain, limited types of election-related activity, which 
     were clearly specified in the law. It did not allow national 
     party organizations to receive unlimited contributions or to 
     accept corporate or labor funds. It did not allow ``soft 
     money.'' Any gifts received by a national party committee 
     were still subject to the limits established in 1974. The 
     1979 revision thus did not create ``soft money''; it simply 
     exempted any federal monies (``hard dollars'') a party 
     committee might spend on certain political activities from 
     being considered a contribution to a candidate under the law. 
     Furthermore, the activities that were to be considered exempt 
     under this provision were narrowly defined. Basically, the 
     1979 law specified three types of state and local party 
     activity that committees may undertake and noted certain 
     restrictions that govern the conduct of these activities. 
     These activities did not include the use of mass public 
     political advertising.
       First, state and local party committees were allowed to pay 
     for grass-roots campaign materials, such as pins, bumper 
     stickers, brochures, posters, yard signs, and party 
     newspapers. These may be used only in connection with 
     volunteer activities and may not be distributed by direct 
     mail or through any other general public advertising. These 
     materials may not be purchased by national party committees 
     and delivered to the local committees or paid for by funds 
     donated by national committees for this purpose. Nor may a 
     donor designate funds for this purpose to be used to purchase 
     materials for a particular federal candidate.
       Second, state and local party committees were allowed to 
     prepare and distribute slate cards, sample ballots, palm 
     cards or other printed listings of three or more candidates 
     for any public office for which an election is held in the 
     state.
       Third, state and local party committees were allowed to 
     conduct voter registration and turnout drives on behalf of 
     their parties' presidential and vice-presidential nominees, 
     including the use of telephone banks operated by volunteers, 
     even if they are developed and trained by paid professionals. 
     However, if a party's House or Senate candidates are 
     mentioned in such drives in a more than incidental way, the 
     costs of the drives allocable to those candidates must be 
     counted as contributions to them.
       Congress clearly noted that this exemption did not extend 
     to broadcast advertising. In permitting the production of 
     certain types of campaign materials and in sanctioning 
     expenditures on voter drives, the act specifically noted in 
     Section 431 that these activities could not involve the use 
     of any broadcasting, newspaper, magazine, billboard, direct 
     mail, or similar type of general public communication or 
     political advertising. In other words, the Congress 
     specifically did not allow the use of mass public political 
     advertising under the exemption established in 1979.
       Congress thus gave party organizations broader leeway to 
     spend federal funds with respect to election-related 
     activities. In addition to direct contributions and 
     coordinated expenditures, party organizations could spend 
     unlimited amounts on voter registration and identification, 
     certain types of campaign material, and voter turnout 
     programs. Congress supported this revision because these 
     tasks were considered important ``party-building'' activities 
     that would help develop organizational support for party 
     candidates and promote citizen participation in electoral 
     politics.
     FEC Regulatory decisions: Opening the door to soft money
       So in 1979 Congress authorized a circumscribed realm of 
     unlimited party expenditures. But it did not sanction 
     unlimited spending on activities designed to assist a 
     particular candidate for federal office. Nor did it open the 
     door to unrestricted fund-raising or party committee receipt 
     of corporate or labor donations. Instead, it was the Federal 
     Election Commission, the agency empowered to enforce the law, 
     that changed the rules governing party fundraising and gave 
     birth to a new form of funding: soft money.
       The provisions of the act had raised another major issue 
     with respect to party financing: how to accommodate the 
     federal and nonfederal roles of party organizations. The act 
     imposed limits on party financing for all activities 
     conducted in connection with federal elections. But party 
     organizations also play a significant role in nonfederal 
     elections--gubernatorial races, state contests, legislative 
     elections, and campaigns for major local offices. Their 
     financial efforts in these races are governed by state 
     campaign finance laws,which are generally much more 
     permissive than federal law. For example, most states allow 
     parties to accept corporate and labor union contributions, 
     and, as of 1992, sixteen states had placed no

[[Page 5216]]

     limit on individual gifts, while nineteen had no limits for 
     PAC giving. National party organizations could thus receive 
     contributions for nonfederal purposes that are not allowed in 
     federal elections.
       The issue of nonfederal party funding first arose in 1976. 
     The Illinois Republican State Central Committee asked the FEC 
     for guidance on how to allocate nonfederal and federally 
     regulated funds in paying some of their general overhead and 
     operating expenses, as well as the expenses of voter 
     registration and get-out-the-vote drives that would benefit 
     both federal and nonfederal candidates. The party sought the 
     FEC's opinion in part because Illinois allowed corporate and 
     labor contributions that were not permissible under federal 
     law.
       In its Advisory Opinion 1976-72, the FEC clearly stated 
     that corporate or labor union money could not be used to 
     finance such federal election--related activities as a voter 
     registration drive: ``Even though the Illinois law apparently 
     permits corporate contributions for State elections, 
     corporate/union treasury funds may not be used to fund any 
     portion of a registration or get-out-the-vote drive conducted 
     by a political party.'' However, the Commission did approve 
     the use of nonfederal funds to finance a portion of the 
     party's overhead and administrative costs, since these 
     costs--for example, rent, utilities, office supplies, 
     salaries--supported the administration of activities related 
     to both federal and nonfederal politics. The agency approved 
     an allocation formula based on the proportion of federal to 
     state elections being held that year, with greater weight 
     given to federal races. To pay these costs, the Illinois 
     party had to establish separate federal and nonfederal 
     accounts; the federal account could be used only to accept 
     contributions permissible under the act, and the nonfederal 
     account solely for monies allowed under state laws. The 
     proportionate share of administrative costs would be paid 
     from the relevant account; that is, the federal election--
     related share of the costs would be paid from the federal 
     account, and vice versa.
       The FEC's attempt to hold the line on corporate 
     contributions was short-lived. Less than two years after 
     their 1976 advisory opinion, the Commission again faced the 
     issue of corporate and labor funding of party voter 
     mobilization efforts. This time the Republican State 
     Committee of Kansas sought the Commission's approval to use 
     corporate and union funds, which were legal under Kansas law, 
     in a voter drive that would benefit both federal and state 
     candidates. Specifically, the Kansans asked the Commission 
     how they should allocate funds between federal and nonfederal 
     funds for their voter registration and get-out-the-vote 
     efforts. In a surprising ruling, two Republican commissioners 
     switched their earliest positions and joined two Democrats in 
     approving Advisory Opinion 1978-10, which reversed the 1976 
     decision. Instead of prohibiting the use of corporate and 
     union money, the agency declared that the Kansas party could 
     use these funds to finance a share of their voter drives, so 
     long as they allocated their costs to reflect the federal and 
     nonfederal shares of any costs incurred. The decision thus 
     opened the door to the use of nonfederal money on election-
     related activity conducted in connection with a federal 
     election.
       Commissioner Thomas E. Harris, a Democrat, believed so 
     strongly that the ruling violated both the letter of the law 
     and Congress's intent in framing the act that he took the 
     unusual step of filing a written dissent. In it, he noted 
     that there would normally be more state and local races than 
     federal races taking place in a state, so most of the costs 
     of voter drives could be financed from monies not permissible 
     under federal law. His point was not lost on party leaders, 
     who quickly began to adapt their financial strategies to take 
     advantage of the new opportunities inherent in the FEC's 
     decision.
       The FEC's 1978 ruling was issued in response to a state 
     party request. The idea was to recognize the role of state 
     party committees in federal elections and the different 
     contribution rules that might apply to state parties under 
     state laws. But the national party committees argued that the 
     ruling should apply to their activities also, since, like 
     state party committees, they were involved in both federal 
     and nonfederal politics. National parties serve as umbrella 
     organizations that work with party leaders and elected 
     officials at all levels of government. They make 
     contributions and provide campaign assistance to federal, 
     state, and local candidates. They work with state and local 
     party organizations on a variety of party-building and 
     election-related activities. National party leaders therefore 
     argued that they too could allocate administrative costs and 
     other expenses between federal and nonfederal funds, so long 
     as they maintained federal and nonfederal accounts to handle 
     the different types of money. In this way, they could use 
     nonfederal funds for their nonfederal election activity.
       So just at the time that Congress was allowing party 
     organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money raised 
     under federal rules on voter programs and other activities, 
     the FEC was allowing them to pay a share of such costs with 
     funds not subject to federal limits. These two streams of 
     regulatory change converged in the 1980 election, leading to 
     widespread use of nonfederal money at the federal level.


                        the growth of soft money

       During the 1980 election cycle, national party 
     organizations began to raise soft money from corporations, 
     labor unions, and individuals who had already given the 
     maximum amount allowed under federal law. A share of these 
     funds were used to defray a portion of the national party 
     committees' administrative costs, as well as the expenses 
     incurred in raising nonfederal monies. They were also used to 
     pay a proportionate share of the costs of voter targeting and 
     turnout programs designed to assist the presidential ticket 
     or federal candidates engaged in strategically important 
     state contests. In many instances, the national party 
     organizations raised the funds needed to pay for these 
     programs and transferred the amounts to state party 
     committees that actually conducted the voter drives, 
     sometimes with assistance from organizers recruited by the 
     national party committees.
       This nonfederal funding quickly became known as ``soft 
     money,'' because it was not subject to the ``hard'' limits of 
     federal law. National committees could solicit unlimited 
     amounts from donors throughout the country, and then use the 
     money to pay their own costs or redistribute these funds to 
     those states where they were considered most necessary. As 
     long as the contributions were legal under state law, the 
     gifts were permissible. So a national party fundraiser could 
     solicit $1 million from a donor and use the monies for a 
     variety of purposes, or even transfer the entire amount to a 
     state that had no limits on political contributions. In 
     essence, the new rules gave party organizations a green light 
     to engage in unrestricted fundraising.
       National party committees quickly took advantage of the 
     relaxed regulatory environment. The only question remaining 
     for party officials was how to allocate soft money with 
     respect to different activities. The FEC took the position 
     that party committees could allocate funds on any reasonable 
     basis. By 1982, when the DNC requested the FEC's guidance on 
     how to pay for a party midterm conference, the agency had 
     approved at least four methods of allocation and afforded 
     party committees notable leeway in selecting their approach. 
     Party committees could thus increase their use of soft money 
     by selecting the allocation method that permitted the 
     greatest nonfederal share.
       As a result, soft money became a substantial component of 
     national party finance in the 1980s. How substantial a 
     component is difficult to determine, because these funds were 
     not subject to federal disclosure laws. National party 
     committees were only required to report their soft money 
     receipts and expenditures in the states where the money was 
     spent, where disclosure requirements were often either 
     nonexistent or wholly ineffective. It is therefore impossible 
     to determine the exact amounts raised and spent by the 
     national party organizations. The best available estimates 
     suggest that the two major parties spent $19.1 million in 
     soft money during the 1980 election cycle, with the 
     Republicans spending $15.1 million and the Democrats $4 
     million. In 1984, they received an estimated $21.6 million, 
     with the Republicans once again outpacing the Democrats by a 
     margin of $15.6 million to $6 million. Most of this money was 
     spent on voter registration drives and turnout programs 
     conducted by state party committees. These efforts were 
     targeted to focus on key battlegrounds in the presidential 
     race.
       By 1988, soft money had become a focal point of public 
     attention, as both parties escalated their soft money 
     fundraising. The two national parties raised a total of $45 
     million in soft money, more than twice the amount raised in 
     1988. The Democrats raised $23 million and the Republicans 
     $22 million. This success was largely due to the emphasis 
     both parties placed on donors of $100,000 or more. In 
     voluntary disclosures made after the election, the 
     Republicans claimed to have received $100,000 gifts from 267 
     donors, while the Democrats counted 130 donors who gave 
     $100,000 or more.
       In 1992, both parties generally followed the approaches 
     established in 1988. They continued to raise soft money funds 
     aggressively and sought contributions of $200,000 or more 
     from their top donors. They also placed substantial emphasis 
     on the solicitation of corporate gifts, with the largest 
     corporate donors often giving money to both parties. As a 
     result, the amount of soft money continued to grow at a 
     dramatic rate. In all, the national party committees raised 
     about $80 million in soft money. This included substantial 
     amounts of soft money that were raised by the national senate 
     and congressional campaign committees. While the Democratic 
     Senate Campaign Committee continued to raise soft money only 
     for its building fund, the other committees began to mount 
     extensive soft money operations. In all, these committees 
     raised more than $20 million in soft money, including $4.7 
     million by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, 
     $6.3 million by the National Republican Congressional 
     Committee, and $9 million by the National Republican 
     Senatorial Committee.
       Both national committees adopted strongly centralized 
     approaches in administering

[[Page 5217]]

     these funds in an effort to maintain control over the ways 
     soft money was spent. Even in the case of monies transferred 
     to state and local party organizations, the national 
     committees allowed little autonomy with respect to how the 
     funds were to be spent. In most instances, transferred funds 
     were to be used on projects approved by the national 
     organization.
       Most of the soft money spent in 1992 was spent in ways 
     designed to support the election of federal candidates. The 
     major share of the soft money raised in both parties was 
     devoted to joint activity, that is, to activities that were 
     designed to influence federal and nonfederal elections. 
     Examples of such activities include the costs of fundraising 
     efforts designed to raise soft and hard money; the 
     administrative expenses associated with soft money 
     operations; the monies paid for generic campaign materials 
     and advertisements that say ``Vote Democratic'' or ``Vote 
     Republican''; and expenses for phone banks and other voter 
     identification and turnout projects that assist party 
     candidates at all levels.
       The most prominent form of joint activity was generic 
     advertising, especially television advertising. While voter 
     turnout programs remained the most important component of the 
     party activities, both parties invested heavily in generic 
     television ads that were designed to bolster the prospects of 
     their candidates. These ads were financed with a combination 
     of hard and soft money. Overall, the Democrats spent about 
     $14.2 million on ads and the Republicans spent about $10 
     million. The Republicans basically followed the strategy 
     employed in previous elections, since they had previously 
     spent substantial sums on generic advertising. For the 
     Democrats, however, this emphasis on party advertising 
     represented a new approach to general election campaigning. 
     While the party did broadcast some ads in 1988, the total 
     amount spent was only $1 million.
       Many of the ads broadcast by the party committees were 
     designed to reinforce the message of the party's presidential 
     nominee. The Democrats, for example, used soft money to 
     finance ads that did not mention Bill Clinton directly (since 
     this was thought at the time to be a violation of federal 
     law) but did hammer home the message on the economy that was 
     the foundation of Clinton's campaign. These ads also helped 
     to free up resources that the Clinton campaign could use for 
     other purposes. During the last week of the campaign, for 
     instance, the Clinton campaign was running tight on money and 
     thus decided to use campaign resources to buy a half-hour of 
     national television time as opposed to additional broadcast 
     time in the highly competitive state of Texas. The campaign, 
     however, did not leave Texas unattended; instead, the 
     national committee broadcast generic ads in the state to 
     spread the party's message. The Bush campaign adopted a 
     similar strategy, relying on party ads to shore up support in 
     traditional Republican strongholds and in crucial 
     battleground states like Texas and Florida.
       Parties also raised soft money as a vehicle for providing 
     direct financial assistance to state and local committees. In 
     1992, about a quarter of the funds raised nationally by the 
     two major parties were transferred to state and local party 
     committees. These funds provided state and local party 
     organizations with the resources needed to conduct activities 
     that they would otherwise not be able to afford. These funds 
     are often used to purchase, update, and computerize voter 
     lists; to develop targeting programs; to pay fundraising 
     expenses; and to hire party workers and poll watchers on 
     election day. While both parties spent money on these types 
     of activities in 1992, the bulk of the funds transferred to 
     state parties were used for generic phone bank programs 
     designed to identify party supporters and turn out the vote.
       According to FEC disclosure reports, most of the state 
     party organizations received a share of the soft money funds 
     raised by their respective national party committees. The 
     Democrats transferred almost $9.5 million in nonfederal funds 
     to 47 states. Federal funds were sent to all 50 states. With 
     this hard money added, the total amount sent to state 
     committees was $14.3 million. The Republicans sent about $5.3 
     million in nonfederal monies to 42 states and about $3.5 
     million in federal funding to 43 states, for a total of about 
     $8.8 million.
       Most of the soft money sent to state committees was focused 
     on a small group of targeted states that were considered 
     essential to a presidential victory. The Democrats disbursed 
     two-thirds of the nonfederal funds sent to states in ten key 
     electoral battlegrounds. These ten states, which contained 
     219 electoral college votes or 81 percent of the total needed 
     to win, included most of the large electoral states and three 
     crucial Southern states that the Democrats thought they could 
     win--Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina. The Republicans 
     also disbursed two-thirds of their transfer funds in ten 
     states. These states, which contained 190 electoral votes or 
     70 percent of the number needed to win, also included a 
     number of large states and three key Southern contests. The 
     Republican senate and congressional committees transferred 
     about $3.2 million to state party committees, as compared to 
     less than $34,000 transferred by the Democratic senate and 
     congressional committees, most of which was sent to states 
     with open Senate races.


               the federalization of soft money financing

       By the end of the 1992 election cycle, both national 
     parties had become adept at raising soft money and using 
     these funds to assist federal candidates. While some 
     comparatively minor sums of soft money were used to make 
     contributions to state and local candidates or assist state 
     parties in their efforts to mobilize voters for nonfederal 
     contests, the vast majority of these monies were being raised 
     and coordinated by the national party committees and spent in 
     ways that would influence the outcome of federal elections in 
     targeted states. The parties had learned to use soft money as 
     a central component of their federal campaign efforts. They 
     relied on these funds to supplement the public funding in 
     presidential races and the hard monies solicited by Senate 
     and House candidates. For all intents and purposes, soft 
     money primarily had become part of asystem of federal 
     election financing that included a state and local component, 
     rather than a method of state and local political finance 
     that also influenced federal elections.
       In 1996, the importance of soft money in the financing of 
     federal elections became even more important as parties 
     changed their strategies and began to place great emphasis on 
     the use of candidate-specific issue ads. This type of 
     advertising provided parties with a way of using soft money 
     to pay for broadcast advertisements that featured specific 
     federal candidates. The parties claimed that such ads are not 
     federal campaign expenditures and thus may be paid for with a 
     combination of hard and soft money funds. In 1996, the use of 
     such ads, which was spurred by the efforts of the Democratic 
     Party to bolster President Clinton's prospects for 
     reelection, was a bold innovation. It represented an 
     aggressive effort to push the limits of the FECA restrictions 
     and circumvent the contribution and spending limits 
     established by the law. In the intervening four years, this 
     innovation has become the standard practice, the new norm for 
     how party committees conduct their federal election 
     campaigns, and a major factor in the continued growth in soft 
     money fundraising.
       While the national party organizations had engaged in issue 
     advocacy advertising before the 1996 election cycle (most 
     notably during the debate over Clinton's health care proposal 
     in 1993 and 1994), they had never before used such 
     advertising in a significant way to promote a presidential 
     candidate in an election year. But the Democrats quickly 
     recognized the potential benefits of this tactic. The ads 
     could be used to deliver the President's basic message, 
     policy proposals, and accomplishments, and criticize Dole's 
     views and record. As long as they avoided the ``magic words'' 
     that would trigger the definition of express advocacy, none 
     of the monies spent in this way would be considered 
     ``campaign spending'' under the law. It was a loophole in the 
     federal regulatory scheme that the Democrats aggressively 
     exploited.
       For a year, July 1995 to June 1996, the Democratic National 
     Committee (DNC) and state Democratic party organizations 
     spent millions of dollars on ads designed to promote 
     Clinton's reelection. These spots were mostly aired in 
     smaller media markets where broadcast time is less expensive. 
     The party avoided states where Clinton had won by large 
     margins in 1992, and also stayed away from those states where 
     they felt Clinton had no chance--Texas, the Great Plains 
     states, and Southern Republican strongholds like South 
     Carolina and Virginia. In the fall of 1995, the Democrats ran 
     ads attacking the Republican budget that covered 30 percent 
     of the media markets in the country. By the end of December, 
     they had run ads presenting Clinton as a leader seeking tax 
     cuts, welfare reform, a balanced budget, and protection for 
     Medicare and education programs. In all, the Democrats had 
     aired pro-Clinton ads in 42 percent of the nation's media 
     markets by January 1, 1996, at a cost of $18 million, none of 
     which was drawn from Clinton's campaign committee accounts.
       According to estimates by Common Cause, the Democrats spent 
     $34 million on pro-Clinton ads during this period. This 
     included $12 million in federally regulated ``hard money'' 
     and $22 million in soft money. The DNC managed to spend such 
     a large proportion of soft money by transferring funds to 
     state party committees and having these communities purchase 
     the ad time. In other words, they were able to pay for the 
     ads mostly with soft money because the FEC has different 
     payment regulations for national and state party 
     organizations. This perfectly legal act of subterfuge allowed 
     the party to conserve its hard money, which is particularly 
     valuable because it is more difficult to raise than soft 
     money.
       The Democrats focused their ad campaign on twelve key 
     general election battleground states. The party spent over $1 
     million in each of these states, including over $4 million in 
     California. Combined, these twelve states represented a total 
     of 221 electoral college votes. Clinton eventually won all of 
     them except for Colorado.
       The DNC's spending and Clinton's financial advantage 
     entering the final months of the campaign encouraged the 
     Republican National Committee (RNC) to adopt a similar

[[Page 5218]]

     strategy as soon as its presidential nominee was determined. 
     In May, one day after Dole decided to resign from the Senate 
     to devote himself to full-time campaigning, RNC Chair Haley 
     Barbour announced a $20 million issue advocacy advertising 
     campaign that would be conducted during the period leading up 
     to the Republican national convention in August. The purpose 
     of this campaign, said the chairman, would be ``to show the 
     differences between Dole and Clinton and between Republicans 
     and Democrats on the issues facing our country, so we can 
     engage full-time in one of the most consequential elections 
     in our history.'' In essence, the campaign was designed to 
     assist Dole, who had basically reached the public funding 
     spending limit, by providing the additional resources needed 
     to match Clinton's anticipated spending inthe remaining 
     months before the nominating conventions.
       By the end of June, the RNC had already spent at least $14 
     million on ads promoting Dole's candidacy, including an 
     estimated $9 million in soft money. Like the Democrats, the 
     Republicans focused their spending on key electoral college 
     battlegrounds. Indeed, the ``target'' list looked very 
     similar to that of the Democrats; eight of the top twelve 
     states were the same for both parties.
       This innovative form of party spending essentially rendered 
     the contribution and spending limits of the FECA, at least as 
     far as the party nominees were concerned, meaningless. So 
     long as the party committees did not coordinate their efforts 
     with the candidate or his staff, and did not use any of the 
     ``magic words'' that would cause their spending to qualify as 
     candidate support, they were free to spend as much as they 
     wanted from monies received from unlimited sources on 
     activities essentially geared towards influencing the outcome 
     of the presidential race. Given the availability of polling 
     data and other sources of political information, it was 
     simple for the parties to develop ads that reflected their 
     respective candidates' major themes and positions or 
     presented the most effective attacks against the opponent.
       Moreover, this use of soft money gave the party 
     organizations a strong incentive to solicit greater and 
     greater amounts of soft money. Instead of spending one dollar 
     in hard money for a dollar in advertising done as a 
     coordinated expenditure, a national party committee could 
     spend one dollar in hard money to trigger, on average, an 
     additional two dollars in soft money spending. So they were 
     able to get more advertising out of their hard money by 
     relying more heavily on soft money. The tactic thus placed a 
     premium on soft money fundraising. A party could into spend 
     as much soft money as it could raise because these funds 
     could be used for television advertising that featured the 
     candidate and essentially advocated his election.
       In 1996, the national party committees raised over $260 
     million in soft money, more than three times the sum amassed 
     in 1992. Yet this substantial sum paled in comparison to the 
     $487 million garnered in 2000. The parties raised such large 
     sums because the bold innovation undertaken in 1996 was 
     essentially sanctioned by the events following that election. 
     Although the FEC audit division and general counsel's office 
     found that the party issue advertising campaigns should be 
     considered campaign expenses and counted against the 
     presidential campaign's spending and contribution limits, the 
     FEC failed to accept their recommendations and did not take 
     action against the parties or the presidential candidates for 
     their acts of subterfuge. Consequently, the parties had even 
     greater incentive to engage in issue advertising efforts 
     financed with soft money. And they made the most of this 
     opportunity.
       Exactly how much soft money was spent to assist federal 
     candidates through advertising or other means is difficult to 
     determine due to the inadequacy of the disclosure 
     requirements applicable to national party committee soft 
     money finances. But it is certainly true that the vast 
     majority of the soft monies raised in 2000 were used to 
     assist federal candidates and that the largest expenditures 
     took the form of issue advertisements that featured federal 
     candidates and were broadcast in close proximity to Election 
     Day.
       The national party committees together spent $79.1 million 
     on television advertising in the presidential campaign in the 
     top 75 of the nation's 210 media markets, as compared to 
     $67.1 million spent by the candidate themselves. According to 
     an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice of these top 75 
     media markets during the period from June 1 to November 7, 
     the Bush campaign devoted $39.2 million to television 
     advertising, while the Republican National Committee spent 
     $44.7 million. On the Democratic side, the Gore campaign 
     spent $27.9 million on television advertising, while the 
     Democratic National Committee expended $35.1 million. As in 
     1996, most of the funding came from soft money that the 
     national party transferred to state parties, since under FEC 
     guidelines, state parties were able to use a greater 
     percentage of soft money when buying television time if it 
     was purchased by state party committees. This was in accord 
     with FEC rules, which place different allocation requirements 
     on state party committees. These expenditures, therefore, 
     were not designed to strengthen state and local parties; they 
     were simply made through state or local party financial 
     accounts to take advantage of the opportunity to spend soft 
     money.
       The Democrats were the first to resort to issue advocacy 
     spending, airing their first ad in early June, despite the 
     fact that Gore had earlier said the Democrats would not run 
     soft-money financed advertising unless the Republicans did so 
     first. In announcing the advertising strategy, the Democrats 
     cited what they estimated to be $2 million in anti-Gore 
     advertising by political groups that favored Bush, including 
     a group called Shape the Debate and a missile defense 
     organization called the Coalition to Protect America Now. The 
     ad, which touted Gore's commitment to fight for a 
     prescription drug benefit for seniors, ran in 15 states and 
     was financed with a combination of hard and soft money.
       Once the Democrats had begun their assault, the Republicans 
     were quick to follow. Onlya few days after the Democrats 
     launched their ads, the Republicans announced a campaign of 
     their own. On June 10, the Republican National Committee 
     unveiled a $2 million ad campaign targeted mainly in the same 
     presidential battlegrounds as the Democratic television buy. 
     The only difference was that the Republicans also purchased 
     time in Maine and Arkansas. This first commercial presented 
     Bush's proposal to allow workers to invest part of their 
     Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market.
       What was most notable in 2000, however, was the significant 
     rise in the use of soft money by the national senate and 
     congressional campaign committees. Almost half of the soft 
     money raised in this election, almost $214 million, was 
     raised by the congressional committees. This sum is ten times 
     greater than the $20 million in soft money raised by these 
     committees in 1992. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
     Committee raised $63 million in soft money, while the 
     Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised almost $57 
     million. The National Republican Senatorial Committee 
     solicited $43 million in soft money and the National 
     Republican Congressional Committee, about $51 million.
       About half of the soft money raised by the senatorial and 
     congressional committees, $108 million, was transferred to 
     state and local party committees to pay for issue advocacy 
     advertising and voter turnout programs conducted in 
     connection with targeted House and Senate races. According to 
     the Brennan Center analysis, in the top 75 media markets, the 
     parties spent nearly $40 million on advertising in House 
     races, with the Democrats spending $22.7 million and the 
     Republicans, $16.8 million. In connection with Senate races, 
     the parties spent an additional $39 million, including $21.4 
     million by the Democrats and $17.7 million by the 
     Republicans. Tens of millions more was spent on voter 
     identification and turnout efforts. Most of the money spent 
     on these activities was in the form of soft money. So even 
     the national party committees formed for the purpose of 
     electing candidates to the House and Senate have become soft 
     money operations.


                               conclusion

       By the election of 2000, national party soft money was 
     being used to finance every aspect of a party's campaign 
     efforts in connection with federal contests. It is being used 
     to produce candidate-specific ads and broadcast them on 
     television and radio. It is being used to produce campaign 
     materials such as posters and slate cards that feature 
     federal candidates. It is being used to register, identify, 
     and mobilize voters who support federal candidates. It is 
     therefore not surprising that the party committees have made 
     soft money fundraising a major component of their financial 
     efforts. In every election cycle since its advent, the 
     majority of soft money has been allocated to finance 
     activities that are primarily designed to influence the 
     outcome of federal elections.

                               Exhibit 2


                                                 Common Cause,

                                 Washington, DC, November 5, 1984.
     Lee Ann Elliott,
     Chair, Federal Election Commission,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Commissioner Elliott: I am writing on behalf of Common 
     Cause to express our deep concern about the improper role 
     that ``soft money'' has been playing in federal campaigns and 
     about the Federal Election Commission's inattention to this 
     very serious problem.
       It appears that ``soft money'' is being used in federal 
     elections in a manner that violates and severely undermines 
     the contribution limits and prohibitions contained in the 
     federal campaign finance laws. While these practices and 
     abuses have received considerable public attention, the 
     Federal Election Commission to our knowledge has failed to 
     take any formal action in this area.
       In using the term ``soft money'' we are referring to funds 
     that are raised by Presidential campaigns and national and 
     congressional political party organizations purportedly for 
     use by state and local party organizations in nonfederal 
     elections, from sources who would be barred from making such 
     contributions in connection with a federal election, e.g. 
     from corporations and labor unions

[[Page 5219]]

     and from individuals who have reached their federal 
     contribution limits.
       According to various press reports and public statements, 
     including statements by campaign and party officials, it 
     appears clear that ``soft money'' in fact is not being raised 
     or spent solely for nonfederal election purposes. Such funds 
     are being channeled to state parties with the clear goal of 
     influencing the outcome of federal elections. [The complaint 
     filed by the Center for Responsive Politics, for example, 
     sets forth a clear example of the use of ``soft money'' for 
     federal purposes in the 1983 special Senate election in the 
     State of Washington.]
       Under the federal campaign finance laws ``soft money'' is 
     prohibited from being spent ``in connection with'' federal 
     elections. There is no question that ``soft money'' currently 
     is being spent ``in connection with'' federal elections, if 
     that term as used in the federal campaign laws is to be given 
     any realistic meaning. If the Commission leaves such ``soft 
     money'' practices unchecked it will be implicitly sanctioning 
     potentially widespread violation of the current federal 
     campaign finance laws.
       Soft money practices are facilitating the reemergence in 
     national political fundraising of campaign contributions from 
     sources such as corporations and unions that have been 
     prohibited for decades from providing such funds for federal 
     elections. They are similarly facilitating the reemergence of 
     large individual campaign contributions that have been 
     prohibited since 1975.
       These contributions are highly visible to national campaign 
     and party officials notwithstanding their purported use by 
     state party organizations for nonfederal election purposes. 
     When national campaign and party officials who work with 
     federal candidates raise and coordinate or channel the 
     distribution of ``soft money'' to state organizations, the 
     potential for corruption is exactly the same as it was when 
     those national campaign and party officials directly received 
     that kind of money. If the Commission leaves soft money 
     practices unchecked, it will directly undermine a core 
     protection against corruption in the federal campaign finance 
     laws.
       Soft money practices are also undermining the disclosure 
     provisions of federal campaign finance laws. Very substantial 
     sums of money are being channeled to and through state 
     parties in order to influence federal elections without these 
     sums being disclosed as contributions or expenditures under 
     the federal law. A primary purpose of the federal campaign 
     finance laws is to open the political financing process to 
     public scrutiny. If the Commission leaves soft money 
     practices unchecked, it will allow the national campaigns and 
     political parties to potentially hide millions of dollars in 
     federally related campaign funds from public view, thereby 
     creating widespread opportunities for actual and apparent 
     corruption.
       Furthermore, in presidential campaigns, ``soft money'' 
     returns private funds to a potentially prominent role and 
     thereby subverts the purpose of the presidential public 
     financing system. In 1979, Congress amended the federal 
     campaign finance laws to permit state parties to spend money 
     in connection with presidential campaigns, but only for 
     certain limited purposes and only with funds subject to the 
     limitations and prohibitions of the federal law. Congress did 
     not intend to authorize centralized national fundraising of 
     private funds from proscribed sources to supplement the 
     presidential public financing system. If the Commission 
     leaves soft money practices unchecked, just that will 
     continue to occur.
       Common Cause believes that it is essential for the 
     Commission to make the ``soft money'' problem a top priority 
     in carrying out its statutory responsibility to enforce the 
     federal campaign finance laws. The Commission's current 
     approach, which appears to be limited to sporadic policing of 
     political committee account allocation rules, is totally 
     inadequate.
       We therefore strongly urge that the Commission promptly 
     take the following steps:
       (1) initiate on a priority basis its own broad-ranging 
     factual investigation into soft money practices, with a view 
     toward prosecuting actual past violations;
       (2) initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish what 
     broader administrative tools, such as additional disclosure 
     requirements, are needed to facilitate the Commission's 
     effective enforcement of the current laws; and
       (3) undertake a review of the current laws to determine 
     what additional statutory remedies may be required to assure 
     that soft money abuses are most effectively curtailed.
       ``Soft money'' is a very serious problem. The Commission 
     must address it aggressively. It is not sufficient for the 
     Commission, in this or other key areas, to sit back and wait 
     for the private parties to bring these matters of enforcement 
     responsibility to its attention. The Commission must be out 
     in front of, not forced into, these issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Fred Wertheimer,
                                                        President.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senate today takes a historic step 
toward fairer elections, and I rise to join many of my colleagues in 
urging a vote for final passage of the McCain-Feingold legislation. The 
bill that will be passed by the Senate is in some ways better, and in 
other ways weaker, than the legislation we started the debate on two 
weeks ago. In two instances I believe the Senate took a step backward. 
Still, on balance, this is a positive reform bill and I support it.
  Debates about campaign finance reform should be debates about who is 
at the table. Looking back at the last two weeks from this perspective 
highlights not only the importance of the bill that we will vote on 
today, but also it's severe limitations. I say importance, because if 
you believe that reform of our federal elections is essential for the 
reasons I believe, restoring the centrality of one person, one vote, 
then you need to get soft money out of the system because it allows too 
much political power to flow from too few. But I also say sever 
limitations because even if we ban soft money, even if we ban sham 
issue ads, we will still have too much money in politics in America. 
The investors, the heavy hitters, the players will still have an all 
too prominent role in our elections.
  It is unfortunate that the Senate voted to raise the hard-money 
contribution limits. Nearly 80 percent of the money in our elections is 
hard money, more and more of which is being raised in checks of $1000. 
During the last election, only 4 out of every 10,000 Americans made a 
contribution greater than $200. Only 232,000 Americans gave 
contributions of $1000 or more to federal candidates--one ninth of one 
percent of the voting age population. By raising the hard money limits, 
the Senate voted to increase the amount of special interest money in 
politics and entrench candidates' dependence on a narrow, political, 
elite made up of wealthy individuals. That is not reform.
  The Senate also adopted an amendment to allow candidates facing self-
financing opponents to raise even more big money. Again, this is a step 
backward and is blatant incumbent protection.
  I am pleased that the Senate twice voted to include, the second time 
overwhelmingly, a reform amendment I offered, which significantly 
strengthens the McCain-Feingold bill. The amendment ensures that the 
sham issue ads run by nonprofit special interest groups fall under the 
same rules and prohibitions that the legislation rightly imposed on 
corporate and union soft money sham issue ads. Previous versions of 
McCain-Feingold had covered such ads as did the Shays-Meehan bill 
passed by the House.
  Limiting the ban only to corporate and union soft money practically 
invited a shift in spending to private special interest groups in 
future elections, suggesting that in future years, even with enactment 
of this bill, Congress will be predestined to revisit sham issue ad 
regulation to close yet another loophole in federal election law.
  These often virtually unaccountable groups engage regularly in 
electioneering communications. Make no mistake, we are not talking 
about ads that are legitimately trying to influence policy debates. 
This amendment targets those ads that we all know are trying to skew 
elections but till now have been able to skirt the law.
  At the same time, this amendment does not prohibit these groups from 
running electioneering ads. It merely requires that they comply with 
the same rules that unions and corporations must comply with under the 
bill. Groups covered by my amendment can set up PACs, solicit 
contributions and run electioneering ads. This amendment simply 
prevents them from using their regular treasury money to run such ads 
in a secret and unaccountable way. Spending on genuine issue ads is 
completely unaffected, as it should be.
  The amendment directly addresses constitutional concerns. A February 
20, 1998 letter signed by 20 constitutional scholars, including a 
former legislative director of the ACLU, which analyzed underlying 
bill's sham issue ad provision, argued that even though that provision 
was written to exempt certain organizations from the ban on 
electioneering communication, such omission was not constitutionally 
necessary. In other words, the restrictions on corporations and unions 
need not have

[[Page 5220]]

been limited to corporations and unions. In any case, the amendment is 
severable. If courts find it to be unconstitutional, it will not 
jeopardize the rest of this bill.
  This is what was at stake in the last two weeks: a government where 
the people are the priority, not the powerful. The anti-reform crowd 
has tried to cast this debate in terms of regulating political speech 
and limiting political freedom. I reject the argument that freedom, 
freedom of speech, freedom to participate in the election of one's 
government is served by the current system or that it is undermined by 
efforts to reform that system. On the contrary, freedom is on the side 
of reform, and indeed the more comprehensive the campaign finance 
reform we enact, the more we empower every American to capture control 
of his or her own destiny.
  While I will vote in favor of McCain-Feingold, I do so with my eyes 
open. Fundamentally, this legislation seeks to patch a badly broken 
system, one that is likely past saving through minor repair, and stops 
far short of the complete overhaul of the financing of elections that 
are required. Ultimately, an approach that seeks to stop a leak here, 
and block a loophole there but does not meaningfully remove the demand 
for private, special interest money form candidates and parties--either 
through reducing costs to campaigns, providing public sources of funds, 
or a combination of the two--will be doomed to failure.
  It is for this reason that I am a supporter of comprehensive public 
financing of federal campaigns, what is known as the Clean Money, Clean 
Elections approach. The McCain-Feingold bill includes important 
reforms. It would get some of the money out of politics. Not all of the 
money, but the under-the-table money, the largest contributions, the 
grossest examples of favor currying and access buying. With my 
amendment, it will ban most sham issue ads. Such unregulated funds have 
made a mockery of the current campaign finance reform system. However, 
there is no question that we should go much further, that most 
Americans would like to see us go further and that it is not truly 
comprehensive campaign finance reform. During debate on this bill, 36 
senators supported an amendment I offered which would have allowed 
states to establish voluntary spending limits in exchange for full or 
partial public financing for federal candidates. I am hopeful that the 
numbers here in the Senate in favor of public financing of federal 
elections will increase.
  Now that the Senate will finally go on record in favor of the modest 
reform that McCain-Feingold represents, I believe the time is right to 
begin the fight for fundamental reform: public financing of elections. 
This week I will reintroduce, my Clean Money, Clean Elections 
legislation. This legislation attacks the root cause of a system 
founded on private special interest money, curing the disease rather 
than treating the symptoms. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on this new phase. Again, passage of this bill is not the 
end of the reform debate but merely the beginning.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of an editorial in last 
Friday's Boston Globe be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          A Step Toward Reform

       By rejecting a malignant non severability amendment, the US 
     Senate has moved the nation significantly closer to real 
     political reform. ``This is where the Senate takes a stand,'' 
     Senator Russell Feingold said near the end of a dramatic two-
     week debate. And the Senate stood for reform, 57-43.
       If a solid version of the McCain-Feingold bill is agreed to 
     by the House and signed by President Bush, as now seems more 
     likely than ever, Americans will receive something as 
     valuable as any proposed tax rebate--the return of a portion 
     of the democracy that has been snatched away by the growing 
     influence of big money in the political system.
       McCain-Feingold does not offer the sweeping reform that the 
     system desperately needs, but it is a large step forward and 
     a prerequisite to more basic changes. The bill's targets are 
     the major abuses that have grown since the Watergate reforms 
     of 1974. Largely unregulated ``soft money'' donations, 
     ostensibly for party-building but often used to advance 
     specific candidates, would be eliminated. And ``independent'' 
     expenditures, by groups supposedly not linked to campaigns, 
     would be restricted close to voting dates.
       The key vote yesterday means that if a constitutional flaw 
     is found in one part of the law the remainder will survive. 
     Several opponents of reform last week helped pass an 
     amendment offered by liberal Senator Paul Wellstone of 
     Minnesota that would further curtail independent 
     expenditures, in the obvious hope that the provision would be 
     found unconstitutional and scuttle the whole effort.
       We support the Wellstone amendment and believe it is 
     constitutional. If not, yesterday's vote will keep the rest 
     of the law intact.
       The road for campaign reform has been long. The House has 
     approved similar measures, but must now take the bill up 
     again, this time playing with live ammunition--the increased 
     likelihood that it will become law. Bush added to the 
     momentum this week by indicating for the first time he might 
     sign it.
       On this bill and other political reforms, Congress should 
     give primacy to the rights and needs of voters. Reform should 
     not have to wait for a tangled election like the one just 
     concluded--or a Watergate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't agree with my colleague from 
Kentucky, though I have great respect for him. I think our parties will 
be stronger not dependent on soft money, to get away from the obscene 
money chase, and we will be more connected to the people. I also think 
the provisions on the sham issue ads across the board will make a huge 
difference, with less poison politics and bringing people back.
  I hated the increase in the hard money limits. I think it is a 
mistake. But this bill is a step forward. I am proud to vote for it. 
This is all about representative democracy. This will be a great vote, 
and I hope it whets the appetite of people in the country for even 
more. I thank Senators McCain, Feingold, Dodd, Daschle, and a lot of 
other Senators as well.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 1 minute to Senator Edwards of North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I will first thank my friends Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold for their extraordinary leadership. It has 
been a wonderful honor for me to participate in this very important 
debate in our history. The American people deserve a democracy where 
their voice is heard above the megaphone of big money and powerful 
interests. That is what this debate has confronted. It is not about 
Members of Congress; it is not about Senators or Members of the House. 
It is about the American people. It is not about Democrats or 
Republicans and who is advantaged by this bill. It is about the 
American people--once again, restoring their faith in the integrity of 
their Government, once again making the American people believe that 
their voice is what matters. When they go to the polls and vote, it is 
their vote that matters.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It 
is a huge step in the right direction.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Washington, Ms. 
Cantwell.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, rarely in life--and even more rarely in 
politics--can you say after fewer than 90 days in a new job that you 
are able to see one of your primary goals accomplished.
  My hat is off to Senators McCain and Feingold for their many years of 
working on this legislation.
  I ran for the Senate because I wanted to see meaningful campaign 
finance reform, to reduce the influence of special interests in our 
political process, and to amplify the voices of individual ordinary 
citizens. Final passage of McCain-Feingold will be a dream come true 
for me and a major first step. That is what is most significant about 
this reform--the first reform we have really had in almost a quarter 
century. Watching my colleagues, Senators McCain and Feingold, and also 
Senators Levin, Thompson, Snowe, Schumer, Dodd, and Wellstone, bring 
such force of will to ensuring that this bill passed. And that it not 
only emerged from the amendment process, but that it was improved in 
that process. Finally, we will be able to slow the virtual arms race 
that campaign fundraising has become.
  I thank the Chair.

[[Page 5221]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, each of us at one point in the well of 
the Senate raised our right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution 
of the United States. On 21 occasions in the last 26 years, efforts to 
restrict issue advocacy by outside groups have been struck down, 
including just last summer when the second circuit struck down the 
precise language in Snowe-Jeffords.
  This bill is fatally unconstitutional. I hope Senators will uphold 
the oaths they have taken and oppose this unconstitutional bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield the remaining minutes on the 
proponents' side to the principal author of this bill, the person who 
deserves enormous credit, John McCain of Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate will vote on 
final passage of the Campaign Finance Reform Act, and I respectfully 
ask all Senators for their support. I want to speak very briefly, 
mainly to express my appreciation to my colleagues, on all sides of 
this issue, for the quality of our debate.
  I thank first two men who were as good as their word: The majority 
leader, for the commitment to an open debate and for keeping the 
amendment process both fair and expeditious, and the Democratic leader 
for so effectively safeguarding his party support for genuine campaign 
finance reform.
  I also show my respect for the skill, grit, and honesty of the 
formidable Senator from Kentucky and his able staff. There are few 
things more daunting in politics than the determined opposition of 
Senator McConnell. I hope to avoid the experience more often in the 
future.
  I thank Senator Dodd, the Democratic manager of the bill, and his 
staff. His leadership was as critical to our success as his unfailing 
good humor was to our morale.
  The majority and minority whips, Senators Nickles and Reid, worked 
hard to ensure a fair and complete debate and to encourage both sides 
to reach for good-faith compromises whenever it was possible.
  Words cannot express how grateful I am to the cosponsors of our 
legislation. But for the willingness of Senators Thompson and Feinstein 
to find common ground on the issue of increasing hard money limits, I 
fear our efforts would have proved as futile as they have in the past.
  I cannot exaggerate how big a boost Senator Thad Cochran's support 
was to our cause and how important his wise and courteous guidance was 
to our success.
  I appreciate the wise and experienced leadership of Senator Carl 
Levin.
  Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Specter, Schumer, Edwards, Kerry, 
and all the sponsors worked tirelessly and effectively to reach this 
moment and more than compensated for my own deficiencies as an 
advocate.
  I am also much indebted and inspired by the community of activists 
for campaign finance reform. The faith, energy, and never-say-die 
spirit they have shown in a fight they have waged for so many years are 
the best attributes of patriots. Although we have a few more miles to 
travel, they have given good service to our country, and my admiration 
for them is only surpassed by my gratitude.
  I owe a special thanks to the many thousands of Americans who lent 
their voice to our cause this year, many who supported my campaign last 
year and many who did not but who believe that reforming the way we 
finance Federal election campaigns is a necessary first step to 
reforming the practices and institutions of our great democracy.
  I also thank my staff for their extraordinary support, particularly 
Mark Buse who has worked by my side on this issue for many years and 
whose industry and creativity will never fail to impress me.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. What is the request?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. For 2 additional minutes. Is there 
objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record a list of the staffers of the Senators who were very helpful and 
critical to our success.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Senator Cochran--Brad Prewitt;
       Senator Collins--Michael Bopp;
       Senator Daschle--Andrea LaRue;
       Senator Dodd--Kennie Gill, Veronica Gillespie;
       Senator Feingold--Mary Murphy, Bob Schiff, Bill Dauster;
       Senator Feinstein--Gray Maxwell, Mark Kadesh;
       Senator Hagel--Lou Ann Linehan;
       Senator Jeffords--Eric Buehlmann;
       Senator Levin--Linda Gustitus, Ken Saccoccia;
       Senator Lieberman--Laurie Rubenstein;
       Senator Lott--Sharon Soderstrom;
       Senator McCain--Mark Buse, Ann Choiniere, Lloyd Ator, Ken 
     LaSala;
       Senator McConnell--Tamara Somerville, Hunter Bates, Andrew 
     Siff, Brian Lewis;
       Senator Schumer--Martin Siegel;
       Senator Snowe--Jane Calderwood, John Richter;
       Senator Thompson--Bill Outhier, Hannah Sistare, Fred 
     Ansell.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, were I limited to thanking one individual, 
it would be Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a man of great courage 
and conviction. His partnership in this effort is one of the greatest 
privileges I have ever had in public life. He is in every respect the 
better half of McCain-Feingold. I want him to know, Mr. President, that 
I will never forget it. I might also add that he is well served by his 
staff as I am by mine.
  Lastly, I thank every one of my colleagues, those who supported our 
bill and those who did not, particularly my friend Senator Hagel, for 
the good faith and fairmindedness that all have brought to this debate.
  I believe the events of the last 2 weeks have been a great credit to 
this body, and that is tribute to every Senator. Indeed, as we approach 
what I believe will be a successful outcome for the proponents of this 
legislation, I can say I have never been prouder to be a Member of the 
Senate. Because of my failings, I might not always show it, but I 
consider myself blessed to serve in the company of so many capable 
leaders of our fair country.
  I asked at the start of this debate for my colleagues to take a risk 
for America. In a few moments, I believe we will do just that. I will 
go to my grave deeply grateful for the honor of being part of it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the McCain-Feingold bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Shall the bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     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--41

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison

[[Page 5222]]


     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The bill (S. 27), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the effort by Senators McCain and 
Feingold to try to rein in some of the rampant spending that takes 
place in political campaigns. Today I voted for S. 27, the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act of 2001.
  While I voted for final passage of S. 27, I do not feel that it goes 
far enough. The only way that we will ever get control over the money 
in politics is if we put limits on campaign spending, and the only way 
to achieve that goal is to address the Constitutional hurdles raised by 
the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, by equating free speech with campaign 
spending, the Supreme Court placed a substantial roadblock in the path 
to campaign finance reform. We will not have true campaign finance 
reform until Congress and the States approve a Constitutional Amendment 
which clearly articulates that Congress can regulate fundraising and 
expenditures for campaigns. That is why I supported the constitutional 
amendment offered by Senator Hollings.
  I understand that the sponsors of this bill worked to craft 
legislation that would maintain the support of a majority of Senators, 
and, at the same time, would also stand up to the certain Court 
challenges it will face. I hope that this bill will make some progress 
in limiting the power and influence of money in our elections, but I 
believe that we still have a long way to go.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, occasionally, that massive soft money 
machine, the New York Times, runs something accurate about campaign 
finance. Such as the op-ed I authored which appeared in the April 1 
edition. The focus of the piece is the tremendous harm enactment of the 
McCain-Feingold bill would do to our democracy, by severely weakening 
the two great political parties.
  I ask unanimous consent that my op-ed be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the New York Time, Apr. 1, 2001]

                        In Defense of Soft Money

                          (By Mitch McConnell)

       Washington--It now appears that among the legacies of the 
     Bill Clinton presidency will be a ``reform'' of a campaign 
     financing that devastate the national political parties. The 
     1996 Clinton campaign's courting of illegal foreign 
     contributions for the Democratic National Committee and the 
     Clintons' use of the Lincoln Bedroom to entertain 
     contributors, followed by Mr. Clinton's pardons for criminals 
     championed by big donors to the Democrats, have cast a pall 
     over national party committees. And all of this propelled the 
     prohibition of soft money--donations made to political 
     parties and not subject to federal contributions limits--to 
     the top of the reform agenda.
  Earlier, the centerpiece of reform efforts had been limits on 
candidates' own spending. In 1997 Senators John McCain and Russ 
Feingold dropped these spending limits from their reform bill, along 
with bans on political action committees and on ``bunding''--when 
individuals and groups collect multiple contributions.
  Hard money, in Washington parlance, is the funds and activities 
targeted to electing specific candidates to federal office. These funds 
are already subject to severe contribution limits, set in 1974 and 
never adjusted for inflation, and to requirements for disclosing the 
names of donors and the amounts they gave. The national parties 
themselves also raise money, which they need for issue advocacy, for 
helping state and local candidates, for paying overhead expenses like 
the costs of computers and lawyers (to comply with the array of 
election laws), and for get-out-the-vote efforts that benefit all of a 
party's nominees on Election Day. This ``nonfederal'' money is subject 
to regulations in the States. But because it has often been used in 
ways that do help federal candidates, it has come to be called ``soft 
money.''
  The Republican and Democratic National Committees, and the Republican 
and Democratic senatorial and congressional committees, are national in 
scope. Gubernational and state legislative elections are among the 
highest priorities of the national parties, so they help candidates in 
those races accordingly--with funds governed under the relevant state 
laws and spent in consultation with state party committees. But federal 
candidates are a focus of the national committees, too. And with 
campaigns for federal offices starved for hard money by the antiquated 
1974 limits, the national parties have become increasingly resourceful 
in utilizing soft money to fill the void in federal elections.
       In recent years, the parties have used soft money to run 
     ads defending their nominees from attacks by special interest 
     groups and to help challengers compete against well-financed 
     incumbents. Help from the parties often provides the only 
     chance nonincumbent and nonmillionaire candidates have to be 
     competitive in Congressional elections.



       The McCain-Feingold bill now working its way through 
     Congress would prohibit the national committees from raising 
     or spending any soft money--that is, any money not covered by 
     federal contribution limits--at any time for any purpose. It 
     would also federalize campaign-related spending by state 
     parties in even-numbered years, thus forcing even the state 
     parties to rely on far more scarce hard money, with results 
     that are likely to be devastating.
       Even if only one federal candidate were on the ballot in a 
     state where the chief voter interest was in the governor's 
     race, a mayoral contest or control of the state legislature, 
     all party voter registration and turnout activities in that 
     state within 120 days of the election would be subject to the 
     severe limits on contributions set by Congress--and therefore 
     underfunded and diminished. Special-interest group issue ads 
     would go unanswered by the parties. Challengers, historically 
     shunned by political action committees but boosted by 
     parties, would be on their own. Incumbents and selffunded 
     millionaire candidates would flourish.
       Speculation rages over which party would get the greater 
     advantage from the ban on soft money. Many Republicans, 
     believing that liberal-leaning news outlets will favor 
     Democrats and noting that much of the political activity of 
     the biggest Democratic ally, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., is largely 
     unimpeded by McCain-Feingold's provisions, fear Democrats may 
     be the greatest beneficiary. Conversely, there is concern 
     among some Democrats that forcing the parties to rely solely 
     on the limited and relatively puny hard-money contributions 
     may benefit Republicans.
       One result of McCain-Feingold is certain: America loses. 
     The parties are vital institutions in our democracy, 
     smoothing ideological edges and promoting citizen 
     participation. The two major parties are the big tents where 
     multitudes of individuals and groups with narrow agendas 
     converge to promote candidates and broad philosophies about 
     the role of government in our society.
       If special interests cannot give to parties as they have, 
     they will use their money to influence elections in other 
     ways: placing unlimited, unregulated and undisclosed issue 
     advertisements; ;mounting their own get-out-the-vote efforts; 
     forming their own action groups. Unrestrained by the 
     balancing effect of parties, which bring multiple interests 
     together, America's politics are likely to fragment. 
     ``Virtual'' parties will be able to proliferate--shadowy 
     groups with innocuous-sounding names like the Group in Favor 
     of Republican Majorities or the Citizens for Democratics in 
     2012 that will hold potentially enormous sway in a post-
     McCain-Feingold world where the parties are diminished for 
     lack of money.
       Under McCain-Feingold, the power of special interests will 
     not be deterred or diminished. Their speech, political 
     activity and right to ``petition the government for a redress 
     of grievances'' (that is, to lobby) are protected by the 
     First Amendment. Political spending will not reduced; it just 
     will not flow through the parties.
       Do we really want the two-party system, which has served us 
     so well, to be weakened in favor of greater power for wealthy 
     candidates and single-issue group? McCain-Feingold will not 
     take any money out of politics. It just takes the parties out 
     of politics.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it's a little late, but hopefully not 
too late, that the Washington Post runs a page one story exploring the 
McCain-Feingold's destructive impact on vital democratic institutions: 
the two great political parties.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 5223]]



                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 1, 2001]

           Campaign Bill Could Shift Power Away From Parties

                  (By Ruth Marcus and Juliet Eilperin)

       If the campaign finance bill nearing final passage by the 
     Senate becomes law, it could dramatically alter the practice 
     of modern politics, curtailing the influence of political 
     parties and potentially enhancing the power of outside groups 
     that would not be subject to strict contribution and 
     disclosure rules.
       Campaign consultants and senior lawmakers said the biggest 
     immediate impact would be the slashing of the budgets of the 
     Democratic and Republican parties, which together raised 
     nearly half a billion dollars in the last election in ``soft 
     money,'' the unlimited contributions from corporations, 
     unions and wealthy individuals that would be banned under the 
     Senate bill.
       That money, accounting for one-third of Republican Party 
     committees' funds and nearly half the budget of Democratic 
     Party committees, financed get-out-the-vote drives, 
     television ads praising or attacking specific candidates, and 
     basic administrative costs.
       Although the parties would suffer under the new system, 
     political experts say, the beneficiaries could be independent 
     groups that have proliferated in recent years to press their 
     agendas on gun control, the environment, abortion and other 
     issues.
       The bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and 
     Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), puts significant new restrictions 
     on such groups. Corporations, labor and ideological groups on 
     the left and right would not be able to use their own soft 
     money to run issue advertisements that name candidates within 
     60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. The 
     use of such advertising, often indistinguishable from 
     ordinary campaign commercials, has skyrocketed in recent 
     elections.
       However, unlike the political parties, outside groups could 
     still collect unlimited checks from any source. They could 
     also run whatever ads they wanted up to the deadline and 
     after that could engage in other forms of political activity, 
     such as telephone banks and mailings.
       In addition, the legislation would not end all issue 
     advertising, even close to an election. For example, wealthy 
     individual donors--who cannot constitutionally be stopped 
     from spending their own money--are not covered. Moreover, the 
     restrictions on outside groups are the part of the 
     legislation most likely to be thrown out by a court.
       ``The world under McCain-Feingold is a world where the 
     loudest voices in the process are third-party groups.'' 
     Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg Said. ``My fear 
     is that the parties will just wither and essentially people 
     will be motivated to get out to vote by the groups which 
     champion the issues they care about.''
       A top democratic operative offered a similar assessment. 
     ``The fear here is all you're doing is opening up a very 
     large, underground flow of money in national politics,'' said 
     David Plouffe, who headed the House Democrats' campaign 
     operation in the last election.
       But Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, which is lobbying for 
     the bill, said there would be ``far less leakage'' of soft 
     money to outside groups than some anticipate, especially from 
     corporations. ``People are missing the fact that a large 
     number of soft-money donors are tired of being hit up and 
     tired of facing the equivalent of political extortion,'' he 
     said.
       If the Senate approves it Monday, the McCain-Feingold bill 
     will still have numerous hurdles to surmount. It must pass 
     the House, which has voted for similar measures, but now--
     with campaign overhaul far closer to reality--Republican 
     leaders are vowing opposition. It must also be signed by 
     President Bush, who disagrees with a number of provisions but 
     has indicated that he cannot be counted on to veto the bill. 
     And perhaps most important, it must survive the 
     constitutional challenge that will immediately be mounted in 
     the courts.
       Nonetheless, the prospect of Senate approval brings the 
     bill a huge step closer to reality. As its most ardent foe, 
     Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said last week: ``There is 
     nobody to come to the rescue. This train is moving down the 
     track.''
       That momentum has left elected officials, political 
     strategists and election lawyers of both parties trying to 
     predict what life would be like under the new regime--and 
     whether Republicans or Democrats would be better off. Both 
     sides insisted that the measure would benefit their opponents 
     but also acknowledged that the ultimate winners and losers 
     would not be clear for some time.
       Experts disagreed about whether the measure would help 
     challengers or incumbents. Many said the bill would help 
     incumbents because parties would not have the same ability to 
     mount extensive advertising campaigns on behalf of 
     challengers and because it allows incumbents to raise 
     additional money against challenges by millionaire 
     candidates. But others said challengers would be helped by 
     the increase in the limits on direct contributions to 
     candidates and parties known as ``hard money.'' The limit on 
     how much an individual can give to a single candidate would 
     double to $2,000.
       Some effects of the bill were not disputed. Because it 
     raises the overall amount of hard money that individuals can 
     contribute in an election cycle from $25,000 to $37,500, 
     Washington lobbyists are already wincing at the effect on 
     their bank accounts. Because many lobbyists give the maximum 
     allowed for a married couple, that would mean the total 
     amount they and a spouse could give would grow $25,000, to 
     $75,000 an election.
       In addition, parties would have to dramatically change 
     their operations, which have become dependent on using a 
     combination of soft and hard dollars to do everything from 
     paying the light bill to running ads.
       ``What we are doing is destroying the party system in 
     America,'' said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost 
     (Tex.). ``The political parties would be neutered, and third-
     party groups would run the show.''
       ``We both lose,'' McConnell said. ``This is mutual assured 
     destruction of the political parties.''
       Some campaign finance experts said such concerns were 
     overstated, nothing that the parties took in nearly $720 
     million in hard money in the last election and would be able 
     to raise even more under McCain-Feingold, which slightly 
     increases the individual contribution limits to political 
     parties, from $20,000 to $25,000.
       ``I do not think that a ban on soft money will cripple the 
     parties,'' said Colby College political scientist Anthony 
     Corrado. ``The parties now raise twice as much hard money as 
     they were raising 10 years ago, and the parties were very 
     active in the late `80 and early `90 in election campaigns 
     without really any reliance on soft money.''
       Because Republicans have built up a larger base of small 
     donors and therefore vastly out raise Democrats in hard-money 
     contributions operatives on both sides agreed that, at least 
     in the short term, the Democrats would be at a significant 
     disadvantage. During the last campaign, Republicans and 
     Democrats raised equivalent amounts of soft money, but 
     Republicans took in $447 million in hard money to the 
     Democrats' $270 million.
       ``The best example of why Republicans will do better than 
     Democrats is to look at the Bush campaign last year,'' 
     Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Jerry Backus said, 
     citing the more than $100 million the Bush primary campaign 
     raised in hard money.
       Democrats also voiced concern that they would be targeted 
     in the waning days of the campaign by well-funded independent 
     Republican groups.
       ``We have established interest groups that have been very 
     effective on our behalf,'' a Democratic strategist said. 
     ``What we have never had are the instant groups that spring 
     up for the specific immediate purposes of influencing 
     elections and that are encouraged to form under this bill. . 
     . . Democrats are going to be shuffling around dramatically 
     more limited resources and not able to provide air cover for 
     their members against those attacks.''
       Yet Republicans say democrats would be helped because they 
     would benefit from continued heavy union spending and because 
     wealthy Democrats would simply write checks to outside 
     groups.
       Two academics who are sympathetic to McCain-Feingold said 
     the Democrats' shortfall in hard money would be offset by the 
     greater number of advocacy group ads supporting Democrats. 
     ``The experience of the last two elections suggest that 
     neither Democrats nor Republicans would be disproportionately 
     harmed,'' said Kenneth Goldstein and Jonathan Krasno. 
     ``Indeed, neither party stands to gain or lose much against 
     their counterparts.''
       Michael S. Berman, a veteran Democratic political 
     strategist, said any predictions are foolhardy. ``Of one 
     thing I'm certain,'' Berman said. ``Whatever we think the 
     effect will be, whoever we think it will help, we will be 
     wrong, because we've always been wrong.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the courts have repeatedly struck down 
issue advocacy restrictions.
  I also ask unanimous consent that this list of cases be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 44, n. 52 80 (1976), FEC 
     v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 249 
     (1986); Vermont Right to Life Comm. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 
     386 (2d Cir. 2000); North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. 
     Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705 (4th Cir. 1999); Iowa Right to Life 
     Comm., Inc. v. Williams, 187 F.3d 963, 969-70 (8th Cir. 
     1999); Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, 152 F.3d 
     268, 274 (4th Cir. 1998); Brownsburg Area Patrons Affecting 
     Change v. Baldwin, 137 F.3d 503, 506 (7th Cir. 1998); FEC v. 
     Christian Action Network, 110 F.3d 1049 (4th Cir. 1997); 
     Maine Right To Life Comm., Inc. v. FEC, 914 F. Supp. 8, 12 
     (D. Me. 1996), aff'd per curiam, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996); 
     Faucher v. FEC, 928 F.2d 468, 472 (1st Cir. 1991); FEC v. 
     Central Long Island Tax Reform Immediately Comm., 616 F.2d 
     45, 53 (2d Cir. 1980) (en banc); Kansans for Life, Inc. v. 
     Gaede, 38 F. Supp.2d 928, 935-37 (D. Kan. 1999); Right to 
     Life of Mich., Inc. v. Miller, 23 F. Supp.2d 766 (W.D. Mich. 
     1998); Planned Parenthood Affiliates of

[[Page 5224]]

     Mich., Inc. v. Miller, 21 F. Supp.2d 740 (E.D. Mich. 
     1998)(same); Right to Life of Duchess County, Inc. v. FEC, 6 
     F. Supp.2d 248 (S.D. N.Y. 1998); Clifton v. FEC, 927 F. Supp. 
     493, 496 (D. Me. 1996), aff'd on other grounds, 114 F.3d 1309 
     (1st Cir. 1997); West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 
     F. Supp. 954, 959 (S.D. W. Va. 1996); FEC v. Christian Action 
     Network, 894 F. Supp. 946, 958 (W.D. Va. 1995), aff'd per 
     curiam, 92 F.3d 1178 (4th Cir. 1996); FEC v. Survival Educ. 
     Fund Inc., 1994 WL 9658, at *3 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 12, 1994), 
     aff'd in part and rec'd. in part on other grounds, 65 F.3d 
     285 (2d Cir. 1995); FEC v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign 
     Comm., 839 F. Supp. 1448, 1456 (D. Colo. 1993), rec'd., 59 
     F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 1995), vacated and remanded on other 
     grounds, 116 S. Ct. 2309 (1996); FEC v. NOW, 713 F. Supp. 428 
     (D. D.C. 1989); FEC v. AFSCME, 471 F. Supp. 315, 317 (D. D.C. 
     1979); Elections Bd. of State of Wis. v. Wisconsin Mfrs. & 
     Commerce, 597 N.W.2d 721, 731 (Wis. 1999).

                           Amendment No. 171

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a series of 
technical amendments to S. 27, which are at the desk, be agreed to and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. These technical 
changes have been agreed to by the chairman and ranking member of the 
Rules Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 171) was agreed to, as follows:
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I spent the past three days with a number 
of my colleagues on a fact-finding trip to the Artic National Wildlife 
Refuge. I took this trip to help prepare myself for one of the most 
important environmental and energy issues before us: whether or not to 
permit drilling for oil in the 1002 Area of ANWR. I wish to thank my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Murkowski, for arranging and hosting 
our tour.
  This trip was reportedly scheduled several weeks ago in consultation 
with the Majority Leader, who at that time did not expect the trip to 
conflict with votes in the Senate. Unfortunately, two votes did occur 
last Friday on amendments to S. 27, the campaign finance bill, and I 
was not present for them. Last Thursday evening, after reviewing the 
nature of these two amendments, I was advised by Democratic leaders to 
keep my commitment to undertake the trip.
  Had I not been necessarily absent last Friday, I would have cast my 
vote in support of the Reed Amendment Number 164, as modified, because 
it would improve the ability of the Federal Election Commission to 
enforce the law. I would also have voted in favor of the McCain 
Amendment Number 165, because it would make more workable the bill's 
restrictions on the coordination of independent expenditures. Both of 
these amendments would have strengthened the underlying bill, which I 
strongly support.

                          ____________________