[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12909-12910]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, no matter what other issues are 
discussed in this Senate, what other concerns are brought before the 
body, the Nation's attention is turned again to the issue of campaign 
finance reform, the seemingly never-ending effort to restore integrity 
to this process and change the Nation's campaign finance laws.
  In March, the Senate passed a comprehensive and workable piece of 
legislation; it required 2 weeks and 22 amendments. One of those 
amendments I offered together with my colleagues, Senator Corzine, 
Senator Durbin, and Senator Ensign. It was the other part of the 
equation: As we reduce the amount of money that is raised, to reduce 
the amount that must by necessity be spent.
  Campaign spending in America is easily defined. It is used for 
television overwhelmingly: 80 or 85 percent of the cost of the Senate 
campaign goes to a television network.
  This amendment was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. I take the 
floor today because it is now in jeopardy. It is unconscionable, while 
the American people have demanded a control on the amount of political 
money being spent in America, unconscionable while this Congress has 
fought for campaign finance reform, the broadcast industry is fighting 
to the death to reverse this amendment in the House of Representatives 
and allow the television networks to charge whatever they want to 
charge for political advertising.
  I take the floor today as one who has voted for campaign finance 
reform since I came to the Congress 18 years ago. I have always voted 
for campaign finance reform. I always want to vote for it because I 
believe the system must be fundamentally changed to restore integrity 
to the system and gain the confidence of the American people.
  I take the floor to make this very clear: Reducing campaign 
fundraising without reducing the cost of campaigns is not reform. That 
reduces the amount of communication. It makes it more difficult for the 
political parties and candidates to communicate their message. This 
cannot be reform. This is silencing political debate in America.
  The bill that passed this Senate reduced the amount of soft money, 
eliminated the amount of soft money and, correspondingly, in a balanced 
fashion, dealt with this cost of advertising.
  In 1971, the Congress believed we had faced this problem and required 
the charging of the lowest unit charge. Over 30 years, the law became 
ineffective. That is why I offered this amendment. This chart shows, by 
1990, an audit by the FEC found that 80 percent of television stations 
were failing to give the lowest rate. These are examples from around 
the country. The price of a typical ad is a percent greater than the 
lowest rate that should have been offered: NBC in New York, 21 percent 
higher than by law should have been charged; WXYZ in Detroit, 124 
percent; KGO, San Francisco, 62 percent higher than the lowest rate. 
These are the numbers that convinced 69 Democrats and Republicans in 
the Senate to pass this amendment.
  The second reason for the amendment is that stations are charging 
candidates the lowest rate, looking back 365 days. So they cannot 
simply charge the lowest rate available on that day, which they were 
not doing anyway, but had to look back for what was the lowest rate 
during the course of the year. The fact is, the broadcast industry in 
America has been profiteering at the expense of the political system. 
There is not another democracy in the world where the public airwaves, 
licensed to private companies, are used for profiteering and price 
gouging when a public candidate attempts to communicate with people in 
the country.
  The patterns are quite clear. This chart indicates the percentage of 
ads sold above or below the lowest unit cost per station. Below the 
unit rate, Philadelphia, KYW, 9 percent; Detroit, XYZ, 8 percent; Los 
Angeles, one of the better in the country, is only 63 percent. NBC in 
New York, 15 percent of their ads are sold in accordance with the 1971 
law at the lowest unit rate.
  It isn't that the law is not being obeyed; it is being violated 
wholesale. Compliance with the law is the rare, rare, exception.
  Here is the magnitude of the problem. In the 2000 political season, 
political advertisers spent $1 billion on television ads; $1 billion 
was raised, fundraiser by fundraiser, mailer by mailer, telephone call 
by telephone call. And an extraordinary percentage of this advertising, 
if it had been paid for at the lowest unit rate, would have saved 
hundreds of millions of dollars in political fundraising.
  My message out of this, I hope, is clear. I speak not to my 
colleagues, but I speak to the broadcast industry, to the network 
televisions, which since the 2000 Presidential campaign have carried on 
a campaign of their own, criticizing the political community, attacking 
individual candidates, railing against the problems of political 
fundraising.
  Instead of being part of the problem, be part of the solution. 
Campaign finance reform does not simply mean the Democrat and 
Republican Parties. It means ABC, NBC, CBS. It means you. Get your 
lobbyists out of the House of Representatives, out of these Chambers, 
and be part of a solution of campaign finance reform. Allow a balanced 
piece of legislation to pass this Congress that deals with this 
problem.
  The National Association of Broadcasters has been fighting against 
this provision in an exercise of their own greed on two myths: First, 
that this will lead to perpetual campaigns because the low rates will 
mean this will go on and on forever in advertising.
  That simply is not the case. The look-back will only allow the lowest 
rates for 365 days. Mr. Shays and Meehan have only proposed 180 days. 
That is the extent, in the primary season, campaigns are taking place 
anyway. The campaigns will not be longer; they will just be less 
expensive. And that is the problem for the broadcasters.
  Second, that this is somehow unconstitutional, that we are taking 
private property. For 30 years this has already been the law. The 
broadcasters, as a condition of their license, are required to do 
public broadcasting, sometimes children's broadcasting. They comply 
with all kinds of Federal requirements as a condition of having a 
public license. This is one more, but it is not even a new requirement. 
For 30 years we have required them to sell at the lowest unit rate. 
They simply are not doing it. We are just strengthening the law; we are 
not fundamentally changing the law.
  Third, they allege the amendment could force a TV station to sell a 
30-second spot during a prime time television show for a de minimus 
amount of money. Actually, that would not be bad if it were true, but 
it is not. The FCC, in mediating pricing disputes under the law as it 
now stands, has always taken viewership levels into account, that they 
must be comparable. You cannot take a 2 o'clock in the morning 
television show that sells at a discount rate and compare it with prime 
time. It simply is not true.
  Fourth, the broadcasters say lowering the costs of candidate 
advertising will result in candidates running more ads. As my friend 
Mitch McConnell commented on occasion, the Nation does not suffer from 
too much political discussion. It would not be a bad thing if there 
were more advertising, discussing more issues. But that is probably not 
the result of this amendment.

[[Page 12910]]

It simply means candidates will raise less money because of campaign 
finance reform and hopefully be able to have the same amount of 
advertising because rates are lower.
  This is all part and parcel of eliminating a major source of revenue 
for the broadcasters, and that is the problem. Political advertising is 
a paid form, in my judgment, of community service. This is not running 
a public service ad for the Boy Scouts, but it should not be akin to 
charging General Motors to advertise a new car either. And that is 
exactly what has happened.
  Here, political ads have now become the third highest source of 
revenue for the broadcasters. In 1998, the automobile industry was the 
source of 25 percent of advertising dollars in America. Political 
candidates, using the public airwaves to discuss public policy issues 
under campaign finance law restrictions, are 10 percent of advertising 
dollars in America. This is growing faster than any other component of 
advertising in the Nation. Political advertising is not an industry; it 
is how we conduct public policy in a democracy. That is why we have 
offered this amendment as well.
  This legislation will be voted upon in the House of Representatives 
in only another day. The House of Representatives has a choice that was 
before this Senate. The national broadcasters have spent $19 million 
since 1996 to lobby this Congress. They have spent $11 million to 
defeat no fewer than 12 campaign finance bills that would have reduced 
the cost of candidate advertising. It is unconscionable and it is 
wrong. It is also hypocrisy. The very news departments and executives 
that come to this Congress and complain about the state of politics in 
America, the lack of public confidence, the declining levels of 
integrity in the public discourse because of campaign fundraisers, are 
now a principal obstacle to reform.
  I want to vote for McCain-Feingold when that legislation returns to 
this Senate after a conference, but I will make it very clear: 
Restricting campaign fundraising with no restriction on the cost of 
campaign advertising, in the region of the country in which I live, and 
Los Angeles and Chicago and Miami and Boston and other large cities in 
America, means that candidates will not be able to communicate with the 
public. There will be no independent means of the political parties 
actually getting their message to American voters.
  I am prepared to vote to limit campaign spending, to eliminate soft 
money, but the test, in my judgment, at least for the region of the 
country in which I live, is whether we can overcome this hurdle of the 
broadcasters as well.
  Mr. President, I hope the House of Representatives meets its 
responsibility. I hope we can get a bill that in good conscience many 
of us in the Senate can vote to support.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________