[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3362-3368]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2356) to amend the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today with the opening of this debate, 
we take the first step toward passing the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan 
bill in the Senate and take one of the final steps toward banning soft 
money.
  I am grateful for all the hard work that has brought us to this 
moment--of course, the work done by the reform community, the work done 
by the outstanding leaders in the other body to pass this bill last 
month, and, most of all, the work done by my colleagues here in the 
Senate, under the leadership of Senator McCain of Arizona.
  A year ago, we had an excellent debate about campaign finance reform 
here on this floor. In fact, it began almost exactly a year ago, on 
March 19. We had an outstanding exchange of ideas, we held numerous 
votes, and we worked hard on both sides of the issue. I believe that 
that debate enriched this body, and that it enriched the McCain-
Feingold bill.
  In the end, the will of the Senate was done, and we passed the bill 
in a strong bipartisan vote of 59-41. A year later, we are here again 
on the floor working to pass reform. But this time it is different. 
This time, we already know where the Senate stands. And we know that 
all that stands between this bill and the President's desk is the 
Senate's final consideration of the bill this week.
  With the strong vote for McCain-Feingold last year, the Senate 
recognized the importance of our responsibility as representatives of 
the people and as stewards of democracy. As long as we allow soft money 
to exist, we risk damaging our credibility when we make the decisions 
about the issues that the people elected us to make.
  The people sent us here to wrestle with some very tough issues. They 
have vested us with the power to make decisions that have a profound 
impact on their lives. That is a responsibility that we take very 
seriously. But today, when we weigh the pros and cons of legislation, 
many people think we also weigh the size of the contributions we got 
from interests on both sides of the issue. And when those contributions 
can be a million dollars, or even more, it seems obvious to most people 
that we would reward, or at least listen especially carefully to, our 
biggest donors.
  So a year ago we voted to change the system. And now, both bodies 
have fully and fairly debated the issues and discussed the merits of 
this bill. We have given this important issue the time and 
consideration it deserves. Now, very simply, it is time to get the job 
done. It is time to get this bill to the President.
  I believe the Senate is ready to repair a broken system. And make no 
mistake about it, the way the soft money and issue ad loopholes are 
being abused today has devastated the campaign finance system. More 
than that, these loopholes have weakened the effectiveness of this body 
and cast doubt on the work we do. They have weakened the public's trust 
in government; in a very real sense, they have weakened our democracy.
  I know many of us here are tired of seeing headlines that imply that 
legislative outcomes here are not a result of our own will or good 
judgment, but a result of our desire to please wealthy donors. We are 
tired of those headlines, and so are the American people. The people 
know that the system can function better when soft money doesn't render 
our hard money limits meaningless, and when phony issue ads don't make 
a joke of our election laws. And they also know that this is our best 
chance in years to do something to effect real change.
  This week we can show them, just as we did a year ago in this Senate, 
that we are ready for change, and that we are going to make that change 
happen.
  As we embark on this discussion about campaign finance reform on the 
floor today, it is remarkable how much has changed since the Senator 
from Arizona and I introduced this bill in September of 1995, and even 
since we stood here a year ago. Both sides of Capitol Hill have finally 
acknowledged the demand of the American people that we ban soft money 
contributions, after years of soft money scandals and embarrassments 
that have chipped away at the integrity of this body.
  As many commentators have noted, the collapse of Enron gave the 
campaign finance reform issue momentum prior to the House vote in 
February. But I would note that our effort has been given momentum by 
many other campaign finance scandals that have occurred just in the 
last few years. I think they are actually more than we care to 
remember.
  Soft money has had an increasingly prominent role in party 
fundraising over the last 12 years. In 1988 the parties began raising 
$100,000 contributions for the Bush and Dukakis campaigns--an amount 
unheard of before the 1988 race. By the 1992 election, the year I was 
elected to this body, soft money fundraising by the major parties had 
doubled, rising to $86 million. In successive election cycles the 
amount of soft money raised by the parties has simply skyrocketed. In 
2000 soft money totals were more than five times what they were in 
1992. It was already a lot in 1992. In 2000, it was five

[[Page 3363]]

times already what it had been 8 years earlier.
  And along with the money, came the scandals--soft money and scandals 
have gone hand in hand for more than a decade now. First, the mere fact 
that soft money was being raised in such enormous amounts was a scandal 
in the early 1990s. But then we had the Lincoln Bedroom, and the White 
House Coffees, and Charlie Trie and John Huang and Johnny Chung. And 
then, of course, the Presidential pardons coming under suspicion at the 
conclusion of the Clinton administration. We faced questions in this 
body as we considered bills regulating tobacco and telecommunications 
and the Patients' Bill of Rights, while at the same time we raised soft 
money from the industries and interest groups that had a huge stake in 
those bills. The public watched with increasing skepticism as we 
appeared to act--or fail to act--on legislation based on the demands of 
wealthy soft money donors. With the enormous influx of soft money being 
raised by both parties, with every vote we cast the public wondered, 
and had reason to wonder, was it the money?
  Of course of late we have seen yet another scandal take shape--the 
Enron debacle. As the Enron story unfolded, I think many of us were 
reminded why the Supreme Court, in its famous 1976 Buckley versus Valeo 
decision, said that the appearance of corruption, not just corruption 
itself, justifies congressional action to place some limits on our 
campaign finance system.
  In the Buckley case, the Supreme Court understood that public 
mistrust of government is destructive to democracy. From a 
constitutional point of view, it hardly matters whether that mistrust 
is based on actual misconduct or simply its appearance.
  In the case of Enron's collapse, the need to address public mistrust 
has been paramount for Congress and the administration as they have 
investigated the company's alleged wrongdoing. When a corporation such 
as Enron leaves devastated employees and fleeced shareholders in its 
wake, the public depends on us--on Congress and the administration--to 
determine what went wrong and defend the public interest. But the 
potential for a conflict of interest in a case such as this is clear: 
Many of the elected officials who were asked to sit in judgment of 
Enron, including Members of Congress, the Attorney General, and the 
President of the United States, have been accepting, and even asking 
for, campaign contributions from Enron for years. And the political 
parties have pocketed more than $3.5 million in unregulated, unlimited 
soft money from Enron since 1991.
  Congress has moved forward with the investigations into Enron's 
conduct, despite the potential conflict of interest the political 
contributions might pose. The reality is that this is all too familiar 
territory for Congress. Every day Members of Congress accept huge 
campaign contributions with one hand and vote on issues affecting their 
contributors with the other. And, every day the public naturally 
questions whether their Representatives are giving special treatment to 
the wealthy interests that fund their campaigns and bankroll their 
political parties.
  The Enron scandal, and all the soft money scandals that have come 
before, illustrate the permanent conflict of interest--the permanent 
conflict of interest--that unlimited soft money contributions to the 
parties have created for elected officials in the Capitol and at the 
White House. Both parties have gladly accepted Enron's soft money 
contributions over the years, and now those contributions are 
compromising our ability to address the Enron collapse, and countless 
other issues that come before the Congress. More than that--more than 
that--they compromise the public's confidence in our ability, and our 
will, to do anything about it.
  While eliminating soft money will not cure the campaign finance 
system of every ill, it will, in fact, end a system of unlimited 
donations that has blatantly put political access and influence up for 
sale. Enron is just one in a long line of corporations, unions, and 
wealthy individuals that has exploited the soft money loophole to buy 
influence with Congress and the executive branch at the very highest 
levels. So banning soft money will help to untangle the web of money 
and influence that has made Congress and the White House so vulnerable 
to the appearance of corruption for far too long.
  In the coming days we will face the final test of this long 
legislative battle and take our final steps toward enacting these hard-
fought reforms into law. Passing campaign finance reform is within our 
grasp, and so, finally, is a renewed integrity for our democratic 
process.
  Of course, while the soft money ban is central to the bill, and is 
the most important feature of the bill, this bill contains reforms on a 
variety of other issues.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, of course, you were one of the 
principal authors of very important provisions relating to so-called 
phony issue ads that make the bill even stronger.
  A number of amendments were added on the Senate floor last year that 
improved and strengthened the bill. Almost all of them are in the bill 
now before us that we hope, by the end of the week, will be sent to the 
President.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the debate is finally here. Our bipartisan coalition 
is strong and resolute. And the moment for reform has arrived.
  After 6\1/2\ years of work on this bill, and more than a decade of 
scandals that have threatened the integrity of our legislative process, 
I do believe this body is ready to get the job done for the American 
people. I believe the American people have waited long enough.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                             Exhibit No. 1

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002--Section by Section Analysis

            TITLE I: REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE

       Sec. 101(a). Soft Money of Political Parties. Creates new 
     Section 323 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to 
     prohibit soft money in federal elections.
       Sec. 323(a). National Committees. Prohibits national party 
     committees and entities controlled by the parties from 
     raising, spending, or transferring money that is not subject 
     to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements 
     of the FECA (i.e., soft money).
       Sec. 323(b). State, District and Local Committees. Subject 
     to the Levin amendment, requires any money spent on ``Federal 
     election activities'' by state or local parties, and entities 
     controlled or acting on behalf of those parties or an 
     association of state or local candidates to be subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the 
     FECA (i.e., hard money.) This will close the state party 
     loophole. ``Federal election activities'' are defined in 
     Section 101(b) of the bill.
       Under the Levin amendment, the section permits state or 
     local parties to spend soft money on voter registration and 
     get out the vote activity that does not mention a federal 
     candidate as long as no single soft money donor gives more 
     than $10,000 per year to any state or local party 
     organization for such purposes, the money is not spent on 
     broadcast advertising other than ads that solely mention 
     state or local candidates, the money is not raised by federal 
     candidates, national parties, or party committees acting 
     jointly. The spending of this money will require an 
     allocation of hard money to soft money. The state or local 
     party organization must raise the hard and soft money for 
     this allocation on its own, and money to be spent under this 
     provision may not be transferred between party organizations.
       Sec. 323(c). Fundraising Costs. Requires national, state, 
     and local parties to use hard money to raise money that will 
     be used on Federal election activities, as defined by the 
     bill.
       Sec. 323(d). Tax-Exempt Organizations. Prohibits national, 
     state, and local parties or entities controlled by such 
     parties from making contributions to or soliciting donations 
     for 501(c) organizations which spend money in connection with 
     federal elections or 527 organizations (other than entities 
     that are political committees under the FECA, state/district/
     local party committees, or state or local candidates' 
     campaign committees). This provision will prevent the parties 
     from collecting soft money and laundering it through other 
     organizations engaged in federal electioneering.

[[Page 3364]]

       Sec. 323(e). Federal Candidates. Prohibits federal 
     candidates or individuals holding federal office and any 
     entities established, financed, controlled, or acting on 
     behalf of such candidates or officeholders from raising or 
     spending soft money in connection with federal elections. The 
     restrictions of this section do not apply to federal 
     officeholders who are running for state office and spending 
     non-Federal money on their own elections, so long as they do 
     not mention other federal candidates who are on the ballot in 
     the same election and are not their opponents for state 
     office. The restrictions also do not prevent a federal 
     candidate or officeholder from attending, speaking at, or 
     appearing as a featured guest at a fundraising event for a 
     state or local political party.
       Candidates are permitted to solicit up to $20,000 from an 
     individual per year specifically for voter registration and 
     get out of the vote activities carried out by 501(c) 
     organizations. The provision also clarifies that candidates 
     may solicit unlimited funds for 501(c) organizations where 
     the solicitation does not specify the use of the money, and 
     the organization's principal purpose is not voter 
     registration or get out the vote activities.
       Sec. 323(f). State Candidates. Prohibits candidates for 
     state or local office from spending soft money on public 
     communications that promote or attack a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office. Exempts communications which 
     refer to a federal candidate who is also a candidate for 
     state or local office.
       Taken together, these soft money provisions are designed to 
     shut down the soft money loophole as comprehensively as 
     possible. By including entities established, maintained, 
     controlled, or acting on behalf of federal and state 
     officeholders and candidates, they also prohibit so-called 
     ``leadership PACs'' or ``candidate PACs'' from raising or 
     spending soft money in connection with Federal elections and 
     are designed to prevent the evasion of the law by federal or 
     state candidates or officeholders using 501(c)(4) or 527 
     organizations.
       Sec. 101(b). Definitions. Provides definitions for certain 
     terms used in the soft money ban.
       Federal election activity means voter registration 
     activities within 120 days before a federal election, get out 
     the vote activity and generic campaign activity in connection 
     with an election in which federal candidates are on the 
     ballot (even if state candidates are also on the ballot), and 
     public communications that refer to a clearly identified 
     federal candidate and support or oppose a candidate for that 
     office (regardless of whether those communications expressly 
     advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.) These are 
     the activities that state parties must pay for with hard 
     money (except as specifically provided under the bill).
       Generic campaign activity means campaign activities like 
     general party advertising that promote a political party but 
     not a candidate.
       Public communication means a communication to the general 
     public by means of broadcast, cable, satellite, newspaper, 
     magazine, outdoor advertising, mass mailing, telephone bank, 
     or any other general public political advertising.
       Mass mailing is a mailing of more than 500 identical or 
     substantially similar pieces within any 30 day period.
       Telephone bank means more than 500 calls of an identical or 
     substantially similar nature within a 30 day period.
       Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for state 
     committees of political parties. Increases the amount that 
     individuals can give to state parties from $5,000 to $10,000. 
     See Section 307 for additional increases in contribution 
     limits.
       Sec. 103. Reporting requirements. Requires national 
     political party committees, including congressional campaign 
     committees to report all receipts and disbursements and state 
     party committees to report all receipts and disbursements and 
     state party committees to report all receipts and 
     disbursements for Federal election activities and receipts 
     and disbursements for activities permitted by the Levin 
     amendment (i.e., spending of capped soft money donations on 
     certain forms of voter registration and get-out-the-vote). 
     Requires itemized reporting of receipts or disbursements of 
     over $200. Eliminates the building fund exception to the 
     FECA's definition of contribution. Accounts to raise money 
     for office buildings were one of the original soft money 
     accounts before the loopholes exploded in the 1996 election 
     with the use of soft money for political advertising.

             TITLE II: NON-CANDIDATE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES


               Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications

       Section 201-203 have come to be known as the ``Snowe-
     Jeffords amendment.''
       Sec. 201. Disclosure of Electioneering Communications. 
     Requires anyone who spends over $10,000 in a calendar year on 
     electioneering communications to file a disclosure statement 
     within 24 hours after reaching that amount of spending and 
     again within 24 hours of each additional $10,000 of spending. 
     Electioneering communications are defined as broadcast, cable 
     or satellite communications that mention the name or show the 
     likeness of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office 
     within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary 
     election, convention, or caucus, and which is targeted to the 
     candidate's state/district. Electioneering communications do 
     not include news broadcasts, communications that constitute 
     independent expenditures because they contain express 
     advocacy, or candidate debates and advertisements for 
     candidate debates. The FEC may promulgate additional 
     exceptions for advertisements that do not attack, oppose, 
     promote or support a clearly identified Federal candidate.
       The disclosure statement must identity the person or entity 
     making the disbursement, the principal place of business of 
     that person if it is not an individual, the amount of each 
     disbursement of over $200 and the identity of the person 
     receiving the disbursement, and the election to which the 
     communication pertains and the candidate or candidates who 
     are identified. If the disbursement is made from a segregated 
     account to which only individuals can contribute, the 
     disclosure statement must also reveal the names and addresses 
     of the contributors of $1,000 or more to that account. If the 
     disbursement is not made from such a segregated account then 
     all donors of $1,000 to the organization making the 
     expenditure must be disclosed. Money in the segregated 
     account can be used for purposes other than electioneering 
     communications, and the spending on other activities need not 
     be disclosed, but all contributors to the account must be 
     informed that their money might be used for electioneering 
     communications.
       Sec. 202. Coordinated Communications As Contributions. 
     Makes clear that electioneering communications that are 
     coordinated with candidates or with political parties are 
     deemed to be contributions to the candidate supported by the 
     communication. Because contributions to candidates are 
     limited in the case of individuals, or prohibited in the case 
     of groups (other than through a PAC), this provision 
     essentially prohibits electioneering communications from 
     being coordinated with candidates or parties.
       Sec. 203. Prohibition of Corporate and Labor Disbursements 
     for Electioneering Communications. Bars the use of corporate 
     and union treasury money for electioneering communications. 
     Corporations and unions are prohibited from spending their 
     treasury money on electioneering communications, and groups 
     and individuals may not use corporate or union treasury money 
     for such ads (corporations and unions could finance such 
     advertisements through their political action committees). 
     The provision includes a number of special operating rules 
     designed to prevent evasion of this prohibition through pass-
     throughs, laundering, or contribution swaps. 501(c)(4) and 
     527 organizations, which are technically corporations, are 
     permitted to make electioneering communications as long as 
     they use individual money contributed by U.S. citizens, U.S. 
     nationals, or permanent legal residents and make the 
     disclosures required by Section 201 (but see Section 204). If 
     they derive income from business activities or accept 
     contributions from corporations or unions, they must pay for 
     electioneering communications from a separate account to 
     which only individuals can contribute.
       Sec. 204. Rules Relating to Certain Targeted Electioneering 
     Communications. Withdraws Section 203's exemption for 
     501(c)(4) or 527 organizations that run electioneering 
     communications targeted to the electorate of the candidate 
     mentioned in the communications. The net effect of this 
     provision is to apply the Snowe-Jeffords prohibition on 
     running sham issue ads paid for with corporate or union 
     treasury funds to non profit advocacy groups (501(c)(4)'s) 
     and political organizations (527's). Should this provision be 
     struck down as unconstitutional, the prohibition on the use 
     of union or for-profit corporation treasury money for 
     electioneering communications would remain intact, as would 
     the disclosure requirements.


          Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures

       Sec. 211. Definition of Independent Expenditure. Clarifies 
     the statutory definition of independent expenditure to mean 
     an expenditure expressly advocating the election or defeat of 
     a clearly defined candidate that is not made in coordination 
     with a candidate.
       Sec. 212. Reporting Requirements for Certain Independent 
     Expenditures. Requires any person, including a political 
     committee, who makes independent expenditures totaling 
     $10,000 or more until the 20th day before the election to 
     file a report with the FEC within 48 hours. An additional 
     report must be filed within 48 hours of any additional 
     independent expenditures of $10,000 or more. In the last 20 
     days before the election, a report must be filed within 24 
     hours of each independent expenditure totaling more than 
     $1,000.
       Sec. 213. Independent Versus Coordinated Expenditures by 
     Party. Requires political parties to choose in each election 
     between making the limited expenditures permitted to be 
     coordinated with a candidate under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441a(d) and 
     making unlimited independent expenditures. Parties would make 
     that choice with their first expenditure with respect to a 
     particular election after their

[[Page 3365]]

     nominee has been chosen. If a party makes an independent 
     expenditure, it may not make a coordinated expenditure with 
     respect to that election. If it makes a coordinated 
     expenditure, it may not make an independent expenditure. For 
     purposes of this section, all national and state party 
     committees are considered to be one entity so a national 
     party cannot make an independent expenditure if a state party 
     has made a coordinated expenditure with respect to a 
     particular candidate.
       Sec. 214. Coordination with Candidates or Political 
     Parties. Provides that an expenditure made by a person, other 
     than a candidate, in coordination with a political party will 
     be treated as a contribution to the party. In addition, the 
     FEC's current regulations on coordinated communications paid 
     for by persons other than candidates are repealed nine months 
     after enactment. The provision instructs the FEC to 
     promulgate new regulations on coordination between candidates 
     or parties and outside groups, addressing a number of 
     different situations where coordination might be found. It 
     provides that the new regulations shall not require formal 
     collaboration or agreement to establish coordination.

                        TITLE III: MISCELLANEOUS

       Sec. 301. Use of Contributed Amounts for Certain Purposes. 
     Codifies FEC regulations relating to the personal use of 
     campaign funds by candidates. Contributions will be 
     considered converted to personal use if they are used for an 
     expense that would exist irrespective of the campaign or 
     duties as an officeholder, including home mortgage or rent, 
     clothing, vacation expenses, tuition payments, noncampaign-
     related automobile expenses, and a variety of other items.
       Sec. 302. Prohibition of Fundraising on Federal Property. 
     Amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 607 to provide controlling legal 
     authority that it is unlawful to solicit or receive a 
     campaign contribution from a person who is located in a 
     federal room or building. It is also unlawful to solicit or 
     receive a campaign contribution while located in federal room 
     or building.
       Sec. 303. Strengthening Foreign Money Ban. Prohibits 
     foreign nationals from making any contribution to a committee 
     of a political party or any contribution in connection with 
     federal, state or local elections, including any 
     electioneering communications. This clarifies that the ban on 
     contributions to foreign nationals applies to soft money 
     donations.
       Section 304. Modification of Individual Contribution Limits 
     in Response to Expenditures From Personal Funds. Allows 
     Senate candidates who face opponents who spend large amounts 
     of their personal wealth to raise larger contributions from 
     individual donors. The provision sets up three different 
     ``triggers'' that vary according to the size of the 
     candidate's state. When a wealthy candidate's personal 
     spending passes the first trigger amount, the individual 
     contribution limits are tripled. At the second trigger, the 
     opposing candidate can raise six times the limits from 
     individual donors. And at the third trigger, party 
     coordinated spending limits are lifted. The amount of 
     additional fundraising or spending at all trigger levels is 
     limited to 110% of the amount of personal wealth spent. The 
     provision also prohibits all candidates from raising 
     contributions to repay loans they make to their own campaigns 
     of over $250,000. Section 316 further limits the amount of 
     additional fundraising that can be done by Senate candidates 
     under this provision: See section 319 for a similar provision 
     applicable to House candidates.
       Sec. 305. Limitation on Availability of Lowest Unit Charge 
     for Federal Candidates Attacking Opposition. Requires 
     candidates seeking to avail themselves of the lowest unit 
     charge for advertising available under Section 315(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 to provide written certification 
     that if they refer to another candidate in the advertisement 
     they will include in the advertisement a photo of themselves 
     and a clearly legible statement that they have approved and 
     paid for the ad. Both items must appear in the ad for no less 
     than four seconds.
       Sec. 306. Software for Filing Reports and Prompt Disclosure 
     of Contributions. Requires the FEC to promulgate standards 
     for software vendors to develop software that will allow 
     political committees to report receipts and disbursements to 
     the FEC immediately, and allow the FEC to immediately post 
     the information on the Internet immediately. Once such 
     software is available, the FEC is required to make it 
     available to all persons required to file reports. Once 
     software provided to a person required to report, it shall be 
     used notwithstanding the current time periods for filing 
     reports.
       Sec. 307. Modification of Contribution Limits. Provides for 
     increases in certain contribution limits. The maximum amount 
     that an individual can give to a federal candidate is 
     increased from $1,000 to $2,000 per election. These limits 
     will be indexed for inflation. The maximum amount that an 
     individual can give to a national committee of a political 
     party each year is increased from $20,000 to $25,000. The 
     maximum aggregate amount that an individual can give to 
     parties, PACs, and candidates combined per year is increased 
     from $25,000 per year (current law) to $95,000 per cycle, 
     including not more than $37,500 per cycle to candidates, and 
     reserving $20,000 per cycle for the national party 
     committees. The amount that a senatorial campaign committee 
     can contribute to a Senate candidate is increased from 
     $17,500 to $35,000. All of the limits increased in this 
     section are indexed for inflation beginning with a base year 
     of 2001, and the increased limits apply to contributions made 
     on or after January 1, 2003.
       Sec. 308. Donations to Presidential Inaugural Committee. 
     Requires a Presidential Inaugural Committee to file a report 
     with FEC within 90 days of the inauguration disclosing all 
     donations of $200 or more. Foreign nationals (as defined in 2 
     U.S.C. Sec. 441e(2) are prohibited from making any donation 
     to an Inaugural Committee. The FEC is required to make public 
     and post on the Internet any Report filed under this section 
     within 48 hours of its receipt.
       Sec. 309. Prohibition no Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds. 
     Prohibits a person from fraudulently misrepresenting that he 
     or she is speaking, writing, or otherwise acting on behalf of 
     a candidate or political party for the purpose of soliciting 
     campaign contributions.
       Sec. 310. Study and Report on Clean Money Election Laws. 
     Requires the GAO to conduct a study of the clean money, clean 
     election systems in Arizona and Maine. The study shall 
     include a number of statistical determinations with respect 
     to the recent elections in those states and describe the 
     effect of public financing on the elections in those states. 
     The GAO shall report its findings to Congress within a year 
     of enactment.
       Sec. 311. Clarity Standards for Identification of Sponsors 
     of Election-Related Advertising. Amends and supplements the 
     FECA's current requirements that the sponsors of political 
     advertising identify themselves in their ads. Additional 
     provisions include: (1) applies the requirements to any 
     disbursement for public political advertising, including 
     electioneering communications; (2) requires the address, 
     telephone number, and Internet address of persons other than 
     candidates who purchase public political advertising to 
     appear in the ad; (3) requires candidate radio ads to include 
     a statement by the candidate that he or she has approved the 
     communication; (4) requires a television ad to include the 
     same audio statement along with a picture of the candidate or 
     a full screen view of the candidate making the statement, and 
     a written version of that statement that appears for at least 
     4 seconds; and (5) requires persons other than candidates to 
     run ads to include a statement that that person ``is 
     responsible for the content of this advertising.''
       Sec. 312. Increase in Penalties. Increases from one year to 
     five years the maximum term of imprisonment for knowing and 
     willful violations of the FECA involving the making, 
     receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or 
     expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar 
     year. Provides that criminal fines of up to $250,000 may also 
     be assessed for prohibited contributions or expenditures of 
     that amount, or of up to $100,000 for violations totaling 
     less than $25,000 in a year.
       Sec. 313. Statute of Limitations. Extends the statute of 
     limitations for violations of the FECA from three to five 
     years.
       Sec. 314. Sentencing Guidelines. Directs the U.S. 
     Sentencing Commission to: (1) within 90 days of the effective 
     date promulgate a guideline, or amend an existing guideline, 
     for penalties under FECA and related election laws; and (2) 
     submit to Congress an explanation of any such guidelines and 
     any legislative or administrative recommendations regarding 
     enforcement. Specifies considerations for such guidelines, 
     including that they reflect the serious nature of violations 
     of the FECA and the need to aggressive and appropriate law 
     enforcement action to prevent violations.
       Sec. 315. Increase in Penalties Imposed for Violation of 
     Conduit Contribution Ban. Increases the maximum civil penalty 
     that can be assessed by the FEC for a violation of the 
     conduit contribution prohibition in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441f from 
     the greater of $10,000 or 200 percent of the contribution 
     involved to $50,000 or 1,000 percent of the amount involved. 
     Increases the maximum term of imprisonment for a criminal 
     violation of the conduit contribution ban involving amounts 
     of between $10,000 and $25,000 from one to two years, and 
     increases the maximum criminal penalty to the greater of 
     $50,000 or 1,000 percent of amount involved. The minimum 
     criminal penalty shall be 300 percent of the amount involved.
       Sec. 316. Restriction on Increased Contribution Limits by 
     Taking into Account Candidate's Available Funds. Modifies the 
     amount of additional fundraising that a candidate who faces a 
     wealthy opponent can do under the increased contribution 
     limits set out in Section 304. If the non-wealthy candidate 
     has raised more money than the wealthy candidate, the amount 
     of fundraising under the increased contribution limits is 
     decreased by one half of the difference between the two 
     candidates fundraising (excluding the amount of personal 
     wealth that the wealthy candidate has contributed) as of June 
     30 and December 31 of the year before the election.
       Sec. 317. Clarification of Right of Nationals of the United 
     States to Make Political Contributions. Clarifies U.S. 
     Nationals are allowed to make political contributions.

[[Page 3366]]

       Sec. 318. Prohibition of Contributions by Minors. Prohibits 
     anyone 17 years of age or younger from making political 
     contributions.
       Sec. 319. Modification of Individual Contribution Limits 
     for House Candidates in Response to Expenditures from 
     Personal Funds. Allows House candidates who face opponents 
     who spend large amounts of their personal wealth to raise 
     larger contributions from individual donors. When a wealthy 
     candidate's personal spending exceeds $350,000, the 
     individual contribution limits are tripled. In addition, 
     party coordinated spending limits are lifted. The total 
     amount of permitted additional fundraising and party 
     expenditures is limited to the ``opposition personal funds 
     amount.'' That amount is determined by taking the opponent's 
     personal wealth spending and subtracting the amount the 
     candidate spends of his or her own personal wealth and one-
     half of the fundraising advantage, if any, that the candidate 
     may have over the opponent. Thus, the amount of additional 
     fundraising and party expenditures can never exceed the 
     amount of personal wealth devoted by the opponent.

                 TITLE IV: SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE

       Sec. 401. Severability. Provides that if any provision of 
     the bill is held unconstitutional, the remainder of the bill 
     will not be affected.
       Sec. 402. Effective Date. Provides that the Act will take 
     effect on November 6, 2002 (the day after the 2002 election), 
     except for the increased contributions limits contained in 
     section 307. After November 6, 2002, the parties may spend 
     any remaining soft money only for debts or obligations 
     incurred in connection with the 2002 election (including any 
     runoff or recount) or any previous election, but only for 
     expenses for which it would otherwise be permissible to spend 
     soft money. No soft money may be spent on office buildings or 
     facilities after the effective date.
       Sec. 403. Judicial Review. Provides that any action for 
     declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge the 
     constitutionality of any provision of the Act or any 
     amendment made by it must be filed in the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia where the 
     complaint will be heard by a three judge court. Appeal of an 
     order or judgment in such an action shall be reviewable only 
     by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
     Such appeal must be taken by notice of appeal filed within 10 
     days of the judgment and a jurisdictional statement must be 
     filed within 30 days of the entry of a final decision. The 
     District Court and the Supreme Court must expedite the case. 
     Allows a Member of Congress to intervene in support of or in 
     opposition to a party to the case. The Court may make orders 
     that similar positions be filed jointly or be represented by 
     a single attorney at oral arguments.

               TITLE V: ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. Internet Access to Records. Requires the FEC to 
     make all designations, reports, statements, and notifications 
     available on the Internet within 48 hours of receipt.
       Sec. 502. Maintenance of Website of Election Reports. 
     Requires the FEC to maintain an Internet site to make all 
     publicly available election reports accessible to the public 
     and to coordinate with other agencies that receive election-
     reports to allow such reports to be posted on the FEC's site 
     in a timely manner.
       Sec. 503. Additional Monthly and Quarterly Disclosure 
     Reports. Requires candidates to file quarterly reports 
     instead of semi-annual reports in non-election years. 
     National parties are required to file monthly reports rather 
     than having a choice between monthly and quarterly reports.
       Sec. 504. Public Access to Broadcasting Records. Requires 
     radio and television broadcasting stations to maintain 
     records of requests to purchase political advertising time, 
     including requests by candidates or by advertisers intending 
     to communicate a message relating to a political matter of 
     national importance. The records must be made available for 
     public inspection and must include the name and contact 
     information of person requesting to purchase the time, the 
     date and time that the advertisement was aired, and the rates 
     charged for the time.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I want to acknowledge my good friend, 
colleague and ranking member on the Rules Committee, Senator Mitch 
McConnell of Kentucky.
  While he and I may be on opposite sides of this issue, we are on the 
same side of another issue--the election reform legislation which is 
now pending before the Senate. I would much prefer to be with him on an 
issue rather than against him.
  I think all my colleagues agree that he is a formidable advocate for 
his position. Even if a resolution is clear on this legislation at the 
end of the day, I suspect this will not be the end of Senator 
McConnell's advocacy with regard to campaign finance reform issues.
  I turn now to the matter at hand. I rise today to express my optimism 
that Congress will enact real campaign finance reform this week.
  We must not use this week to merely re-debate legislation already 
fully debated and adopted by both chambers of Congress.
  Only final passage is the proper tribute to the culmination of years 
of extraordinary bicameral and bipartisan leadership provided by my 
good friends and colleagues.
  In the Senate, the leaders of campaign finance reform are Senator 
John McCain of Arizona and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. In the 
House, the leaders are Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut and 
Congressman Martin Meehan of Massachusetts.
  On February 14, 2002, the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance 
Reform Bill, H.R. 2356, was adopted by a vote of 240-189 in the House. 
On April 2, 2001, the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance 
Reform bill, S. 27, was adopted by a vote of 59-41 in the Senate.
  Interestingly, today is only one day short of being a full year from 
when the Senate started debate on the McCain-Feingold measure--March 
19, 2001.
  Last year, I was honored to serve as floor manager for the Senate 
debate on campaign finance reform legislation. I was equally as honored 
to be counted as one of the 59 votes to adopt the McCain-Feingold bill.
  I stand in the same shoes today. It is a high honor to serve as floor 
manager of the Senate debate on the Shays-Meehan measure. I will be 
equally as honored to be counted among the many Members who will vote 
in a bipartisan manner to adopt this reform bill.
  I congratulate my colleagues in both chambers for the hard-fought 
success that this legislation reflects.
  I especially wish to take this time to extend my sincere 
congratulations to my good friend, Congressman Chris Shays.
  It is with a sense of parochial pride in this House action that the 
major co-sponsor of the legislation, who is a longstanding friend of 
mine and a Member of the Connecticut delegation, has been a principled 
advocate of campaign finance reform for years.
  I want to express the tremendous sense of pride of all the people of 
Connecticut to Chris Shays for his outstanding efforts to achieve real 
campaign finance reform on behalf of all Americans.
  Our Senate debate will only confirm that the House merely adopted 
virtually the same bill as the Senate approved after a robust debate on 
April 2, 2001.
  In general, both bills would change the way political parties raise 
and spend money, regulate issue advertising, increase contribution 
limits, improve disclosure requirements, and make other changes to 
campaign finance law.
  Specifically, both bills would ban unrestricted ``soft money'' 
contributions to political parties by corporations, unions, and 
individuals;
  Both bills would restrict end-of-campaign advertising funded by 
organizations that name a Federal candidate;
  Both bills would increase the aggregate limits on contributions by 
individuals to candidates, PACs, and parties; and
  Both bills would improve disclosure of campaign finance activity.
  Thee are a few minor differences between the House and Senate passed 
bills. For example, there is a difference in the contribution limits 
for an individual.
  Under the House bill, an individual may contribute a total of $95,000 
in 2 years to candidates, PACs, and parties. under the Senate bill, an 
individual may contribute a total of $37,500 in 1 year to candidates, 
PACs, and parties. Under both bills, an individual is nevertheless 
limited to an annual maximum contribution of $37,500 to candidates.
  Another difference between the two bills is that the House bill 
eliminates Senator Torricelli's amendment requiring the lowest unit 
rate for the purchase of broadcast advertisements.
  Finally, the House bill extends to House candidates the 
``millionaires amendment.''

[[Page 3367]]

  These are all very minor differences that serve to make the two bills 
substantially the same. As a result, the Senate would not benefit from 
an extended debate on re-hashing the same issues in this version of the 
Shays-Meehan legislation. Last year's open and full Senate debate on 
these same issues in McCain-Feingold remains sufficient for our 
purposes today, which is to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform.
  It is my fervent hope that we pass this legislation with a minimum 
amount of debate. This is not a ``mission impossible,'' given the fact 
that the House bill is virtually a mirror image of the Senate-passed 
bill.
  The Senate already participated in weeks of full, open and 
unrestricted debate on campaign finance reform. And the Senate already 
voted on both the substance of the bill and all relevant amendments to 
the bill.
  Now the question becomes whether yet another extended Senate debate 
will serve to ensure certain improvements in the bill or, to the 
contrary, only serve to ensure further delay of the bill?
  On balance, I believe the risk of delay far outweighs the potential 
for legislative improvements. There is no perfect legislation. 
Attempting to craft perfect legislation only serves to jeopardize the 
Senate's ability to send this measure to the President for signature.
  Instead of becoming law, the Shays-Meehan bill would be on yet 
another journey. It would be a candidate for a Senate-House conference 
or additional House debate. Either of these scenarios would kill any 
real chance to enact campaign finance reform in the 107th Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to consider this road well traveled for decades. 
It is time to resist exploring new and substantive forks in the road.
  As do many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I feel 
strongly about the need for comprehensive campaign reform. Time and 
again we have seen thoughtful, appropriate--and, I must emphasize, 
bipartisan--efforts to stop the spiraling money chase that afflicts our 
political system, only to see a minority of the Senate block further 
consideration of the issue.
  It is almost as if the opponents of reform are heeding the humorous 
advice of Mark Twain, who once said, ``Do not put off until tomorrow 
what can be put off till day-after-tomorrow just as well.''
  It is now long past the day-after-tomorrow. We simply cannot afford 
to wait any longer to do something about the tidal wave of special-
interest money that is drowning our system of government.
  Oscar Wilde once observed that ``A cynic is a person who knows the 
price of everything and the value of nothing.'' I fear that the 
exploding dominance of money in politics has created a similar 
atmosphere of cynicism in our political system--an environment where 
the value of ideas, of debate, of people in general, is overwhelmed by 
the price tag of free speech and political success.
  The worst aspect of the current financing system is its affect on 
eroding public confidence in the integrity of our political process.
  The real concern is that the escalating amounts of money pouring into 
our elections is having a corrupting influence on our political system. 
The public perception of the problems of corruption and the appearance 
of corruption is that large political contributions to candidates and 
political parties provide those donors with preferred access and 
influence over American public policy--and the average American has 
neither the access nor influence in Washington.
  The more money that is required to run for office, the more influence 
that the donors--wealthy individuals, corporations, labor unions, and 
special interest groups--have over elected officials and public policy.
  The real harm to avoid is having the concerns of the average voters 
completely usurped by the money and influence of these powerful 
individuals, corporations, and interest groups.
  It is this concern--the relationship of money to power--that is 
casting a vote of ``no confidence'' in the integrity of our electoral 
process. It is this devastating harm of corruption and the appearance 
of corruption that campaign finance reform seeks to avoid. To date, 
Congress has an unacceptable record since we have only sought to avoid 
the remedy for the harm.
  Unfortunately, not only does historical data tend to support this 
pessimistic view--the current data sustains this view.
  Take a cursory look at raising and spending soft money in the 
November 2000 Presidential and congressional elections. It sends one 
message--our financing system is in urgent need of repair.
  According to the center for responsive politics, the total amount 
spent on the 2000 Presidential and congressional campaigns was 
approximately $3 billion. This price tag is up from $2.2 billion in 
1996 and $1.8 billion in 1992.
  According to the Federal Election Commission, the Democratic and 
Republican parties raised $1.2 billion in 2000--a 36 percent increase 
over the $881 million raised by the parties in 1996.
  In that same period, democrats raised over $245 million in soft 
money, while Republicans raised over $249 million in soft million. the 
parties use soft money funds for so-called issue ads and other so-
called party building activities.
  In that same period, Democrats raised over $275 million ion ``hard 
money,'' while Republicans almost doubled that amount in fundraising 
with over $465 million in hard money. The parties use hard money funds 
for direct contributions to candidates and other activities to advocate 
the election or defeat of candidates for Federal office.
  The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law 
conducted a study on television advertising in the 2000 Federal 
elections. The Brennan Center found that the Presidential election was 
the first election in history where the major national political 
parties spent more on television ads than the candidates themselves 
spent--the Democratic and Republican national committees together spent 
over $80 million on TV ads, a lot more than the $67 million spent by 
Vice-President Gore and Governor Bush.
  The Brennan Center found that the vast amount of money spent by the 
parties on TV ads was ``soft money,'' the unregulated and unlimited 
party donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy 
individuals.
  The Brennan Center found that spending by groups in congressional 
campaigns on so-called issue ads increased from $10 million in 1998 to 
$32 million in 2000.
  Finally, the Brennan Center also found that only a small percentage 
of party soft money is spent for get-out-the-vote and voter 
mobilization activities. Only 8.5 cents of every dollar goes to GOTV 
and voter registration activities while 40 cents of every dollar goes 
to purchase ads to support or defeat candidates for Federal office.
  In contrast to all this financial participation in elections, 
according to the Federal Election Commission report on the 2000 Federal 
elections, just under 105.4 million Americans voted in the Presidential 
election. That is 51 percent of the Census Bureau's estimated voting 
age population of over 205.8 million Americans.
  The voter turnout figure of 51 percent in 2000 was somewhat higher 
than the 49 percent turnout for the 1996 Federal elections--the first 
time in modern political history when less than half of the eligible 
electorate turned out to vote for President.
  This means that the voter turnout has declined sharply--from over 63 
percent of the voting age population in 1952 to slightly over 51 
percent of the voting age population in 2000.
  Arguably, while there are no accurate national statistics, it is 
sufficient to project that there is only a small percentage of 
individual donors with average income who actually contribute to 
political campaigns.
  These statistics tell the story of a system in which a small 
percentage of individual donors are making ever larger contributions, 
while at the same time more and more voters have lost such confidence 
in our elections that

[[Page 3368]]

they do not even feel it is worthwhile to vote.
  Do any of us really believe this is acceptable? Do any of us believe 
that this is not a system in need of comprehensive reform?
  If we are to break the grip that money currently holds on our 
campaigns, we must enact legislation that will stop the flow of 
unregulated money in the political system and limit the flow of 
regulated money into Federal campaigns.
  We must restore common sense by eliminating the opportunities for 
legalisms and loopholes that mock the spirit of our campaign finance 
laws. We must give those who enforce the law the resources they need to 
ensure that the campaign financing system is lawful and fair.
  I look forward to participating in the process of winding-down the 
campaign finance debate. I also look forward to working with my 
colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--and to adopting this moderate 
legislation that restores the proper balance of money to politics and 
restores the American people's confidence in our current financing 
system.
  I urge each of my colleagues to put aside any and all partisanship 
and personal ambitions to join me in de-emphasizing the importance of 
money in politics.
  This is not a complicated task. We desperately need to ensure that 
the average American is heard in Washington over the din of special 
interest voices. We must ensure that the exercising of Americans' free 
speech in the political process is not governed by the price tagon 
contribution amounts that can be raised and spent on Federal elections. 
As Supreme Court Justice Stevens wrote in the Nixon v. Shrink Missouri 
Government PAC case, ``Money is property, money is not speech.''
  This is why Congress has an obligation to enact comprehensive, 
meaningful, and real campaign finance law and pass the law now.
  The action we take today will signal to all Americans that exercising 
their first amendment right to free speech and association outside the 
beltway has now been heard inside the beltway.
  Americans have waited long enough. Congress has the first opportunity 
in a generation to clean up a political system that most Americans 
believe is polluted by campaign contributions, or the appearance of 
such pollution. There is no room for wavering or using a philosophical, 
legal or factual excuse for killing this legislation. This is a real 
chance to curb the role of money in politics.
  It has been decades since Congress took similar comprehensive action 
with the enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The 
one thing we cannot afford to do is wait any longer--now is the time to 
enact the Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold legislation. The American people 
have waited long enough!
  I fully support this legislation as the best effort that Congress can 
make to enact real campaign finance reform. I stand ready to do what I 
can to make reform a reality in the 107th Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________