[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10712-10713]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             FAIRNESS AND RESPONSIBILITY IN POLITICAL LIFE

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an issue of 
fairness and responsibility in our political life that demands our 
attention.
  Let me premise my remarks by saying it is an honor to be a Senator 
and serve the people of New Jersey. I love my job. I love politics and 
the debate of ideas it makes possible. But I must say that I am 
downright disgusted when that debate of ideas degenerates into the 
politics of personal destruction and moves toward character 
assassination, especially when it may run afoul of the laws passed by 
this body, and more especially when the target of a campaign of 
personal destruction is a good and decent man--Tom Daschle, who has 
spent his entire adult life in service to our Nation.
  A little over 1 year ago, the Congress passed--and the President 
signed--the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
  Even as the courts ponder a challenge and an appeal to this landmark 
legislation, there are those involved in the political process that 
have demonstrated their intent to disregard it no matter what the court 
decides for the sole purpose of destroying a political opponent.
  In that regard, there are very disturbing reports in the media this 
week about an amorphous front group being formed in South Dakota for 
the purpose, in the words of its organizers, of ending Tom Daschle's 
public career in 2004.
  I don't question anyone's right to free speech nor their right to 
mount a campaign against any candidate for Federal Office, but this 
effort would apparently violate both Federal tax and election laws.
  According to press reports, associates of the presumptive Republican 
nominee for Senate in South Dakota have begun raising special interest 
money in Washington for an advertising campaign in South Dakota against 
Senator Daschle, a campaign only marginally distanced from Senator 
Daschle's potential competitor or the opposing political party.
  The problem with this effort, leaving aside the elements of personal 
destruction, is that the organization leading it--the Rushmore Policy 
Council--is organized as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) non-profit 
organization.
  According to the IRS, 501c4 organizations ``must be operated 
exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.'' The IRS also 
stipulates that, ``the promotion of social welfare does not include 
direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns 
on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.''
  One might say a lot of things about Tom Daschle, but his election or 
defeat is hardly social welfare. It is clear from their own statements 
that the purpose of the Rushmore Policy Council is to defeat Senator 
Daschle. In short, this is likely a violation of the letter of the law 
and clearly a violation of its spirit.
  The Congress attempted to address these types of advertisements in 
the campaign finance reform law passed last year. But one of the 
organizers of the effort against Senator Daschle stated simply that, 
``We're going to operate as if it's not'' on the books.
  In addition to the personal attacks and legal questions are the 
implications of a smear campaign that constructs front groups to 
infiltrate a Senator's home State with reckless disregard for the 
spirit of the campaign finance laws that this body passed just last 
year with bipartisan support.
  At the very least, this is a mockery of Congress's efforts to clean 
up electoral politics.
  Let me quote from the memo distributed around Washington by the 
organizers of the Rushmore Council's so-called Daschle Accountability 
Project: ``We propose to destroy Daschle's credibility'' and 
``ultimately end his political career. . . .''
  Unbelievably, the group funding this covert operation intends to 
employ South Dakotans who have almost nothing to do with the campaign, 
but who help to convey the false impression that the campaign is, and I 
quote, ``putatively based in South Dakota--to avoid the dismissive 
`outsider' label routinely attached to such efforts in the past.''
  In other words, the group exists to put a phony local veneer on the 
GOP's efforts to ruin its number one target--Tom Daschle. Or as this 
particular group puts it, ``. . . maybe be rid of [Tom Daschle] once 
and for all.''
  This is the work of the Rushmore Policy Council, an organization so 
small it has no website or local telephone listing. Its offshoot ``The 
Daschle Accountability Project'' is a proudly self-described coalition 
of right wing organizations whose stated purpose, according to its own 
mission statement, is not to engage in policy debate, but rather to end 
Daschle's career by running an $800,000 advertising campaign in South 
Dakota designed to ``destroy Daschle's credibility within his home 
state through humor''--as if a laugh track makes them any less 
unseemly.
  The Rapid City Journal recently cited leaders of campaign finance 
watchdog groups who have already pointed out that the Rushmore Policy 
Council is endangering its tax-exempt status by targeting Daschle for 
defeat in 2004. ``It's not clear to me how they will remain a 501c4--an 
organization that must operate exclusively for the promotion of social 
welfare--as they are going to do what is being reported.''
  And, Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance reform group 
Democracy 21 agrees with this assessment. He tells the Journal ``The 
group's activities need to be carefully watched in the coming months to 
see if, in fact, they are breaking tax laws and campaign-finance laws. 
It is clear they want to defeat Senator Daschle . . . there doesn't 
seem to be any question they want to use this for this goal

[[Page 10713]]

and that purpose . . . and that--is not what this group--is supposed to 
engage in.''
  Most disturbingly is that this type of attack is hardly new. About a 
year and a half ago, the White House asked its political allies to turn 
up the heat on Senator Daschle. Most of us know the routine--the 
orchestrated campaign to tar Tom with the label ``obstructionist.'' 
Even while under his leadership the Senate approved 100 judicial 
appointments and rejected only two--some obstructionist.
  Where I come from, 100 is hardly obstructionist.
  After the White House's directive, the outrageous attacks began. 
Since then, political opponents have compared Senator Daschle to 
everyone from Saddam Hussein to the devil himself on talk radio.
  The problem this ``Burn Down Daschle'' effort faces is two fold: No. 
1, lack of credibility; and, No. 2, lack of legal authority.
  On the former, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader accurately points out 
that the Daschle Accountability project and its efforts to destroy 
Daschle's character through an ad campaign with a ridiculing tone 
embedded in humor have the potential to backfire in a small State where 
retail politics holds great sway.
  Senator Daschle, I realize, doesn't need me to defend himself to the 
people of South Dakota. They are smart enough to see through this 
despicable outsider campaign. They know he stands with South Dakota and 
her farmers. They know he stands with South Dakota and its small 
businesses. They know he stands with South Dakota on health care, 
education and responsible economic policy. He has given a lifetime of 
service to his community.
  I only wish the Daschle-bashers would remember that the President 
promised to change the tone in Washington. Unfortunately, he has. It 
has gone from bad to worse.
  It is worth noting that a number of the people involved in this 
campaign have their own problems with previous campaigns and finance 
reform, and by some of the people with whom they have associated. I 
think this latest effort is no less distasteful.
  I thank the Chair for taking into consideration what I hope will be 
an attempt to turn to the real political debate on real issues and 
leave the character and some of the efforts we have seen to undermine 
the true nature of how people try to compete in the political arena.
  I thank the Chair.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business. The Senator 
from Michigan may proceed.

                          ____________________