[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Page 14195]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to start today by reading a few 
quotes on the issue of campaign finance reform. Here is the first one 
from 1987:

       What we ought to do is eliminate the political action 
     committee contributions because those are the ones that raise 
     the specter of undue influence. And those can be gone 
     tomorrow. We can pass a bill tomorrow to take care of that 
     problem.

  Another quote from the next year:

       We Republicans have put together a responsible and 
     constitutional campaign reform agenda. It would restrict the 
     power of special interest PACs, stop the flow of all soft 
     money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office.

  Two years later, 1990:

       We would eliminate PACs altogether. It would be interesting 
     to see whether our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
     will be willing to eliminate PACs altogether. And we would 
     have the money come from individuals in small and fully 
     disclosed amounts.

  A few years later, 1997:

       Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending 
     should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what 
     is appropriate. These are reforms which respect the 
     Constitution and would enhance our democracy.

  Three years later, in 2000, another quote:

       We need to have real disclosure. And so what we ought to do 
     is broaden the disclosure to include at least labor unions 
     and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so 
     that you include the major political players in America. Why 
     would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?

  A quote from 2003:

       Money is essential in politics and not something we should 
     feel squeamish about, provided the donations are limited and 
     disclosed, everyone knows who is supporting everyone else.

  So, Mr. President, who did these statements come from? Tom Udall, the 
sponsor of the vote that we had last night? Michael Bennet from 
Colorado? He and Tom Udall sponsored the constitutional amendment. Did 
it come from them or some other Democrat?
  No, that is not the case.
  Let me quote a few more things:

       Keep wealthy individuals from buying public office and stop 
     the flow of soft money and public campaign contributions and 
     spending should be expedited so voters can judge for 
     themselves what's appropriate.

  Those are quotes. Did these quotes come from Bernie Sanders, who is 
known as being a liberal? He has been an outspoken advocate for 
campaign finance reform.
  The author of these quotes is none other than my friend the 
distinguished Republican leader, the senior Senator from Kentucky. 
These are all his quotes word for word. The senior Senator from 
Kentucky has a track record of campaign finance reform spanning two 
decades or more. I was with him there 25 years ago, fighting the undue 
influence of unlimited campaign donations. I cosponsored his 1989 
constitutional amendment that would have given Congress power to enact 
laws regulating the amount of independent expenditures. I was there 
with him. But I guess times have changed. I am aware that the 
Republican leader has stated that his views on the matter of campaign 
finance have changed over the years. What a gross understatement. But 
as Victor Hugo wrote:

       Change your opinions, but keep your principles. Change your 
     leaves, but keep your roots.

  At one time the Republican leader was rooted in the principle that 
the wealthy shouldn't be able to buy public office whether for 
themselves or for others. Even as recently as late in 2007 he was 
preaching donor disclosure. What has changed in the last few years?
  Over the last several years we have witnessed the Koch brothers 
trying to buy America, to pump untold millions into our democracy, 
hoping to get a government that would serve their bottom line and make 
them more money. The news today says they are out promoting themselves, 
and that is easy to do because they are worth $150 billion.
  So we are watching the corrupting influence that the Republican 
leader foretold 27 years ago and many years thereafter before our very 
eyes. He switched teams. What could have possibly convinced the senior 
Senator from Kentucky that limitless, untraceable campaign donations 
aren't really that bad after all?
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________