    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [October 7, 1997]
    [Pages 1304-1306]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1304]]

    Remarks on Campaign Finance Reform Legislation and an Exchange With
    Reporters
    October 7, 1997

        The President. Thank you very much, Ann, for your work. And I want
    to thank all the other groups here represented for your labors. I thank
    Congressman Shays and Congressman Meehan for their work in the House.
    And I hope we'll have something important for them to do here in just a
    few days.
        I also want to say a lot of the issues that need to be raised have
    obviously been clearly articulated in the Vice President's statement and
    by Ann, and all of us know them. But I think it's important to try to
    put this into some context. This problem has been building up for years.
    For years the cost of political campaigns have been escalating, as the
    cost of communicating with people through mass media has gone up and
    other costs have increased. And that has led to a fundraising arms race
    that has overwhelmed and consumed both parties and candidates all over
    our country.
        For years there have been efforts to do something about this,
    bipartisan efforts. And every year of my first term, bipartisan efforts
    for reform were met by obstruction, opposition, and delay, and
    specifically died of filibuster in the United States Senate. For years
    there were interests and there are interests who actually benefit from
    the present system; we have to acknowledge that. And they like it the
    way it is, and they would like to keep it. They have been able, until
    today, to smother campaign finance reform in the shadows, away from the
    clear light of public evaluation.
        That is what has changed this year. This year there is a highly
    public and increasingly clearly understood moment of truth in
    Washington. Today, the Members of our Senate have it within their power
    to strike a blow against politics as usual and a blow for a better
    future for America. They can pass the first significant campaign finance
    reform in a generation and give voters the loudest vote in the country,
    clearly and unambiguously.
        The lines are sharply drawn, I will say that; this is much clearer
    than it has been in years past. Those who are fighting to preserve the
    status quo have made their position crystal clear. They have said they
    will use every procedural device they can muster in both Houses to keep
    this from happening. They seek to use ``poison pill'' amendments,
    proposals that would worsen the current system in the name of reform.
    And if all else fails, the filibuster is always there to block the
    majority will.
        But this is also clear: The tide of reform is coming in. The one
    million signatures Ann mentioned is one example of that. It's not just
    the President who supports McCain-Feingold legislation. It's not just
    groups that labor here in the vineyards year-in and year-out. The public
    supports it. And I believe when the voting comes, a majority of the
    Senate will support it if they are simply allowed to vote on it. All we
    need now is a fair vote--yes or no, up or down, reform or the status
    quo. The American people are entitled to that. They are entitled to see
    that this legislation does not die by procedural maneuvering or ``poison
    pill'' amendments.
        The choice is plain. A vote for the filibuster is a vote to keep the
    soft money system. A vote for the filibuster is a vote for less
    disclosure, for weaker enforcement, for back door campaign spending by
    so-called independent groups. A vote for the filibuster is a vote to
    kill bipartisan campaign finance reform. And I hope and believe that
    will be a vote that will be difficult to explain to the American people.
        I know some Senators favor provisions that aren't in this bill. This
    legislation is a principled compromise. Those of us who support spending
    limits and free television time had to agree to drop those to get a
    bill. And I think they're very important, and it killed me to have to
    drop those. I hated it. But this bill is better than having no reform.
    So everybody has had to give up something to get this bill in a position
    where people of both parties in good conscience could vote on it and
    where we had a chance to pass it. So for those who complain about that,
    they're not alone. Those of us who favor even stronger and more sweeping
    legislation had to give up something, as well.
        There are many other worthy ideas being advanced, and that's all to
    the good. But the irreducible fact is, only McCain-Feingold, and its
    counterpart legislation in the House sponsored

    [[Page 1305]]

    by Congressmen Shays and Meehan, is a vehicle which can move us forward.
    That is the bottom line, and the one that I hope we can convince the
    United States Senate to embrace. We need to put aside partisanship,
    reject pressure, and join in an effort to find common ground here. And
    the Senate has got to take the lead.
        I will say again: This is our best chance in a generation. The
    debate is now clear, unambiguous, out in the open. I will fight as hard
    as I can for as long as it takes to keep it right there. And if all of
    you help, then I think we can fulfill our obligation to renew and
    strengthen our democracy for a new century.
        Thank you very much.

    1996 Campaign Financing

        Q. Mr. President, given the fact that your former senior aide, Mr.
    Ickes, is on the Hill today and may lay out the tactics of your last
    campaign that he admits were some potential errors in judgment, and
    given the revelations of the past few days about the belated disclosure
    of the coffee tapes, do you think it's hard for people to follow you as
    a standard bearer for campaign finance reform?
        The President. No. It may be hard for you, but I don't think it's
    hard for people. I'm not ashamed of the fact that I did the best I could
    within the present system. I knew we would be outspent badly in 1996,
    but we weren't outspent as badly as we would have been if I had laid
    around and done nothing.
        I'd like to ask you to go back and review what the reports were that
    you gave the American people in '95 and '96 about what the Republican
    majority in Congress was telling people when they raised money from
    them, things that I was never accused of saying. I never told anyone
    they had to contribute to me in order to do business with the White
    House. I never asked anybody not to do anything with the other side.
        And we didn't raise nearly as much as they did, from any category,
    but we were able to continue to fight against what I thought was bad for
    the country and to fight for what was good for the country. That's why,
    in this balanced budget amendment, we've got provisions that will insure
    5 million children who don't have health insurance, and open the doors
    of college to all. That wouldn't have happened if the election had
    turned out the other way. And I'm not sorry that I did what was
    available under the existing system.
        But I have always been for changing the system. I'm just not for
    unilateral disarmament. And I expect that Mr. Ickes will go forward and
    answer the questions and do a good job today. That's what I expect him
    to do.

    Campaign Finance Reform

        Q. Mr. President, you say that you're not in favor of unilateral
    disarmament, but wouldn't this be a time to stake out a leadership
    position, sir, and swear off soft money and challenge the Republicans to
    do the same?
        The President.  No. No, because if I did that, they would do what
    they're doing now. They would laugh. They would be happy. They would go
    into the next election, they would outspend our people even more. In the
    last 10 days of the last election cycle, in the 20 closest races, almost
    all of which were lost by Democrats, they were outspent 4-, 5-, 6-to-1--
    in the last 10 days, even under the present system. And you know, I
    thought about that a lot. It would be easy for me to do, too, because I
    don't have to run again. And then I could get some of you to say nice
    things about what I did. It's not up to me. I don't have to run again. I
    could easily do that.
        But I'd like to remind you that there are other issues at stake
    here. There are other issues at stake here. In 1995, I fought a battle
    to keep the guarantee of medical care and nutrition--basic nutrition--to
    children who are poor from being taken away from them. And I could not
    have won in that battle if I didn't have enough allies in the Congress
    to sustain my veto. In 1993, because of the composition of the Congress,
    we passed a budget bill that reduced the deficit by 85 percent before
    the balanced budget bill had passed. I could not have done that if there
    hadn't been those people in the Congress to do that.
        So, I am committed to this campaign finance reform. But there are
    other issues, and we have to have allies. People give money in these
    elections based on what they honestly believe should be done. I don't
    question the sincerity of those who financed Mr. Gingrich and the
    Republican revolution. But I disagreed with it. And we had an argument.
    And we have to have enough capacity to stake out our position, and if we
    don't have--we have to fight for the things we believe

    [[Page 1306]]

    are important, just as they fight for the things they believe are
    important.
        It's a simple thing. The cost of communications have overwhelmed the
    capacity of the system as it was intended to operate. The FEC created
    this soft money loophole. It has become the way of getting access to
    virtually unlimited communications. We have to close the loophole. And
    we have to close it for all on a fair basis. For me, I could give it up
    easily, but I don't think it would be right for me to put the people
    that agree with me about what's best for America at an even greater
    disadvantage than they're going to be. And it doesn't affect me
    personally, but that's been my position.
        Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
        The President. Thank you.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:06 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the
    White House. In his remarks, he referred to Ann McBride, president,
    Common Cause; and Harold Ickes, former Deputy Chief of Staff to the
    President.