[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 41 (Monday, October 13, 1997)]
[Pages 1506-1508]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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 a 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

[[Page 1507]]

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 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 out-spent badly in 1996, 
but we weren't out-spent 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 tuned 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.
    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 out-spend 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 out-spent 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

[[Page 1508]]

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 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.